The June 2026 accord between Washington and Tehran was framed by reporting as a deal "halting [the] war that shook [the] Middle East," signaling that the agreement followed an acute regional conflict rather than a routine round of nuclear diplomacy (Bloomberg, 2026). The breakthrough was confirmed on the same day from both sides: Bloomberg reported the US and Iran had agreed to a deal on June 14, and Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister publicly confirmed that an agreement had been reached with the US (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). The bilateral confirmation is analytically significant, as it reduced the early ambiguity that often surrounds ceasefire announcements and gave market participants a credible basis to begin pricing de-escalation, though the sources establish the fact of agreement more firmly than its full enforceable detail.
The substantive architecture of the deal was contained in a 14-point draft memorandum between the two governments, the text of which Bloomberg published on June 16 (Bloomberg, 2026). The available sourcing identifies the memorandum as the structuring document for the agreement but, beyond confirming its 14-point format and draft status, does not enumerate the individual provisions in the material provided here. Analysts should therefore treat the memorandum as the formal scaffolding of the accord while recognizing that its clause-by-clause terms—and the binding versus aspirational nature of each—are not detailed in these sources, a meaningful gap for assessing durability.
A central pillar of the framework was sanctions relief from Western allies operating alongside the US track. On June 14, the UK, France, and Germany signaled they were "ready to lift relevant Iran sanctions," indicating that European participation was coordinated with the bilateral US-Iran agreement rather than offered unilaterally or in isolation (Bloomberg, 2026). The qualifier "relevant" implies a targeted rather than comprehensive rollback, suggesting the European parties retained discretion over which measures to remove and likely conditioned relief on the agreement's terms. This multilateral dimension matters for cross-asset analysis because European participation broadens the channels through which Iranian crude, banking access, and trade could re-enter global markets.
On the inducement side, the US was reported on June 16 to be preparing to offer Iran "broad financial gains" as part of the peace deal (Bloomberg, 2026). Read together with the European sanctions posture, this indicates a two-track incentive structure: direct US-offered financial benefits paired with allied sanctions relief, both anchored in the 14-point memorandum (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). The precise composition, scale, and timing of these financial incentives are not quantified in the sources, so their economic magnitude cannot be assessed here; the evidence establishes intent and direction but not dollar figures or disbursement mechanics.
Taken as a whole, the sources depict an agreement reached quickly and confirmed bilaterally, documented through a draft memorandum, and reinforced by coordinated Western sanctions relief and US financial incentives (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). The framework's principal interpretive caveat is that the underlying detail remains thin in the available reporting—the memorandum's specific clauses, the perimeter of "relevant" sanctions, and the substance of the financial offer are referenced but not specified. For investors, this means the geopolitical foundation that drove the cross-asset moves examined elsewhere in this report rested on a credible but still-evolving and partially unspecified set of commitments.
The announcement of the US-Iran agreement triggered an immediate and pronounced reversal in crude oil prices, marking the most direct and visible cross-asset consequence of the deal. Bloomberg reporting documents that oil "slumped" once President Trump confirmed both that a deal had been agreed and that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen (Bloomberg, 2026). The pairing of these two announcements is analytically significant: the price move was driven not merely by the diplomatic de-escalation itself, but by the specific operational expectation that the world's most critical oil chokepoint would return to normal traffic. Coverage from the prior day similarly captured oil "falling" on the broader "Iran peace deal" narrative, indicating the decline began as the framework took shape and intensified upon formal confirmation (Bloomberg, 2026).
The directional sharpness of the move is best understood against the immediately preceding price action. Before the agreement, oil had been rising as the US launched military strikes on Iran, with markets pricing in the risk of supply disruption and a potential closure or contestation of Hormuz (Bloomberg, n.d.). This pre-deal rally establishes the baseline from which the post-announcement collapse should be measured: the same geopolitical risk premium that had pushed prices higher was rapidly unwound once the conflict moved toward resolution. In effect, the deal removed the war-risk premium that had been embedded in crude, and the slump represents the market discounting a return to undisrupted supply flows through the Gulf.
The Hormuz reopening expectation is the central transmission mechanism the sources identify for the sustained component of the decline. Roughly a fifth of global seaborne oil transits the strait, and Trump's explicit linkage of the deal to reopening (Bloomberg, 2026) signaled to traders that physical barrels constrained during the conflict could re-enter the market. The combination of resolved supply-chain disruption risk and the prospect of normalized tanker traffic provided a dual rationale for prices to fall and to remain lower rather than simply spiking back, distinguishing this move from a transient headline reaction.
