Indirect Negotiations Between the US and Iran? Iran Makes Concessions? Major Differences Remain? Saudi Arabia Resumes Exports? Overnight Oil Prices Volatile and Falling Amid Mixed Bullish and Bearish Views

International oil prices experienced dramatic volatility on Monday, with a "roller coaster" market performance as bullish and bearish news alternated, eventually narrowing gains and even turning temporarily negative. The repair and restart of Saudi Arabia’s East-West oil pipeline, positive signals from US-Iran nuclear negotiations, reports that Iran agreed to halt uranium enrichment, and immediate US negotiation representatives stating large differences remain—these four sets of contradictory news emerged in just a few hours, turning the crude oil futures market into a "headline roulette."

On the day, WTI crude oil briefly hit $96.54 per barrel, with intra-day gains approaching 4.5%; Brent crude reached as high as $108.83 per barrel, up over 4.3%. However, as US-Iran diplomatic updates emerged in rapid succession, both pared gains quickly—WTI once fell to $91.25 per barrel, nearly down 1% on the day; Brent dropped to $103.76, with both benchmarks giving back more than $5 from their daily highs. The core trading logic in the market: whether expectations for diplomatic progress can be transformed into an actual restoration of supply, rather than already-confirmed facts.

Meanwhile, according to media reports, insiders revealed that Iranian officials are privately pessimistic about reaching an agreement before the US midterm elections in November, believing that the likelihood of escalating conflict after the November 3 elections is high. This stance stands in sharp contrast to the optimism seen in the market during the session and makes any unilateral oil price trend difficult to sustain.

Intense US-Iran diplomatic headlines drive algorithm-led intraday volatility

What truly sent oil prices on a "roller coaster" was the bombardment of US-Iran diplomatic headlines during the midday session.

As collated by ZeroHedge, intraday news appeared in chronological order: CNN reported that Trump was willing to exchange nuclear progress for sanctions relief, leading oil prices to fall; afterwards, Saudi media Alhadath reported that Iran had agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, causing further price declines; then, news came that Iranian officials were pessimistic about reaching a deal before the midterms, prompting a rebound; finally, US negotiators told Al Arabiya TV that "differences are significant and obstacles considerable," pressuring prices again.

Bloomberg analyst Frank Monkam pointed out that recent trading sessions have seen a resurgence of the so-called "VaR shock" strategy—relevant headlines tend to flood in around US Eastern Time noon, a period of thin liquidity. The logic is: Brent at $105–110 (WTI around $95) is a key threshold for the market—verbal pressure not only depresses prices but also forces traders to drastically scale back positions through induced volatility.

From the day's price movement, WTI fell from its intraday high of $96.54 down to $91.25, and Brent dropped from $108.83 to $103.76, with both giving back over $5 within just a few hours.

Saudi pipeline restart: supply-side pressure materializes first

The first tangible bearish factor weighing on oil prices that day came from the repair and restart of Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline.

According to a WallstreetCN article, The Wall Street Journal cited informed sources as saying that Saudi Aramco had started loading crude bound for the Red Sea port of Yanbu via the East-West pipeline on Sunday, with current throughput at about 3.5 million barrels per day. After the news was released, Brent’s gains moderated on Monday yet remained above $105 per barrel at one point.

This 750-mile pipeline traverses Saudi Arabia, connecting major oil-producing regions on the Persian Gulf coast with the Red Sea port of Yanbu—a vital alternative for Saudi oil exports bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. Its maximum capacity is 7 million barrels per day. The pipeline was shut after a drone attack on September 10; previously, daily shipments averaged 4 million barrels, around 4% of global supply.

During the pipeline outage, Aramco ramped up shipments from the Persian Gulf port Ras Tanura. Vessel tracking firm Kpler data shows Ras Tanura’s loadings jumped from about 1.5 million barrels a day in early September to roughly 6.5 million barrels. Now, with the East-West pipeline restarted, Saudi Arabia may see both export channels operate simultaneously, with total exports potentially exceeding pre-attack levels.

