ZeroHedge70%

"They're Scum": Trump Says US-Iran Ceasefire Is Over, Sending Oil Higher 45%

By Tyler Durden61%

7/8/2026, 11:05:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Pessimism Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Recency Bias as the most egregious example at 27.8% saturation with 153 hits. Analysis detected 921 faulty-reasoning hits from 551 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.5% and a BS Rank of 45% (11,801 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.70% of the article peer group.

Brent crude futures jumped more than 6% in London after President Trump told reporters at a press conference in Ankara that the tentative ceasefire with Iran is over. 
"To me, I think it's over. 
I don't want to deal with them anymore; they're scum," Trump told reporters. 
Trump's remarks came after Iran launched missiles and kamikaze drones at several merchant vessels in the Hormuz chokepoint on Tuesday. 
This was countered by overnight US strikes, as fears of conflict erupting once more are on the rise. 
However, Trump stopped short of saying the U.S. would restart the war and said he would let talks continue if the parties were willing. 
In European trade, front-month Brent crude futures jumped 6% to $78.63 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate rose 6.2% to $74.85 a barrel. 
Natural gas prices rose as well, with the benchmark Dutch TTF contract up 4.8% to 49.04 euros per megawatt-hour. 
Hours before the strikes, the US Treasury revoked a sanctions waiver that had allowed Tehran to sell oil, reversing a key element of the interim deal. 
Trump also told reporters that he would continue to let his negotiators talk to Tehran, though he thought "they're wasting their time." 
On Tuesday afternoon, the Joint Maritime Information Center upgraded the Hormuz risk rating to "Severe" after three tankers were targeted by Iran. 
This renewed uncertainty in the critical waterway will only pressure the normalization of vessel flows. 
"Every renewed attack on commercial shipping further erodes confidence in the Strait's reopening, making each future recovery more fragile than the last," said Michelle Brouhard, head of policy and geopolitical risk at Kpler. 
"If every reopening is assumed to be temporary, freight rates remain elevated, insurance costs remain high and fewer vessels are willing to re-enter the Gulf." 
Dominic Ellis, UBS equity analyst covering oil and gas, wrote in a note: 
*The US carried out a new round of strikes against Iran in response to recent Iranian attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. 
Iran in turn launched missile and drone attacks on US assets in Kuwait and Bahrain. 
While this latest escalation does not mean an end to the diplomatic progress made in recent weeks, it underscores the challenges of diplomacy when both sides believe they have the upper hand. 
* 
*Markets were too quick to buy into the de-escalation narrative in my view, and while there has been evidence of progress and of a rebound in vessel flows via the Strait of Hormuz, the latest developments may lead to more realistic expectations on the return to normalcy and a slightly higher range for oil in the near term. 
* 
*The likelihood of a spike above $100/b remains low, however, even in the event of further tit-for-tat strikes in the Middle East, given the surprise sustained drop in Chinese crude imports. 
* 
Latest Bloomberg data tracking ships transiting the Hormuz chokepoint with transponders on remain elevated, but the number of vessels making the East-West route has fallen dramatically, while West-East remains steady. 
Also, note that the oil market's forward curve has shifted into backwardation. 
This occurs when near-term futures trade at a premium to longer-dated contracts. 
The shift shows traders are once again willing to pay up for immediate crude supplies. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.1%Tyler Durden: 7.5%ZeroHedge: 7.6%Confirmation Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.6%ZeroHedge: 1.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Tyler Durden: 4.5%ZeroHedge: 4.5%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 2.7%Tyler Durden: 1.1%ZeroHedge: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.7%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.3%ZeroHedge: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.9%ZeroHedge: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Tyler Durden: 10.8%ZeroHedge: 10.8%Framing Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.5%Tyler Durden: 0.5%ZeroHedge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.1%ZeroHedge: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Tyler Durden: 3.7%ZeroHedge: 3.7%Pessimism Bias17.2%This article: 16.2%Tyler Durden: 11.1%ZeroHedge: 11.1%Negativity Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.4%ZeroHedge: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.1%ZeroHedge: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias4.0%This article: 2.4%Tyler Durden: 1.2%ZeroHedge: 1.2%In-Group Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.9%ZeroHedge: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.8%ZeroHedge: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 27.8%Tyler Durden: 3.2%ZeroHedge: 3.3%Recency Bias27.8%This article: 2.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Tyler Durden: 1.3%ZeroHedge: 1.3%Ad Hominem2.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.5%ZeroHedge: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.9%Tyler Durden: 6.4%ZeroHedge: 6.4%Appeal to Authority12.9%This article: 12.9%Tyler Durden: 2.2%ZeroHedge: 2.2%False Dilemma12.9%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.4%ZeroHedge: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.3%ZeroHedge: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.1%Tyler Durden: 6.6%ZeroHedge: 6.7%Hasty Generalization19.1%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.7%ZeroHedge: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 5.1%ZeroHedge: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.5%ZeroHedge: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.4%Tyler Durden: 5.4%ZeroHedge: 5.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.3%ZeroHedge: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.7%ZeroHedge: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.7%Tyler Durden: 0.4%ZeroHedge: 0.4%Composition/Division2.7%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.2%ZeroHedge: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.7%ZeroHedge: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.0%ZeroHedge: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.1%ZeroHedge: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.2%ZeroHedge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.1%Tyler Durden: 4.1%ZeroHedge: 4.1%Unattributed Quote1.1%This article: 2.0%Tyler Durden: 1.9%ZeroHedge: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 4.4%Tyler Durden: 10.6%ZeroHedge: 10.6%Biased Writer Voice4.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 1.4%ZeroHedge: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 0.5%ZeroHedge: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler Durden: 2.7%ZeroHedge: 2.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Tyler Durden: 0.9%ZeroHedge: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.4%

551 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers54%attributed speech256writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 6 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJoint Maritime Information Center • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMichelle Brouhard • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMichelle Brouhard • 25 words • 0.0% coverageUBS • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDominic Ellis • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDominic Ellis • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDominic Ellis • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageDominic Ellis • 58 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageDominic Ellis • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words14% of attributed speech49% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice+27.4 ptsWriter: 4.3%Trump: 31.7%31.7%Unattributed Quote+14.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 14.6%14.6%Attempt to Sell a Product -11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.