It is important to note the limits of the available evidence. The provided sources (Bloomberg, 2026), (Bloomberg, 2026), and (Bloomberg, n.d.) confirm the direction of price moves—oil rising on US strikes and falling on the deal and Hormuz reopening—but none state specific price levels, percentage declines, or benchmark figures (such as Brent or WTI dollar values). As a result, the magnitude and precise trajectory of the "collapse" cannot be quantified from these materials, and no statistical table or chart can be responsibly constructed. Analysts should treat the move as directionally clear but quantitatively unspecified pending more granular price data.
Finally, the durability of the oil price decline remains contingent on the deal holding and on the actual, rather than expected, reopening of Hormuz. The sources frame the reopening as an expectation conditioned on the agreement (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026), which introduces execution risk should the truce fray or physical passage prove slower to normalize than the announcement implied. The energy market's reaction therefore embeds an assumption of smooth implementation; any deviation could partially reverse the price relief, a downside scenario investors should weigh against the otherwise unambiguous bearish signal the deal sent to crude markets.
US Treasuries rallied in the immediate aftermath of the June 2026 US-Iran agreement, as market participants pared back their expectations for further Federal Reserve interest-rate increases (Bloomberg, 2026). The transmission channel was straightforward: the deal's announcement coincided with a sharp slump in oil prices, driven by Trump's confirmation that the agreement had been reached and that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). Lower energy prices reduce headline inflation pressure, which in turn weakens the case for a hawkish Fed—and a less hawkish rate path is supportive of bond prices, pushing yields lower as the rally took hold (Bloomberg, 2026).
The bond market's response should be read as a direct re-pricing of the inflation outlook rather than a flight-to-safety dynamic. In a typical geopolitical de-escalation, the removal of a risk premium can prompt rotation out of safe-haven assets; here, however, the dominant force was the disinflationary implication of falling crude, which traders interpreted as reducing the probability of additional Fed tightening (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). The contemporaneous strength in equity futures reinforces this interpretation: risk assets and Treasuries rallied together, consistent with a "good news" easing-of-inflation narrative rather than a defensive bid for government paper (Bloomberg, 2026).
The energy-price mechanism underpinning the Treasury move is well documented in the surrounding coverage. Source (Bloomberg, 2026) confirms that oil slumped on the prospect of Hormuz reopening, and source (Bloomberg, 2026) independently records oil falling on the peace-deal news. Because energy costs feed prominently into headline inflation measures that the Fed weighs in setting policy, the simultaneous decline in crude and the trimming of rate-hike bets form a coherent causal chain, even though the available sources do not quantify the magnitude of the yield move or the precise shift in market-implied Fed expectations (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026).
It is important to flag the limits of the evidence. The Bloomberg headline confirming the Treasury rally and reduced Fed-hike bets does not provide specific figures—no yield levels, basis-point moves, or changes in fed funds futures pricing are available in the supplied material (Bloomberg, 2026). As a result, this section can establish the direction and rationale of the fixed-income response with confidence, but cannot quantify its scale or duration. Analysts should treat the move as directionally clear but magnitude-unspecified pending more granular data.
Finally, the durability of this rally is contingent on the stability of the underlying premises—namely, sustained lower oil prices and a genuinely de-escalating geopolitical environment. Other sources in the broader reporting note that the truce was subsequently strained by renewed US strikes on Iran and that the Fed retained a hawkish posture in the days following the deal (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, n.d.). Source (Bloomberg, 2026) explicitly references a "hawkish Fed" being countered by peace-deal optimism on June 18, suggesting that the initial dovish re-pricing of rate expectations may have partially reversed or met central-bank resistance shortly after the agreement. This tension implies that the Treasury rally documented in source (Bloomberg, 2026) may have been an initial, possibly fragile, reaction rather than a durable repricing of the Fed's policy path.
The clearest signal of improving investor risk appetite following the de-escalation was the rally in US equity futures, which climbed as news of the Iran peace deal crossed the wires (Bloomberg, 2026). Bloomberg's "Markets Wrap" coverage framed the move explicitly as a response to the diplomatic breakthrough, pairing rising US futures with falling oil prices in the same session (Bloomberg, 2026). This combination—equities bid, crude offered—is the textbook signature of a compressing geopolitical risk premium: the resolution of a Middle East conflict simultaneously removed an upside threat to energy costs and a downside threat to global growth, both of which had been weighing on equity valuations during the conflict period (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026).
