The developments in the financial markets during the past week were also influenced by the situation in the Middle East. The clash between the United States and Iran risks turning into an open military escalation. The declaration of a temporary two-week ceasefire by President Trump and the presentation of the Iranian 10-point plan marked a development that goes beyond ordinary diplomacy. This plan is not simply a proposal to stop the fighting, but an attempt to renegotiate the basic parameters of the regional order and perhaps the international order itself. They were followed by the meeting of the two sides in Islamabad, which ended without an agreement. This keeps the situation tense and the markets shaken. But what does the Iranian 10-point plan, which was discussed over the weekend and was not agreed upon, include? According to the published information, the plan includes these main elements:

In essence, these points are not independent of each other. They constitute a coherent package aimed at transforming Iran from a sanctioned and limited actor into a recognized power integrated into the regional architecture.

MARKETS, “VICTIMS” OF POLITICAL NAIVETY?!

In the noisy halls of the London and New York stock exchanges, where numbers on the screens move at the speed of light, there is a force that often weighs more than the physical production of barrels of oil: words. We are not talking about “just words”, but about the statements that come out of the highest offices of world diplomacy. The history of financial markets is full of moments where a single sentence has wiped out billions of dollars in value within minutes, or has inflated bubbles of optimism that have burst as quickly as they were created. The question that arises today, in an unstable geopolitical world, is: are markets increasingly becoming “victims” of political naivety?

Let’s take a closer look at the factors behind this phenomenon. When hope overcomes logic, we are in the first phase of this phenomenon’s operation. Imagine a scene where the price of crude oil has reached its peak, threatening the economic stability of entire continents. The tension is palpable. Suddenly, a headline explodes across the news channels: “Parties agree to start negotiations.” In that second, the psychology of the market changes radically. Trading algorithms and human investors react instinctively. Within a few hours, the price of oil suffers a drastic drop, sinking below frightening levels, as if peace had already been signed and supply had been secured forever. This chain reaction resembles a deep breath of relief, but it is often a premature breath. The market, in its rush to anticipate the future, often confuses the desire for a solution with the real solution. At this stage, the euphoria of negotiations drives the price down at a dizzying speed, creating the impression that politics has broken the growth cycle. But was this a rational assessment based on figures, or an emotional reaction to a political promise?

Very soon, what many called a painful return to reality occurs. Negotiations prove difficult, the process is blocked, and the rhetoric of peace is replaced once again by the noise of war machines or production restrictions. Here the great narrative turn occurs. That price, which fell so sharply, begins to creep upwards until it again touches the psychological barrier of over 100 dollars per barrel. This return is not simply a price correction, but evidence of the “repentance” of the markets and the haste of the agents who set them into motion.

This cycle of euphoric decline and painful rise shows us that markets, despite technology, remain profoundly human in their errors of judgment.

BETWEEN PROPHET AND PROPHECY, THE NEGOTIATIONS

If the negotiating table is the center of the cyclone, outside it blow the winds of global interests that know no diplomacy, but only the need for oil and power. This is the real theater, where Europe, China and Russia play a multidimensional game of chess, while the giants of the energy industry stand guard over the old principles of the sea. For Europe, these negotiations are not simply a matter of politics; they are a matter of industrial survival. The old continent, in the midst of a difficult energy transition and cut off from Russian dependence, sees the Strait of Hormuz as a vital artery. The eyes of Brussels and Berlin are fixed on every movement of the negotiators' lips. Any failure to guarantee the free flow of oil translates into high bills for citizens and a decline in the competitiveness of their factories. Europe wants oil, but above all it wants predictability.

