Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker, offers a strategic piece of advice to investors monitoring the conflict with Donald Trump: when market movements are influenced by U.S. communications, consider taking the opposing stance.
In a post on X dated March 30, Ghalibaf characterized pre-market indicators from Washington as a tactic for “profit-taking” and essentially a “reverse signal.”
His concise directive: “If they inflate its value, sell it short. If they depress its value, acquire a long position.”
This comment emerges as global markets react dramatically to every nuanced message from Donald Trump concerning Iran, often reversing course within days, though this pattern is based on recent observations rather than comprehensive statistical analysis.
Heads-up: Pre-market so-called “news” or “Truth” is often just a setup for profit-taking. Basically, it’s a reverse indicator.
Do the opposite: If they pump it, short it. If they dump it, go long.
See something tomorrow? You know the drill.
— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) March 29, 2026
A recent chain of events demonstrates Ghalibaf’s viewpoint.
Around March 22-23, Trump stated that discussions with Iran were “progressing exceptionally well” and deferred potential attacks on its energy infrastructure. This signal implied a de-escalation of tensions. Markets reacted instantaneously, with U.S. stocks surging due to relief and oil prices declining as traders incorporated a reduced risk to supply, according to market data and contemporary reports.
This is precisely the type of market behavior Ghalibaf is cautioning against. LIVE UPDATES
The prevailing sentiment suggested easing tensions, leading to swift price changes. However, his framework prompts a question regarding the trustworthiness of such initial reactions.
Instead of pursuing the upward trend, a trader adhering to his logic would observe the same market movement and adopt the contrary position. This would involve shorting equities during the surge and purchasing oil after its drop, premised on the belief that the underlying conflict remained unresolved—an assumption that could prove incorrect if genuine de-escalation actually materializes.
Days later, the situation evolved.
Trump reverted to more severe warnings, including threats against Iranian infrastructure, even while continuing to reference negotiations. Simultaneously, Israeli strikes on Tehran and drone interceptions in Saudi Arabia brought the conflict back into sharp focus.
Markets reversed direction.
Equities were sold off as investors sought safer assets. Oil prices again climbed sharply amid renewed fears over supply disruptions.
This turnaround lies at the heart of Ghalibaf’s argument. Early “positive news” propelled stocks higher and oil lower. Subsequent events pulled both in the opposite direction. A trader who ignored the initial move would have been aligned with that market fluctuation in this particular instance, though similar scenarios may not always conclude in the same manner.
His broader assertion is that preliminary signals can briefly calm markets, providing major players with time to exit or reconfigure their positions before more challenging developments influence prices.
Information circulating among traders appears to support this perspective, although much of it originates from market surveillance, private transaction flows, and political scrutiny rather than formalized legal cases. One trader commented that Ghalibaf’s stance reflects underlying market realities.
“He is correct, and the data fully substantiates him,” the trader stated, pointing to significant positioning ahead of key announcements. The trader cited $580 million in oil futures traded moments before Trump’s initial peace comments, $1.5 billion in S&P 500 futures activity preceding a ceasefire indication, and new prediction market wagers placed days before the announcement. These figures are derived from public trading data and analyses by watchdog groups that have raised suspicions but have not yet resulted in findings of wrongdoing.
The same trader also highlighted an Israeli Air Force major charged with using classified intelligence to bet on a prediction platform, and regulatory friction in the U.S., as indications that information dissemination, not solely events, is driving trades.
On Monday, Indian stock markets experienced a significant decline, with both the Sensex and Nifty indices falling approximately 1.5% and extending steep losses from previous weeks, fueled by growing concerns of a broader conflict in West Asia. The sell-off followed reports in the Washington Post indicating U.S. preparations for several weeks of ground operations in Iran, and a statement from U.S. Central Command on X announcing the deployment of 3,500 Marines and sailors to the Middle East aboard the USS Tripoli, described as the most substantial American military buildup in the region in two decades.
Ghalibaf warned that Iranian forces were “awaiting American servicemen” and would “unleash a barrage of fire” upon any U.S. troops attempting to enter the country, accusing Washington of “publicly signaling negotiation” while clandestinely planning a ground assault, according to Iranian state media.
For everyday investors, the primary lesson is straightforward. The initial market reaction to a headline may not reflect the actual trend. For professional traders, the implication is sharper and more perilous. When markets respond swiftly to political cues, the opportunity for profit may lie in scrutinizing that reaction, rather than simply adhering to it.