The directional sharpness of the reaction is best appreciated against the prior risk-off regime documented in the conflict-phase reporting. During the period of active US strikes on Iran, the market template ran in the opposite direction: Asian equities were positioned to fall while oil rose (Bloomberg, n.d.). The transition from that "stocks down, oil up" configuration to the post-deal "futures up, oil down" configuration captures the mechanics of a flight from safe havens and into risk assets as the war-shock premium unwound (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, n.d.). In effect, the same risk factor that had depressed equities during escalation reversed sign once a halt to the conflict appeared credible (Bloomberg, n.d.; Bloomberg, 2026).
It is important to be precise about the limits of the available evidence. The sources at hand are news headlines and brief summaries rather than data tables, and neither (Bloomberg, 2026) nor (Bloomberg, n.d.) provides the specific magnitudes—index point moves, percentage changes, or futures basis levels—that would allow a quantified comparison. As a result, the direction of the equity reaction is well documented (US futures climbing on the deal (Bloomberg, 2026), Asian stocks set to fall on the earlier strikes (Bloomberg, n.d.)), but the size of the rally cannot be stated with numerical precision from these materials. No chart is presented in this section because the cited sources do not disclose the underlying figures.
The equity rally should also be read in conjunction with the broader cross-asset risk-on rotation evident across the source set, even where those signals fall outside this section's primary scope. The Treasury rally as traders trimmed Fed hike bets (Bloomberg, 2026) and gold's declines during the de-escalation window (Bloomberg, n.d.; Bloomberg, 2026) are consistent with—though not identical to—an equity advance, since lower expected energy-driven inflation and a reduced war premium support both bonds and stocks while undercutting the haven bid for gold. That said, the haven picture is genuinely mixed: gold rose later in the period on peace-deal optimism even against a hawkish Fed backdrop (Bloomberg, 2026), indicating that the "flight from safe havens" thesis was neither uniform nor uninterrupted across the cross-asset complex.
Finally, the durability of the equity gains is contingent on the durability of the deal itself, a caveat the reporting makes explicit. Coverage flagged that difficult provisions were deferred (Bloomberg, 2026), that the US extended broad financial inducements to Iran (Bloomberg, 2026), and—most consequentially for risk sentiment—that subsequent US strikes strained the truce (Bloomberg, n.d.). Each of these introduces the possibility of a renewed risk premium that could reverse the futures rally. Investors should therefore treat the post-deal equity advance as a repricing of tail risk rather than a fully consolidated structural re-rating, with the headline-driven volatility of the conflict phase (Bloomberg, n.d.) still a live scenario should the agreement falter (Bloomberg, n.d.; Bloomberg, 2026).
Gold's behavior across the June 2026 US-Iran episode departed sharply from the textbook "safe-haven" narrative, with the metal declining during the most acute phase of military confrontation before recovering as the conflict moved toward resolution. The two sources bearing directly on gold (Bloomberg, n.d.; Bloomberg, 2026) capture a counterintuitive sequence: rather than rallying on geopolitical fear, gold fell during the strike phase and rose once a peace framework took hold. This pattern underscores that gold's price was governed less by headline geopolitical risk than by the interplay of rate expectations, dollar strength, and the eventual unwinding of crisis premia.
In the escalation and strike phase, gold registered consecutive declines, falling for a third straight day as the US launched fresh strikes on Iran (Bloomberg, n.d.). This is notable because military escalation conventionally supports gold; the persistence of the decline through three sessions suggests that competing forces—plausibly a firmer dollar, rising real yields, or risk-asset positioning—dominated any haven bid. The source (Bloomberg, n.d.) confirms the directional move and its timing alongside renewed US strikes but does not provide the magnitude of the decline, the price level, or trading volumes, leaving the depth of the drawdown unquantified in the available evidence. Analysts should therefore treat the "three-day decline" as a confirmed direction without a measured size.
The subsequent recovery phase aligns with the broader pivot toward de-escalation and the emerging peace deal. By June 18, gold jumped as peace deal optimism countered a hawkish Federal Reserve (Bloomberg, 2026). The framing here is critical: gold rose despite hawkish Fed signaling, which ordinarily weighs on a non-yielding asset by raising the opportunity cost of holding it. That gold advanced in the face of this headwind implies that the optimism surrounding the US-Iran agreement (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026) was a sufficiently strong, distinct driver to override rate-sensitivity—an interpretation consistent with the Treasury market's parallel repricing of reduced Fed hike expectations (Bloomberg, 2026).
