A message by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf triggered debate this week, after he urged followers on X (formerly Twitter) to treat U.S. President Donald Trump’s early market statements as contrarian signals for trading. Ghalibaf is regarded as one of Iran’s most active political figures during recent conflicts, holding a prominent position and having previously served as an officer in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. His intervention comes at a moment when long-standing market strategies tied to political announcements have begun to falter amid heightened geopolitical tensions.
The reversal of the TACO trade strategy
For much of 2025, traders on Wall Street relied on what became known as the “Trump Always Chickens Out” or TACO trade. This approach involved buying assets after declines linked to Trump’s political rhetoric, under the expectation that markets would quickly recover as diplomatic solutions emerged—an assumption shaped by past tariff disputes with China, Canada, and the European Union.
Last week, however, the dynamic shifted. After Trump postponed a highly anticipated military strike on Iranian energy targets from March 27 to April 6, traders who positioned for a rebound saw no relief rally. The typical pattern, where markets swiftly reversed, broke down in the face of escalating conflict risks.
Online market observers argued that the algorithms underpinning the TACO trade suffered significant setbacks. Reports from Asia and Australia pointed to mounting concerns over oil availability and disruptions, intensifying perceived risks across energy and financial markets.
Barclays strategist Emmanuel Cau highlighted that repeated shifts in policy undermined investor trust. The belief that negotiating delays would pave the way for de-escalation began to erode, replaced by worries that pauses were precursors to further conflict.
Ghalibaf’s comments and bond market reactions
Amid these developments, Ghalibaf posted that Trump’s early-morning messages should be seen as “reverse indicators,” suggesting that traders would do better by taking the opposite view. He argued these announcements primarily serve as triggers for short-term profit-taking.
“Pre-market so-called ‘news’ or ‘Truth’ is often just a setup for profit-taking. Basically, it’s a reverse indicator. Do the opposite,” wrote Ghalibaf.
Johns Hopkins economist Steve Hanke weighed in as well, indicating that financial market participants—commonly known as bond vigilantes—had become more wary of Trump’s policies following the twin shocks of tariff escalations and armed conflict involving Iran.
Recent moves in the U.S. Treasury market reinforced the sense of unease. The yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury bond rose to 4.46%, nearing levels seen during previous periods of market instability. This uptick recalled scenarios in which Washington was pressed to reconsider its approach in response to market pressures.
Earlier in the week, Ghalibaf cautioned that institutions holding U.S. Treasury debt could become targets in the ongoing conflict, compounding the sense of geopolitical risk embedded in global bond markets.
Why markets find old strategies unreliable
The unraveling of the TACO trade stems from shifts in the international context. While past adversaries sought stability through dialogue, the current confrontation with Iran adds higher uncertainty. The country’s leadership was reportedly struck in opening attacks, contributing to a climate of unpredictability.
Military assets in Iran have been bombarded on several occasions, yet Iranian authorities have avoided diplomatic engagement. Ghalibaf himself accused the U.S. government of masking troop movements as peace efforts, underlining the growing skepticism over negotiations.
Oil prices have remained above $110 per barrel as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to disrupt supply routes. The persistence of geopolitical tension has introduced a new layer of risk, fundamentally altering previous assumptions about market resilience.
Attention in the coming days will likely focus on whether the rising U.S. 10-year yield prompts a policy shift from Washington, or if the scale of the military conflict ultimately sets a new paradigm for investor behavior.
