The oil market is currently caught between two very different trading frameworks.

1. TACO Trade (Trump Always Chickens Out)

This view assumes geopolitical escalation is temporary theatre. The idea is that aggressive rhetoric or military signalling pushes oil up, but negotiations or political pressure eventually cool tensions.

Typical market behaviour under this thesis:

Oil spikes quickly on headlines

Diplomacy follows within days or weeks

Prices retrace sharply

In this framework, $120 was a panic premium, and the return to ~$90 Brent reflects traders removing that geopolitical risk. Under TACO, oil likely oscillates between $80–100 unless real supply is disrupted.

2. HALO Trade (Hard-Asset Lockout)

Wall Street’s “HALO” narrative argues something deeper is happening:

Global spare capacity is shrinking

Middle East supply risk is structurally higher

Strategic reserves are already depleted from prior releases

Underinvestment in upstream oil since 2015 limits rapid supply response

Under HALO, the recent spike was a preview rather than a peak. Any real disruption to Hormuz (~20% of global flows) could drive Brent $120–150.

3. Which trade currently dominates?

Right now the market is leaning TACO. The rapid $120 → $90 collapse shows traders believe escalation will fade.

But structurally, HALO risk remains. If:

tanker insurance spikes

Iranian exports fall sharply

or Hormuz traffic slows

then the market could reprice very quickly again.

Bottom line

Short term: TACO dominates (range trading $80–100)

Tail risk: HALO scenario keeps the upside asymmetric

For investors watching energy markets closely, the key signal now is physical tanker flow through Hormuz, not political statements.