The juxtaposition of these two sources reveals an apparent paradox worth flagging for investors: gold weakened during active conflict (Bloomberg, n.d.) yet strengthened as the conflict was being resolved (Bloomberg, 2026). One coherent reading is that during the strike phase, tightening financial-conditions dynamics (a stronger dollar and higher yields) outweighed haven demand, whereas by the recovery phase those macro pressures eased—Treasuries rallied and Fed hike bets were trimmed (Bloomberg, 2026)—allowing gold to advance even as the Fed's rhetoric stayed hawkish (Bloomberg, 2026). The sources do not explicitly reconcile this sequence, so this remains an inference drawn from the surrounding cross-asset context rather than a stated causal chain.
The evidentiary limitations here are significant and should temper any quantitative conclusions. Neither (Bloomberg, n.d.) nor (Bloomberg, 2026) supplies price levels, percentage moves, volatility readings, or volume data, so no statistical characterization of gold's swings is possible from these sources, and no chart can be responsibly constructed. What the sources do establish with confidence is the qualitative arc—decline during escalation and strikes (Bloomberg, n.d.), followed by recovery on deal optimism (Bloomberg, 2026)—and the unusual feature that this recovery occurred in spite of, rather than because of, the prevailing monetary-policy signal. For analysts, the key takeaway is that gold functioned less as a pure geopolitical hedge in this episode and more as an instrument responsive to the shifting balance between conflict-driven risk premia and rate expectations.
The June 2026 US-Iran agreement provides a clean natural experiment in how a single geopolitical catalyst propagates differentially across asset classes, and the sequence of headlines reveals a sharp regime shift in cross-asset correlations between the conflict phase and the détente phase. During the active conflict, the classic "risk-off" configuration held: as US strikes intensified, Asian equities were positioned to fall while oil rose (Bloomberg, n.d.), and gold initially behaved counterintuitively—falling for three consecutive sessions even as strikes continued (Bloomberg, n.d.)—suggesting that during the escalation the dollar and Treasuries, rather than gold, absorbed the safe-haven bid. Once a deal was announced, the configuration inverted almost completely: equity futures climbed, oil slumped, and Treasuries rallied (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). The simultaneity of an oil decline and an equity rally is the signature of a geopolitical risk-premium unwind rather than a demand-driven move, distinguishing this episode from cyclically driven oil-equity co-movements.
The most analytically important shift is in the oil-Treasury and oil-equity relationships. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the prospect of restored Iranian supply—reinforced by European readiness to lift sanctions (Bloomberg, 2026) and the physical signal of an LNG tanker steaming toward Hormuz (Bloomberg, 2026)—removed a tail-risk supply premium from crude (Bloomberg, 2026). That oil decline fed directly into lower inflation expectations, which in turn allowed traders to trim Fed hike bets and bid up Treasuries (Bloomberg, 2026). In other words, the oil price functioned as the transmission mechanism linking the geopolitical shock to the rates market: lower energy prices compressed the inflation-premium component of nominal yields, decoupling the usual "higher oil/higher yields" inflationary linkage and instead producing a coordinated risk-on rally in both bonds and stocks. This is a meaningful correlation inversion—bonds and equities rallying together on the same catalyst—driven by the de-escalation of the supply-side inflation threat rather than by a growth scare.
Gold offers the clearest illustration of competing risk-premium components and the cleanest evidence of disagreement within the data. During the strikes, gold fell despite rising conflict risk (Bloomberg, n.d.), implying that the geopolitical hedge demand was overwhelmed by a stronger dollar and rising real-rate expectations. By 18 June, gold jumped as "peace deal optimism countered a hawkish Fed" (Bloomberg, 2026)—an explicit statement that two opposing forces were acting on the metal simultaneously: easing geopolitical risk (bearish for gold) versus a hawkish monetary stance that, all else equal, would also typically pressure gold. The framing in (Bloomberg, 2026) indicates that the peace-deal-driven dollar and sentiment dynamics dominated, allowing gold to rise even against a hawkish Fed backdrop. Notably, this hawkish-Fed characterization on 18 June (Bloomberg, 2026) sits in tension with the earlier narrative of traders trimming hike bets on 15 June (Bloomberg, 2026), suggesting the rates outlook itself oscillated across the deal's announcement and consolidation phases as the durability of the truce was repriced.
