Qing Jingci: The US-Iran negotiations are not the result, but the process, and this is even more true in the crypto world!

The first round of negotiations between the US and Iran on the 11th-12th failed; before the negotiations, the crypto market rose, and after the failure, it sharply retreated. Following the failed negotiations, a second round is imminent, and the market has once again rebounded, breaking through recent daily high points, currently trading sideways at high levels. This is accompanied by a sharp surge caused by the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. First, we need to understand a logic: this is a typical expectation gap, with speculative expectations fueling the rise, and selling the facts plus precise blockade causing a triple reversal. The key truth is that the US has not blocked global oil routes, only Iran’s ports. The purpose of the blockade is to pressure Iran into concessions by forcing negotiations; the market believes Iran’s oil revenue will be squeezed for a short time, and negotiations and compromises will soon resume.

Secondly, we need to understand another logic: negotiations are not the result, but the process, and this process will be infinitely amplified, with more negotiations expected in the future until the market becomes indifferent to negotiations. Why say this? First, historically, during US foreign wars, problems were rarely solved in a single negotiation but through multiple rounds of negotiations, with fighting and talking happening simultaneously. For example, the Korean War involved over 890 rounds of negotiations, the Vietnam War over 170, including later conflicts like the Gulf War and Afghanistan, which all required multiple negotiations to reach results. Even the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict involves more than ten rounds of negotiations. So, do you expect US-Iran negotiations to be resolved in one or two rounds?

Returning to the current situation, the probability of the US and Iran reaching a comprehensive, permanent agreement is very low (about 10%-15%), the probability of reaching a limited, temporary compromise (ceasefire + partial thaw) is higher (about 60%-70%), and the chance of negotiations collapsing and returning to full confrontation is around 20%-30%. Currently, the disagreements are: 1. The US demands Iran completely abandon uranium enrichment, maintain a no-nuclear policy permanently, and accept comprehensive inspections (Trump’s “red line” non-negotiable), while Iran demands to retain peaceful nuclear rights, not give up 60% enrichment, and oppose unlimited inspections. 2. The Strait of Hormuz issue: the US demands international waters, joint control, and no tolls; Iran hopes to control the Strait independently, charge fees, and ensure security by Iran. 3. Sanctions and compensation: the US wants phased easing, no full lifting, and no compensation; Iran demands immediate full sanctions removal and US war reparations. 4. Israel and proxies: the US finds it difficult to constrain Israel and makes no promises to protect Iran; Iran insists the US must constrain Israel and stop attacks.

In the short term, comprehensive peace is unlikely; a delay pattern of ceasefire plus minor concessions is most probable; a full agreement is almost impossible, and the risk of negotiations collapsing always exists. #美伊局势和谈与增兵博弈 #GatePreIPOs首发SpaceX #加密市场回升