Negotiations are never about what happens at the start—they’re about the end result.

The U.S. throws out 15 ceasefire proposals, while Iran counters with 10. It’s like you open a restaurant: the client (Party A) wants a banquet with 15 dishes, but you can only quote for 10—if the menus don’t even match up, what are you supposed to negotiate cooperation about? It’s no surprise that the first round of talks shows a “clear divergence in demands.” And anyone who immediately gives in and compromises would actually come off as lacking sincerity.

The problem is: can the market afford to wait? Oil prices are already hovering at high levels, tankers at the Strait of Hormuz are lined up, and investors’ nerves are as taut as a spring—pull them too tight and they’ll snap; let them slack and they worry they’ll miss the signal. In the next few rounds of back-and-forth, every piece of news about a “talks breaking down” will send the market swinging three times, and every rumor of “progress” will trigger a near-instant liquidation among the shorts.

What’s most striking is that both sides say, “We’re willing to talk,” but their bodies are preparing to fight. Diplomatic talking points are for the media—military deployments are the real intent. Investors’ “fragile nerves” are just a sideshow in this game. The ones who truly decide between war and peace never look at the order book.#Gate广场四月发帖挑战 $TRU