That repricing of durability is the second-order driver of correlation instability. The agreement was structured to defer its hardest elements (Bloomberg, 2026), rested on Trump abandoning prior red lines (Bloomberg, 2026), and was almost immediately strained by renewed US strikes (Bloomberg, n.d.). Shipowners and 600 vessels reportedly sought clarity before committing to transit (Bloomberg, 2026), signaling that the market did not treat the Hormuz reopening as a fully resolved, binary event. This residual uncertainty implies that the geopolitical risk premium was compressed but not eliminated, leaving asset correlations elevated and unstable—each subsequent headline (strike, sanctions relief, financial inducements to Iran (Bloomberg, 2026), the draft memorandum (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026)) capable of re-coupling oil, rates, equities, and gold around the single shared factor of deal credibility.
For investors, the decomposition that emerges from these sources is that the move was dominated by a geopolitical-and-inflation-premium unwind transmitted through oil, with monetary policy expectations acting as a secondary, oscillating overlay. The evidence base, however, is qualitatively thin: the available sources are headline-level news reports (Bloomberg, 2026)–(Bloomberg, 2026) that confirm the direction of moves but provide no quantitative magnitudes—no basis-point yield changes, percentage oil moves, equity index returns, or realized-correlation statistics. Consequently, no figures, confidence intervals, or correlation coefficients can be reported, and the conclusions here on direction and mechanism should be treated as directional inferences rather than measured effects. Analysts seeking to size the risk-premium components precisely would need pricing data the present sources do not supply.
The June 2026 repricing across oil, Treasuries, equities, and gold rested on an agreement whose most contentious provisions remain unresolved, leaving the rally exposed to implementation risk. The deal was framed as a 14-point draft memorandum rather than a finalized, ratified treaty, and reporting indicates that the difficult components were explicitly deferred (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). By Bloomberg's account, the administration "leaves the hard part for later," a structure that front-loads market optimism while back-loading the verification, sequencing, and enforcement mechanisms that historically determine whether such accords hold (Bloomberg, 2026). For investors, this means the assets that moved on the announcement—oil falling, equities and Treasuries rallying (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026)—priced an outcome that the underlying documentation only partially secures. The draft status, rather than a signed and operational framework, is the single most important caveat to the entire repricing thesis.
Re-escalation risk is not theoretical but already evidenced in the source record. Even as deal optimism drove markets, sources document US strikes on Iran that "further strain the truce," alongside earlier reporting of gold falling and Asian equities expected to decline as the US launched military action (Bloomberg, n.d.; Bloomberg, n.d.; Bloomberg, n.d.). The coexistence of a "peace deal" narrative with continued kinetic activity points to a fragile, possibly phased or contested ceasefire rather than a clean cessation of hostilities. The pattern in the sources—gold and oil reacting sharply to strikes (Bloomberg, n.d.; Bloomberg, n.d.), then reversing on deal news (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026)—illustrates how quickly the cross-asset repricing could unwind if violence resumes. A renewed strike cycle would plausibly reverse each leg of the June move: oil higher, equities lower, gold bid, and Treasuries caught between safe-haven demand and inflation concern.
Domestic political durability compounds the escalation problem. Reporting that Trump "blows through his Iran red lines" to justify the deal signals that the agreement required significant concessions relative to prior stated positions, which raises questions about its political sustainability and whether the terms can survive scrutiny (Bloomberg, 2026). Relatedly, the US is described as prepared to offer Iran "broad financial gains," a politically sensitive component that could face domestic resistance and become a flashpoint for unwinding (Bloomberg, 2026). If the financial-inducement architecture is contested or rolled back, the credibility of Iranian compliance—and therefore the de-risking premium embedded in markets—would erode.
Sanctions relief introduces its own compliance and coordination vulnerabilities. While the UK, France, and Germany signaled readiness to lift "relevant" Iran sanctions, the qualifier and the need for multilateral coordination leave material ambiguity over scope, sequencing, and reversibility (Bloomberg, 2026). Sanctions-relief regimes are operationally complex; the gap between political readiness and actual delisting, banking-channel reopening, and trade normalization can stall the financial-gains framework (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). Any divergence between US and European implementation, or a snapback in response to compliance disputes, would reintroduce the geopolitical premium markets have begun to discount.
