Yesterday (November 12th), an unexpected news item quickly stirred the market: Trump explicitly stated that negotiations with Iran were no longer necessary and instructed Vice President Vance to focus all his energy on domestic affairs. This statement contrasted sharply with the progress of US-Iran negotiations previously observed by the market. With the support of mediators such as Qatar, both sides had shown positive momentum, and Trump himself had repeatedly emphasized that a large-scale military operation was "highly unlikely," stating that the situation was developing in a positive direction towards ending the conflict. This sudden shift to "no agreement needed" naturally triggered a repricing of geopolitical risk premiums in the market. Such back-and-forth is quite normal as negotiations enter deeper waters, and similar scenarios have played out multiple times in the past few months. The core demands of the US and Iran differ significantly: the US insists on a priority on the nuclear issue, demanding substantial restrictions on its highly enriched uranium stockpile and acceptance of rigorous inspections; Iran, on the other hand, emphasizes preconditions such as lifting the maritime blockade, easing sanctions, and unfreezing assets. While Qatar's proposed phased confidence-building plan is progressing, both sides maintain a consistently hardline public stance. Trump's recent statement appears more like a typical negotiating stunt—similar to an angry walkout or an ultimatum—intended to force concessions at key junctures, rather than genuinely closing diplomatic channels. Historically, Trump has frequently employed this tactic: first raising expectations or creating tension, then abruptly withdrawing to gain more leverage. More importantly, Trump also emphasized in his speech that he does not want another full-scale war against Iran and repeatedly signaled that "the war will end soon." This intention should not be underestimated after the midterm elections. The election results clearly show that high oil prices and war-related costs were significant factors in the Republican Party's defeat, leading to Democratic control of both houses of Congress. Domestic political pressure has surged, forcing Trump to prioritize issues of concern to voters, such as crime, corruption, and the economy, rather than continuing to expend political capital on a conflict that has reached a stalemate of "neither war nor peace." The blockade and sanctions continue to pressure the Iranian economy, and the Trump team has neither the intention nor the capability to restart large-scale military action. Of course, nothing is absolute. There were reports that the US had contacted Netanyahu multiple times to discuss the possibility of resuming military action. However, the current political reality in Israel is quite different. Following the Israeli election, the country is in a deadlock. While Netanyahu's right-wing camp holds some advantage, it failed to secure a majority to form a government and is currently operating as a caretaker government. The opposition is attempting to form an alternative coalition, and Netanyahu himself faces ongoing political pressure and is entangled in domestic agendas. In this environment, restarting a full-scale war against Iran is not only extremely risky but also offers limited political returns. In the short term, Netanyahu is more likely to focus on consolidating his domestic position rather than actively escalating the conflict. If the above analysis is correct, then we are once again facing the opportunity for a continued precipitous drop in oil prices. Geopolitical risk premiums have been one of the core supports for the high oil prices of the past few months. Initial concerns about supply disruptions, shipping risks in the Strait of Hormuz, and expectations of further escalation significantly drove up prices. Once the market confirms that the US has no intention of a large-scale resumption of hostilities, and that negotiations or at least "maintaining the status quo" become the new normal, this premium will recede rapidly. Adding to this are fundamental factors: US commercial crude oil inventories have recently increased significantly, refinery utilization rates remain high, global supply is relatively ample, while demand is suppressed by high oil prices themselves and macroeconomic uncertainties. The receding of risk premiums is often not linear, but rather exhibits an accelerated decline under the stimulus of key negative (for bulls) information. More confirmatory news—such as further downplaying military options or a gradual return to normalcy in regional shipping—could trigger a test of the previous low of $67. Technical Analysis (WTI Crude Oil Daily Chart Source: FX678) From a technical perspective, oil prices are currently clearly weak. Prices have broken below an important upward trend line and are struggling to hold above the 200-day moving average—a key support level that was previously breached. This level is extremely important: it roughly corresponds to the 50% retracement of the gains since the start of the war, and is also the intersection of the 100-day and 200-day moving averages. The struggle between bulls and bears in this range is unlikely to be short-lived, and consolidation is inevitable. The 61.8% retracement level is around $95, which is also a resistance level due to the 20-day and 50-day moving averages and the upward trend line. If tensions escalate again, this area will be a crucial point for the bulls to defend and test any potential rebound. However, given the current political and fundamental context, the support levels below are more noteworthy. The $80 and $70 ranges are more likely to be tested in the coming days. The $80 area often corresponds to a previous area of significant trading volume and a psychological level; $70 is closer to the pre-war range and deeper technical support. If the risk premium further diminishes, coupled with continued inventory accumulation or confirmation of weak global demand, the probability of prices approaching the previous low of $67 will significantly increase. Of course, technical analysis never operates entirely independently of fundamentals—any sudden military friction or supply disruption could still trigger a sharp rebound, but the overall trend has shifted towards a weak consolidation or even a downward trend. In summary, while Trump's statement was unexpected, it is highly consistent with his negotiating style and the political realities following the midterm elections. The market should interpret it more as a pressure tactic than a complete closure of diplomatic channels. The fading geopolitical premium, the shift in domestic priorities, and political constraints imposed by Israel all point to open up downside potential for oil prices. Investors need to closely monitor subsequent official statements, regional shipping data, and inventory reports, and manage risks near key support levels. Oil price movements are always highly sensitive to headlines, but what truly determines the medium-term direction is the continued change in supply and demand fundamentals and the risk premium. At the current juncture, an opportunity for a waterfall-like decline is forming.