Trump’s remarks shift oil outlook toward Hormuz after Brent falls 16% in a week
Key Facts
U.S. President Donald Trump said in an interview broadcast by CBS on November 8 that he was not seeking to escalate the war with Iran, adding a political signal to oil markets’ debate over supply and shipping risks in the Gulf. The interview followed a week in which Brent crude posted a sharp decline, falling 16% to a two-month low of $93.22 a barrel, according to Reuters. It was the biggest weekly drop in crude since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The market focused on whether restraint in political escalation could ease the risks that had supported prices, while reports of vessels being hit near the Strait of Hormuz kept supply security in focus. Trump did not announce an agreement or settlement with Tehran in his remarks.
The previous week’s figures reflect the scale of Brent’s decline before the interview: it fell to $93.22 a barrel, its lowest level in two months, after losing 16% in a single week. Reuters described the decline as the steepest since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing to the speed of the price shift during that period. But the drop did not end supply concerns, as reports of vessels being hit near the Strait of Hormuz kept maritime risks in market calculations. The report also said oil flows from the Middle East remained elevated, a factor weighing on prices alongside concerns about shipping disruption. The remarks about avoiding escalation therefore coincided with opposing forces: downward pressure linked to flows and geopolitical risks linked to sea lanes.
In a technical reading of the market, an analyst at SS WealthStreet estimated that near-term support for Brent crude was at $93 a barrel. That level is being watched after prices touched $93.22, the two-month low the contract reached in the previous week. The significance of the support level depends on the factors surrounding the market, not technical analysis alone; the analyst said the geopolitical risk premium would remain in place unless there was diplomatic progress and a sustained normalization of shipping. That means Trump’s signal that he did not want escalation is not enough on its own to show that the risks traders are monitoring have disappeared. Vessel strikes near the strait also kept supply concerns alive despite the price decline.
Trump’s remarks come against a broader political backdrop following the U.S. midterm elections. The Associated Press reported that Democrats won control of both the House and Senate, and that Republicans linked the war and fuel prices to their party’s losses. This context places the war and energy costs among the issues prominent in U.S. political debate after the election, but it does not establish that the election result alone prompted a diplomatic path or removed the risk premium from oil prices. In the same “60 Minutes” interview, Trump said his deportation policy may have been too harsh, adding: “I think it may have been too harsh, yes.” The comment came in the same interview, while his statement on Iran was the one directly tied to expectations for escalation in the region.
Regionally, Qatar’s foreign ministry said in a statement issued on November 3 that Doha continued to support communication and mediation efforts between Washington and Tehran, with the aim of bringing positions closer. The ministry stressed that freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Gulf was “non-negotiable,” placing maritime transit security among its stated priorities. The position provides context for mediation efforts alongside continuing concerns about vessel movements, but it is not an announcement of progress toward an agreement. For the oil market, normalization of shipping remains a key factor in assessing whether geopolitical risks will recede, according to the analyst’s assessment of near-term support. Trump’s remarks and Qatar’s efforts remain political signals, while the available information included no details of an agreement or a date for new talks.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s outlook offers another reference point for prices. In its October forecast, it estimated that the Brent spot price would average $105 a barrel in the fourth quarter of 2026, up $14 from the previous month’s forecast. That estimate compares a projected quarterly average with Brent’s weekly low of $93.22; the figures cover different periods, and neither represents settlement at the other. The agency’s forecast also predates the news session and does not by itself determine the direction of prices after the weekly decline. Its reading remains tied to the agency’s estimate for the final quarter of the year, while in the near term the market is watching shipping and supply risks around Hormuz. EL7 data showed that West Texas Intermediate closed at $90.83 a barrel on November 6, while Brent settled at $98.32 in the same session.
Looking ahead, OPEC said the seven countries participating in the production decision would continue to hold monthly meetings to review market conditions, and set November 29, 2026, as the date of their next meeting. The date comes as markets track the balance of supply and demand factors and shipping risks, alongside the diplomatic track between Washington and Tehran. OPEC’s announcement did not specify a production change or an expected outcome from the meeting; it gave only the date of the regular review. Until then, $93 a barrel remains the near-term support level for Brent cited by the SS WealthStreet analyst, with the risk premium dependent on diplomatic progress and a sustained normalization of shipping. Market and political signals remain mixed, with weekly price declines, continuing maritime concerns and calls to avoid escalation.