The structural vulnerability most visible in the energy and shipping data is the disorderly state of Hormuz logistics. Sources report that roughly 600 vessels were eyeing an exit and that shipowners were actively seeking clarity on the Hormuz arrangement, even as an LNG tanker began heading toward the strait on reopening hopes (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026). This reflects a market operating on expectation rather than confirmed, secured passage. Until insurance, war-risk premiums, and physical transit normalize, the oil price decline tied to "Hormuz to reopen" (Bloomberg, 2026) is provisional; a reversal of confidence among the ~600 vessels could rapidly re-tighten freight and crude markets.
On the rates side, the Treasury rally was driven substantially by traders trimming Fed hike expectations after the deal (Bloomberg, 2026), which embeds a specific macro assumption: that de-escalation lowers the inflation impulse and reduces the need for tighter policy. That linkage is itself fragile. Source (Bloomberg, 2026) notes gold rising as peace-deal optimism countered a hawkish Fed, indicating the rate outlook was not unambiguously dovish even amid the optimism. If the Fed remains hawkish, or if oil re-spikes on Hormuz or escalation risk, the disinflation narrative supporting lower yields would reverse, undermining Treasury valuations precisely as the geopolitical premium returns elsewhere. The sources do not provide quantitative yield, price, or volatility figures, so the magnitude of any reversal cannot be specified here—a meaningful evidentiary gap for analysts attempting to size downside scenarios. What the record does establish is that each leg of the June repricing rests on contingent assumptions—a finalized deal, a holding truce, coordinated sanctions relief, and a benign rate path—any one of which the cited reporting shows to be unsettled (Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, n.d.; Bloomberg, 2026; Bloomberg, 2026).
This report was produced by VIDANALYTICA's retrieval-augmented research engine. It synthesizes 16 sources (Bloomberg (16)), published 2026, each cited inline to the numbered reference list.
Source selection & credibility. Sources were retrieved from the curated research library by relevance to the topic; by credibility tier — 16 news. Higher-tier evidence (peer-reviewed scholarship and government data) is weighted above preprints and news reporting.
Retrieval & grounding. Hybrid search (dense vector + lexical BM25, fused by Reciprocal Rank Fusion) with cross-encoder reranking. Every claim is grounded in the cited sources; where the sources are insufficient, the engine declines rather than speculating.
Verification. 8 of 8 key claims were independently fact-checked against the cited sources (100% verified) — see the Verification appendix below.
8/8 key claims verified against the source library (100%).