On the other side of the globe, China plays a more complex game. Beijing doesn't just want oil to fuel its giant manufacturing machine; it wants strategic power. For China, the success of the negotiations means stability, but joint US-Iranian management could be a double-edged sword. China wants the oil to flow, but it does not want the key to this gate to remain in the hands of Washington alone. They are the spectator who pays the most expensive ticket, hoping that at the end of the show it will be precisely their influence that weighs most heavily on the new balances of the Middle East. In this scene, Russia appears as the silent “antagonist”. For Moscow, the success of the negotiations and the reduction of tensions are bad news. The Kremlin needs expensive oil, preferably over $100, to finance its war machine and keep an economy under siege afloat. Every time diplomacy fails and tension in Hormuz increases, Russia’s coffers fill. For them, peace in this strait is a luxury they cannot afford, so from afar they hope that the table will break and the world will once again be left in a fever of uncertainty.

Meanwhile, above this geopolitical game stands the voice of oil and gas corporations. For these giants, the Strait of Hormuz should not belong to anyone, because it belongs to everyone. Their logic is simple and clear: international law guarantees free navigation. They strongly oppose any idea that the Strait could be conditioned or governed by a bilateral pact. For the oil companies, this water is a global “public road”. They view with suspicion any attempt to turn its management into a political tool. Their message is clear: no one has the right to set up checkpoints on the world’s main artery.

“THE SEA WALL” AND THE COLLAPSE OF DIPLOMACY WHEN OIL BECOMES A WEAPON

If last week the corridors of the Serena Hotel in Islamabad were buzzing with the cautious optimism of diplomats, the dawn of this Monday, April 13, 2026, brought a deadly silence. The sudden breakdown of talks was not just a bureaucratic failure, but the first sign of a storm moving from the negotiating tables to the salty waters of the Gulf of Oman. When Washington issued the official statement that “no drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz unmonitored or unstoppable,” the financial markets suffered an electric shock that wiped out billions of dollars in trade value in a matter of minutes. This moment marked the end of “silent speculation.” Goldman Sachs specialists, who had predicted a “cool run” in the $90–$95 range, were forced to tear up their reports. Oil is no longer traded based on its value as a fuel, but as a geopolitical survival certificate. The Strait of Hormuz was transformed from a “blocked artery” into a “military red line”. A new target appeared on the horizon, what many call the “Titanic Collision” with China, as transport ships supplying Beijing, the world’s second-largest economy, have also been targeted. On Asian stock exchanges, this translated into a “bloody Monday”. The opening of the Hong Kong and Shanghai stock exchanges was a testament to pure panic. With a drastic drop of over 1.5% in major indices such as the Hang Seng and Nikkei, investors are signaling that a US-China economic war in the midst of an energy crisis is the “scenario from hell”. Today, on the front pages of the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal, the word “ceasefire” has been replaced by “blockade”. Deutsche Bank strategists point out that last week’s question of “how many ships will pass” has now been answered: none. This has created a physical gap in supply that no strategic reserve can fill. If at the beginning of April a diplomatic announcement was enough to send prices tumbling, now the opposite is happening. The market has become immune to any reassuring statement that is not accompanied by satellite images of ships moving freely. The cost of marine insurance has reached absurd levels, with major companies such as Maersk and MSC ordering their ships to turn back or anchor in safe ports until further notice. This means that the “physical gap” of 10 million barrels per day is widening, leaving the world without the basic fuel for industry.

Asian stock markets are not just reacting to the oil shortage, but to the end of the global trading order as we know it. If Hormuz is closed to Chinese ships, then the entire structure of globalization is unraveling before our eyes. $105 oil is just the tip of the iceberg, because what lies beneath is a new reorganization of global alliances.

So it seems clear that the markets were not “poor students of diplomacy,” but accurate predictors of a coming conflict. The world is paying the price for a crisis that no longer has borders. The Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a waterway, but has become a “noose” tightening around the throat of the global economy. As the sun sets on red-capped Asian stock markets, the question weighing on every investor is no longer “how much does a barrel cost?”, but “will there be barrels to buy?”. History has taught us that when arteries become blocked, the collapse of the entire organism is only a matter of time.

*Academician Prof. Dr Anastas Angjeli is economy expert, former MP and Economy Minister, founder and president of the Mediterranean University of Albania