'Grin and bear it': How investors are navigating the Trump-Iran market whiplash

The U.S. and Iran appeared to diverge on accounts of a potential peace deal this week, with Washington touting progress in diplomacy while Tehran denied interest in direct talks, leaving investors parsing prospects for an off-ramp and wondering how to trade amid conflicting signals. Markets rallied earlier this week after President Donald Trump said the U.S. and Iran were “in negotiations right now” and signaled a potential peace deal, despite Tehran’s denial. The remarks sent oil prices tumbling and equities higher, underscoring investors’ sensitivity to incremental changes in tone. But the whipsaw reflects a deeper uncertainty: whether the conflict is nearing a resolution or risks escalating into a broader disruption to global energy supplies. “Markets are struggling because they are trying to price two competing paths at once,” said Billy Leung, investment strategist at Global X ETFs. “There is a potential diplomatic outcome being discussed, but the base case still involves a near-term disruption to energy flows, particularly through [the Strait of] Hormuz.” Greenland was a sideshow. Venezuela was a sideshow. Cuba is a sideshow. President of Yardeni Research Ed Yardeni That tension has kept risk pricing unstable, with assets reacting to headlines rather than converging on a clear macro trajectory. Oil, bond yields and equities have seen outsized moves, as shifting expectations around energy shock, inflation and central bank policy ripple through markets. Earlier this week, the U.S. reportedly laid out over a dozen points in a proposal to Iran to end hostilities, inlucia potential ceasefire to resume negotiations. Iranian officials, however, dismissed the reports as “fake news.” It remains unclear whether the Trump administration is seeking an end to the war or simply to avoid further escalation, and whether the proposal had support from Israel. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Trump wanted to end the conflict in the coming weeks, citing people familiar with the matter. All three major indexes rebounded on Wednesday, while oil prices cooled slightly, prompting warnings of premature optimism. Talks “may or may not happen” because the demands from the U.S. and Iran remain far apart, particularly over the sovereignty of the Strait of Hormuz, said Marko Papic, a geomacro strategist at BCA Research. Markets, however, have reacted as if some diplomatic movement is underway, despite continued military activity, he added. The Pentagon is expected to send thousands of troops to the Middle East, a move that could drastically raise the stakes in the conflict. For now, markets have assigned “moderate credibility” to the prospect of a peace deal, though under the caveat that any agreement would be in place for 30 days, said Ben Emons, founder of Fedwatch Advisors. To sustain a ceasefire, Israel still remains a wildcard, as any sudden attack could quickly escalate the situation. ‘Grin and bear it’ Investors’ sensitivity to the conflicting messages also reflects fragile market conditions, Leung said, with thinner liquidity and lighter positioning amplifying reactions to geopolitical developments. For other investors, the playbook is simple: endure the volatility. “You just have to kind of grin and bear it,” said Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research. “Geopolitical crises in the past have almost always been buying opportunities.” Yardeni said the stakes of the current conflict are far greater than previous geopolitical flare-ups that failed to move markets meaningfully. Markets have largely shrugged off developments in Venezuela and Greenland at the start of 2026, as investors were, at that point, desensitized to headline risks under Trump. “Greenland was a sideshow. Venezuela was a sideshow. Cuba is a sideshow,” said Yardeni. “These are not the kind of conflicts that have any major implications for the U.S. economy, but the global economy. [The Iran war] is about as big as it gets.” He added that investors with cash could position for a quicker resolution by buying sectors that would benefit from falling oil prices and easing uncertainty. “That means buying airline stocks, for example, it means buying home builders,” Yardeni said. “And if you made a lot of money in energy stocks, you take your preference.” Trading the headlines Strategists at UBS cautioned against trading on geopolitical headlines, noting that markets are forward-looking and often respond to conditions becoming “less worse” rather than fully resolved. “Investors should not attempt to trade geopolitics and should maintain strategic equity holdings,” the bank said. Instead, UBS recommends using market rebounds to rebalance portfolios, trimming exposure to regions and sectors most vulnerable to higher energy prices, while adding defensive assets and short-duration bonds. For some, the wild swings across multiple asset classes have also presented a window to reshuffle their portfolios, either by taking profits or buying high-quality assets “to hold for the long term,” said Gautam Chadda, executive director at RBC Wealth Management. “What we’ve tried to do is position the portfolio … towards the winners, the ones that would benefit from the regional turmoil,” said Chadda, highlighting fertilizer producers, defense manufacturing and helium suppliers as the potential beneficiaries. Markets may ultimately care less about the politics than about the economic impact of the conflict, said Robin Brooks, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “[Even] if we had a military escalation, [but] we end up with oil tanker volumes going up, markets would be thrilled,” Brooks said. “It sounds awful, but I think we’ll see oil prices come down, we’ll see global stock markets rally, and we’ll be back to business.” But one thing is clear: investors are facing a bumpy road ahead before clearer signs for an off-ramp emerge. A breakdown in talks or further attacks on energy infrastructure could quickly reverse recent gains and reignite volatility. “The longer this drags on, [the more] we are moving away from just a price-shock territory to actual physical shortages,” holding up economic growth in a manner unseen in decades, said Brooks. — CNBC’s Chloe Taylor contributed to this report.