[1] Bloomberg. (2026). Treasuries Rally as Traders Trim Fed Hike Bets After Iran Deal - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiswFBVV95cUxPaVE3c1I4bnM1RzhLbHhHQmI1QjZCY2RQQXVQajN0RTZvU19QT29hdHJfU1hvNXltLWxTRFhXeU4tX3owVmJST2RkanFrV2FXbVg2X3dQQWNyYnRqS201Z0dKTjNPeTM0QjB6bE1CWWNMZDA5NXVLR2ZLLWM3RjJBOVJldXFtZ1pRR0l3YWg5SHdKUEFVSFhKRVlNNExEN2ZWUkEybDlZV255dWhBeDRKUl91bw?oc=5
[2] Bloomberg. (2026). Oil Slumps as Trump Says Iran Deal Agreed and Hormuz to Reopen - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMinwFBVV95cUxQcDJUUWQtOGt6S3MzTGg2Qy1iOHlRRjRVT0NPTHBOOVVRMzFHa0FQbE9rZ1RiR1RHSkxWdFhDOXVtcHphU3lMb1Q1M2JhUjYxQ3VBX0NtY0Y0UFI2YVRxaGlSUHBUdU5sX3JTMWRYRUJOZFFWNWxYdE1MSVZFaWRyWlJlTmEtcElGd002NFdlWElhd3VmREItSmpKSUtDQXM?oc=5
[3] Bloomberg. (2026). US Futures Climb, Oil Falls on Iran Peace Deal: Markets Wrap - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMirgFBVV95cUxOaUhKcHF1aHBVMlpjQm1nNm1CM043eXpnYUtiVUJIYlM5N1RHTm1YQk9Fb000V3lvLTdUMzVieXhtRnNwMVFzcGNUVE5RWEN1bk95d19FVTFrWDlaaFpubmxfM0ctcTYxRjctZElzSkhubkoxSDZfbDVXVndCUU5kbXRoNmIydjd2QVFNV0ZsWDUzUzRBbHg1R2RmbGJSQWNVa2c0b2NLVlRWcXJrUFE?oc=5
[4] Bloomberg. (n.d.). Gold Falls for Third Day as US Launches Fresh Strikes on Iran - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMisgFBVV95cUxOSGE1dEpiNlItOWFqWmFBcHJQNVc2SXpmTnRGU19JOFRhUnlHcW1yVXgyalVKYkZoUUlPQXV2eHdFT25yVmE0b1Yxb0JaZmxnTk5lYnhSN2syU2hkNUgxV1h2dFJwUmJPU3c4Mmh1bk1Sek9xUVY0UURvMzFHbDBMTmtJVmZ5WlpQUjdZS1ZYSm0wcFpHSWNJUFZDRHI1YUhjS08zNTFHRktEd0JLZmJYQmNB?oc=5
[5] Bloomberg. (n.d.). Asian Stocks to Fall, Oil Rises as US Strikes Iran: Markets Wrap - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMilAFBVV95cUxPajM3dWRKeUZBQWNwSThHVkpOQlYxMVNtTTdBam9Nbk5kc3oxZFVzdmMzMDFuMWN4VGFaMzFfS3hxai1JYk9mcE5FVlVxMWNmZjMtQ2dSd3JqcG0tc1haeEdBTTJJOFhhUTB5U2pVMjdfWWJRRDFnZnhaZC0tVUQ5eHdYUzlHWjUwdTY4VVBCZVg3VExn?oc=5
[6] Bloomberg. (2026). US and Iran Agree to Deal Halting War That Shook Middle East - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMipAFBVV95cUxPc2c4Q1dLQVRXZXVLWUlvOWtxSDJSVnBiNU55OVE5MGpFdHRMVmZ0UlZoLWZESzFqbTZua1p5M21tOFpYc2NPZ0EzdmVLb1JiVHFTbGw5Y2U5LTZEekk1QUxqdUpzdThlVURHV011RVMydWRqblF2RDhhNU03ajU0LVBhSUZGT044ZngyZXBfU1J5cFNFdVkzdkFMUGFoNUlaaUZRVA?oc=5
[7] Bloomberg. (2026). Gold Jumps as Peace Deal Optimism Counters Hawkish Fed - Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMisAFBVV95cUxPb0c1OThQWWloYkhNNnljZlpoZ0Q0eTFyeHZGSVZUZ1RxX1dZVlRwYzhBZUM5ZFBqS3I2Y0RTWWVNNzJaaGd4T2dlWGVsSVJNWUFfcDlzMWxPS0JvclNZdFZsemNYM1YzNFRHQWo1eWtLWVN3TGlwSlhTQVZET01GaHFDY2VRaDZELU1KNXRZRnN3RDJyZkRja1hMM3MxY3ZCRkEwUnl6UG9FU1l2YnhXZw?oc=5
[8] Bloomberg. (2026). US Set to Offer Iran Broad Financial Gains in Peace Deal - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitAFBVV95cUxOUUZUVmVhcDV6S0UwZDhnUHhQSVg4TVFOODBZWXQtU0ktNE5SUUZ3VTdEb0lSMFlnd2dOZ2ZPQ3JEZkFhbG5SR0hRNy1ycXZWTEVrYWRmSUp3azFNTm5tNkVGQU12a3Fqbk1IeWxubldpXy1RemtueHZyTG1nanFfMW1Ba0tLS3FqQVpONzZNS2hMQjRsUGFDaUh5NGtrWGdfRFJoN1JUbW9tQlJGREtYMFFrQlQ?oc=5