Capital Economics senior economist Hamad Hussain stated that if high export levels from the Persian Gulf persist, alongside the gradual restoration of Yanbu operations, Saudi’s overall crude exports might surpass pre-attack levels, potentially reversing the recent oil price rally. However, he also warned, “Given the threat posed by the Houthis to energy infrastructure, exporting from Yanbu remains far more difficult than at the start of the conflict.” Security risks on the Red Sea route remain a key variable constraining Saudi export recovery.

Nuclear issue becomes focus; "who acts first" stalemate persists

The framework for US-Iran diplomatic engagement is subtly shifting—the exchange between the nuclear issue and sanctions relief is replacing the previous focus on opening the Strait of Hormuz, becoming the new core of the two sides’ negotiations.

The WallstreetCN article mentioned that, on the 28th local time, CNN reported that a US official revealed Trump was willing to ease Iran sanctions and release frozen funds in exchange for Iran making “concrete progress” on the nuclear deal. The official noted that the US and Iran are having “active and constructive discussions” via mediators. Axios later cited several US officials echoing CNN’s report.

However, Trump later denied the report on his social media platform, stating, “This isn’t true, I made no concessions to them,” and demanded Axios retract the story.

Meanwhile, Saudi media Alhadath reported that Iran had agreed to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for US sanctions relief, and mediators are pressing Iran for concessions on its nuclear program. To date, however, this has not been officially confirmed by either Washington or Tehran and should not be considered a finalized agreement.

The core disagreement is 'who acts first': The US wants Iran to make substantive commitments on the nuclear issue first before arranging sanctions relief, while Iran’s prior plan demands that the US first ease military pressure, lift blockades, and relax sanctions. If Alhadath’s report is accurate, it would signal some give-and-take on sequencing, but such changes remain pending official confirmation.

Qatar mediates, but Iran privately pessimistic

On the diplomatic front, Qatar is working to restore indirect contacts between the US and Iran through mediators, but the two sides remain far from a substantive agreement.

According to a WallstreetCN article, Reuters reported that an official familiar with the talks disclosed that the Qatari mediation team would meet with Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi and US representatives on the 28th or 29th, focusing on Iran's revised "7-day plan" proposed during last week's United Nations General Assembly.

Iran’s previously proposed "7-day plan" includes stopping hostile actions in Iran and Lebanon, unfreezing billions in Iranian assets, lifting Iran oil sanctions, and ending US port blockades; in exchange, Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restart nuclear talks. Trump had publicly rejected the plan on September 26, but subsequently indicated that negotiators would continue engaging Iran this week.

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi expressed confusion over the US rejection of the "7-day plan," stating the US "may not have read the relevant documents" and demanding clarification. He emphasized that reopening the Strait of Hormuz depends on Iran’s conditions being met and indicated Iran is prepared for renewed conflict.

According to Bloomberg, informed sources revealed that Iranian officials are privately pessimistic about reaching an accord before the US midterm elections in November, believing the chance of conflict escalating after November 3 is relatively high. The Iranians also believe that talks during last week’s UN General Assembly in New York yielded minimal progress.

Military risk persists, multi-pronged dynamics continue

While diplomatic contacts progress, the risk of US-Iran military confrontation remains, which is a key reason for oil price risk premiums lingering.

According to Xinhua News Agency, citing US media, on the 14th of this month, a US military personnel boat was attacked by Iranian missiles in the Strait of Hormuz—eight marines, including seven soldiers and one officer, were injured due to smoke inhalation and developed symptoms such as headaches and possible traumatic brain injuries.

Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued a written statement on the 28th, emphasizing that Iran has “become independent and strong,” proclaiming “the days the enemy is nostalgic for are gone forever,” and asserting that enemy forces will be driven from the Arabian Sea in the future.

Legally, the head of Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, Abuzar Khirudi, said that Iran has formally complained to the International Civil Aviation Organization about US air traffic restrictions and has filed lawsuits regarding attacks on its airports, aircraft, and radar facilities with relevant organizations in The Hague.

Currently, the US and Iran are operating on military, diplomatic, and legal fronts simultaneously. The market is still trading on expectations of diplomatic progress rather than realized supply restoration. Significant differences remain on key topics such as Iran’s nuclear concessions, the scope of sanctions relief, and conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Whether the risk premiums that previously accumulated in crude prices can continue to fade depends on substantive verification from further diplomatic progress.