West Texas Intermediate crude futures jumped almost 4 percent toward $107 a barrel on Tuesday, March 31, after Iran's Revolutionary Guard struck a fully loaded Kuwaiti oil tanker anchored off the coast of Dubai [1]. The Al-Salmi, carrying nearly 2 million barrels of crude, caught fire after what multiple reports described as a drone strike. The blaze was later extinguished, but dozens of other vessels left the area [2].

The spike was sharp but short-lived. Within hours, WTI pared most of its gains as reports circulated that President Trump was "mulling" an exit from the Iran conflict, a signal that traders interpreted as the beginning of a possible de-escalation pathway [3]. By the close of Asian trading on Wednesday morning, crude had settled back toward the lower $100s.

The pattern had become familiar. Since the Strait of Hormuz crisis began in early March, oil markets had developed a distinctive rhythm: escalation spike, followed by diplomatic signal, followed by partial retreat. Tanker traffic through the Strait had dropped roughly 70 percent since Iran's Revolutionary Guard declared it closed on March 2 [4]. Insurance costs for a $100 million oil tanker had jumped from approximately $250,000 to figures several multiples higher. And yet each new shock produced a smaller net move, as if the market were slowly adjusting to a world where Middle Eastern energy infrastructure was an active battlefield.

The Tuesday spike was notable for its trigger. The Al-Salmi was not in transit through the Strait. It was anchored at Dubai Port, one of the region's busiest commercial harbors. The attack represented an expansion of Iran's targeting from chokepoint denial to port infrastructure, a qualitative escalation that analysts warned could make even vessels avoiding the Strait vulnerable [5].

For American consumers, the arithmetic was immediate. Gas had reached $4 per gallon nationally, with some West Coast stations already above $5 [6]. The price of a gallon of regular had risen roughly 40 percent since the start of the year. The White House had not yet tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, though calls to do so were growing.

The exit signal that depressed oil prices late Tuesday came not from any official diplomatic channel but from a Bloomberg report citing administration officials who said Trump was "reportedly mulling" a withdrawal framework [3]. The language was vague, the sourcing anonymous, and the timeline unspecified. Markets moved on it anyway, because in the absence of formal diplomacy, presidential mood was the closest thing to a policy signal available.

The result was a price chart that told two stories simultaneously. The spike said the war was getting worse. The retreat said someone, somewhere, might be looking for a way out. Both could be true. Neither was certain. And the $107 mark, briefly touched and quickly abandoned, became another data point in a market that had stopped pricing fundamentals and started pricing intentions.

-- Dara Osei, London