Trump Talks Intensively: Strait of Hormuz to Fully Reopen Friday, Oil Prices Will "Fall Further"
Alina Collins
Trump issued a rapid string of de-escalation signals on June 16 — the Strait of Hormuz reopens by Friday, U.S.–Iran ties are 'normalised' — and Brent crude promptly broke below $80 for the first time since March 3, down nearly 4% intraday as geopolitical risk premium drained from prices.
Why did oil prices suddenly plunge?
During Trump's remarks, Brent crude fell below $80 for the first time since March 3, settling at $79.99/bbl — down nearly 4% on the day.
WTI crude dropped 3.5% intraday to $76.64/bbl.
This means → the market is front-running the "strait reopened + U.S.–Iran détente" narrative, squeezing out the geopolitical risk premium — the slice of the oil price inflated by conflict expectations — in a single move.
What does 'reopening' the Strait of Hormuz actually look like?
Trump said vessels have already begun transiting the strait, which will be fully open by June 19 with free passage once permanently reopened.
Iran's signals echo the claim but hedge: 3 Iranian tankers are sailing in the northern Indian Ocean and 2 supply ships are heading to southern Iranian ports.
Yet the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy said all ships planning to transit must still coordinate in advance. In plain terms = the strait is nominally "opening," but Iran's military still holds the key to passage — a full return to normal remains to be seen.
What did the U.S.–Iran deal actually cover? Is the nuclear issue resolved?
Trump reaffirmed that a deal has been signed, with plans to release the text and submit it to Congress; a second-phase negotiation is expected on schedule.
He declared Iran "will not have nuclear weapons" and that Iranian nuclear material will be destroyed "when the time is right" — but "there is no rush to acquire the nuclear material."
This means → the deal framework has surfaced, but the concrete path on the nuclear question — when, how, and who monitors destruction — remains blank. The market is pricing in "de-escalation expectations," not "problem solved."
Could Israel's strikes on Lebanon blow up the U.S.–Iran deal?
Trump was explicit: even if Israel attacks Lebanon, it will not break the U.S.–Iran deal; he characterised the Israel–Lebanon conflict as a "minor conflict."
At the same time, he told Israel he was unhappy with its strikes on Beirut, saying Netanyahu "must be more responsible."
In plain terms = Trump is drawing a firewall between the two issues — the U.S.–Iran deal is the main game; the Israel–Lebanon conflict is a sideshow, and he will not let the sideshow derail the main track.
The Russia–Ukraine pivot: where do the three sides actually diverge?
Trump said he spoke separately with Putin and Zelensky the previous day; both were willing to "take action" and the conversations were "very good."
Russia's tone was markedly cooler: Kremlin spokesman Peskov said Moscow had received no formal meeting invitation and there is no official communication channel between Russia and Ukraine; presidential aide Ushakov accused Ukraine of striking Russian civilian infrastructure.
Zelensky said he had discussed the possibility of organising a meeting with Putin in the U.S., adding: "As for what will ultimately happen — we shall see."
This reflects a clear temperature gap among the three parties: the U.S. emphasises progress, Russia keeps its distance, Ukraine watches cautiously. Uncertainty around a ceasefire track is far higher here than on the U.S.–Iran line.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.