On the thirty-second day of the war pitting the United States and Israel against Iran, Donald Trump announced an American withdrawal within two to three weeks, presented as his clearest signal since the start of the conflict. At the same time, Iran indicated a willingness to negotiate. The news triggered a sharp rise in financial markets: Wall Street gained more than a thousand points in a single session.
Behind this market optimism, several indicators tell a more contrasted story. Trump's approval ratings are low, support for sending ground troops remains a small minority, and US employment data is deteriorating. The future of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic maritime route for oil transit, remains uncertain as a withdrawal approaches. This gap between market euphoria and political and economic reality lies at the heart of the matter.
Actors interpret Trump's promise in different ways. Some read it as a favorable signal for markets and for the commercial reopening of Hormuz; others see it primarily as a military timeline, or as the prospect of a security vacuum. Several question what will become of the region's allies after the American departure.
The disagreement also concerns what truly measures the health of the US economy. Should one look at the stock market, employment, or public opinion? Depending on the chosen indicator, the picture shifts from euphoria to concern. The real feasibility of the announced timeline, like the management of the post-war period, remains widely disputed.