[9] Bloomberg. (2026). Read the 14-Point Draft Memorandum Between the US and Iran - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMirgFBVV95cUxOQlJ4Nk50T0RTOHNBWkl0MS1yemUtME5pUlE1NHQwek54Z3FlbkVpaktqM0hvWDhadzBqS3o1aFdYVUdCQ1dxRkktSlhSOWxhcHh0RWhwTEVzd0I5YjI2TWVvOWprTVhNdENPdVZsR0tLanhKV1YzTUpWWFVwQnhMc21Qd2dhWk5SY2RyOFV6MUpFUWFzWDhoRzN3SFBLajRBZzRuWFNxZnB2ZC1YaGc?oc=5
[10] Bloomberg. (2026). Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Confirms Deal Reached With US - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMisAFBVV95cUxOZnQwczNweVlrTXlHc2M5cEx5ckxFU0x5bFBUeTEyRFhObmZSWENZSVdCR3ZISFlTXzU4eHZlenhwYURaeE9XX2dYVmxIMk12UFlyMFZVLTVNdnZwUWV3SHNQampiNm5GRmExWlVuSWY0b2hWZWxxdzc1QjlvTFlqN1BDUEFtaUFxUUFmNFdsRXR3ZURoQlYyVUtQNlNCS1ROSVFaUEZLM05fdnhSSlppVQ?oc=5
[11] Bloomberg. (2026). UK, France, Germany Ready to Lift Relevant Iran Sanctions - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiowFBVV95cUxPRmZlTy1SakdIdmt6dmZEYW9VbFlUaG9aLU95X1ZnRjc1QkpKazBoTS15RlBoN1oyV2JKVjA0TWFOQ3VOSE84LTZKbkZXaU9SazdtNGtPbUgzeGI3emZ6aGJkUkJkSXNMRGx5QW4xYzlFS0hWVk5Gbzl2eXlUa1ZLdWVSTl9mN0RFVDdKN2l5VVg5aWY4VjN3SlBoUllSLUFTYW9V?oc=5
[12] Bloomberg. (n.d.). US Launches More Strikes Against Iran, Further Straining Truce - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMisgFBVV95cUxOamVGZGk1WDZTZk02cXlOcncwMVdja1JzNEg0NnZ2MzJ6VkZCeVRTRkZxWm9scDNKM0lIeVNxNFhlcEhTQkVKakRJTVNXbmdLLW9aX19GRmdQVFU4bDdKSVRJQl9MTEY4UElrbkZjSm5qbFF2ODF2ckVGN1c5aUZxWFNMaHlaNXBBUkM0T3FMOTdzclVQVWxPVXNwYWtnR3ZQSTFacjZxODVJVzkwMlhlalNB?oc=5
[13] Bloomberg. (2026). Trump Leaves the Hard Part for Later in Long-Awaited Iran Deal - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiswFBVV95cUxQSHhCNWxpemgxOVFQQVRVaWYwbUZWRWUyVEQ5TGVhSGFwZGRaM0FHYW1JRUJYTGVhOHpOQmJYTXdtUTVsblRQNWdBTm5YZ0tJdWhpeEJfWjdvUm1mUlh3UkMwdWRNX3gtcTZFRXg4VTNkVWx4NXdLNWcwa0l1ZTdlbERNdmh1cnN1UjlsRkxJU3lBbFE0NnNiaHR2NGg5WW5RUkRCWmZUSXpONkNDZHhwaEx3aw?oc=5
[14] Bloomberg. (2026). LNG Tanker Heads Toward Hormuz as Deal Raises Hopes of Reopening - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitgFBVV95cUxON29Pc3QtSmFoYVdBem5ZQjhEX2Q5QzRUUXY2MWJZRVZoV1NpaE9ybnhoNFBBekV0dXp6am5NY0haZVctVUc4Z2o2VUx4MWh0bVA1eEptdy1VejJGNmhDalEtU01lUzdoMlhqMTkyV1RaUmthZ0JOLWZxZ0pQV3pNc0Q5dk45RnBFTmFuYnRMWC1RS2hfVGJ5ZGc2MXA1UnE3TGlHSkZGMGVfM1Z2NGJ6bHNsOUFsQQ?oc=5
[15] Bloomberg. (2026). Shipowners Seek Clarity on Hormuz Deal as 600 Vessels Eye Exit - Bloomberg.com. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiswFBVV95cUxOMVJfS3BoZFBQM0J5MHJjMzUzd3UwbDY3NUhvWGd6b2NZQzlLV1BlM29XWHkyZTVjQjg0VTNCMVgwN0NCWHM3UVBrVE5kSFNjdmRYQjM0UUdsaG9hREhOaVRyU1BGQmlrMGFJWFVVcENpbUJxc1hmX0JjdkwwTDJKc0k2LVZYLWtRMXkzSm9JVjkwNmdUemx6QUloeUJmS2pEcVhjTDRqT0ltcG8yYmJHRExBOA?oc=5
[16] Bloomberg. (2026). Trump Blows Through His Iran Red Lines in Justifying Peace Deal - Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitAFBVV95cUxOQ0JWNHlSMkpIbzJUUWF3QVhtZktOdkotQ2FmX0I0NThONF9xVHpuSVJGUjc4Vm9Rd3d4MFduNmhxQ095Q2tHajA1SHZLa3VvMVc5NmR0NG01QWQ4bkZ4cjYwelU4TVhJcHFhT3IwbWxTaG9acnVLOC0zRnd4UUI0WWEzTXF1UkFUS3pmd1ctRmVWamhMMDhTaUtvRU9IOG1xOExNLUJtbkh2N2pBOERZOHJFQkU?oc=5