The US-Iran conflict has lasted for nearly two months, and the performance of energy stocks, the Nasdaq, and gold has been unexpected. How should we analyze this geopolitical trade? It has been two months since the US and Israel launched their joint attack on Iran. On February 28th, the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and the sudden closure of the Strait of Hormuz seemed like a predictable market formula – war breaks out, oil prices rise, safe-haven demand increases, gold surges, and tech stocks are under pressure. However, the capital markets of 2026 have presented a more complex and counterintuitive answer: gold did not continue its upward surge along the traditional safe-haven logic, but instead fell sharply from its January high; the Nasdaq ETF first fell from positive returns to negative territory this year, then quickly recovered amid expectations of a ceasefire; the real leaders were not gold or copper, but US energy assets far from the conflict zones in the Middle East, with stable production capacity and cash flow. Even more bizarrely, the script on the battlefield has been repeatedly rewritten – hot war, ceasefires, strait blockades, and negotiation stalemates – and the script in the capital markets has also turned several pages. Looking back at this 60-day conflict, the market has come to realize that war is a pricing chain that transmits through energy supply, inflation expectations, interest rate paths, the strength of the dollar, and asset valuations. Not only has the old formula "war = buy gold" failed, but the pricing logic of "war" in global capital markets is also being completely rewritten. I. 60 Days, Three Stages Let's first outline the timeline. Looking back at this conflict, it can be roughly divided into three stages: Hot War Impact (February 28 – Early April): After the US and Israel attacked Iran, Iran retaliated against Israeli and US targets with missiles and drones, obstructing passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The global energy market quickly entered a tense state, leading to a rapid rise in oil prices and a revaluation of energy stocks. Gold, on the other hand, plummeted by about 20% from its January high of nearly $5,600; Ceasefire Negotiations (Early April – April 21): As regional mediation progressed, expectations of a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz emerged between the US and Iran. Risk assets began to recover, with the Nasdaq ETF QQQ showing signs of recovery.M rebounded rapidly from its lows, with the market trading on the assumption that "the worst-case scenario might not happen." However, the Strait of Hormuz has not truly returned to stable navigation, and events such as the US blockade, Iran's seizure of merchant ships, and the breakdown of negotiations continue to occur. The stalemate and reversals (April 22 – present): Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire, but the US blockade and Iran's seizure of merchant ships continued simultaneously, leaving the situation suspended in a state of "neither war nor peace." The market gradually recovered from its panic, with the Nasdaq rebounding from -8.4% year-to-date to +8.21%, and oil prices falling from above $110. However, the Strait of Hormuz has not truly reopened to traffic. It is precisely in these three phases of tug-of-war that the market has gradually realized that it should no longer simply trade on the single variable of "the start of war" or "the end of war." Instead, how the war changes energy, inflation, interest rates, and the dollar is the core of pricing. As of April 26, the performance of several core asset classes has already illustrated this point: more noteworthy is the ranking of assets. Sixty days ago, the market was extremely polarized: energy stocks surged, gold plummeted, and the Nasdaq turned negative. Now, most assets have returned to positive territory (especially QQQ.M), but the ranking remains unchanged—energy stocks are still the strongest asset class in this conflict. This further illustrates that the market's pricing of this war is not a binary choice of "safe haven vs. risk," but rather a continuous transmission along the chain of "oil price—inflation—interest rate—dollar—valuation," starting from the energy supply shock. II. Why the old formula "war = buy gold" fails. Therefore, understanding the core of this 60-day market trend's "counterintuitive" nature lies in dissecting the transmission chain. After all, the most counterintuitive aspect of this market trend is gold. With the outbreak of war, the strait blockade, and soaring oil prices, gold should logically be the most direct safe-haven choice. However, in reality, gold did not continue to accelerate its rise in the early stages of the conflict; instead, it fell significantly from its January highs. On the surface, this appears to be a "failure of safe haven," but if we dissect the macroeconomic transmission chain, we find that gold's performance actually reflects the other side of the trade war: stronger expectations of tightening. The first layer of transmission comes from oil prices: the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, and the uncertainty of crude oil and LNG transportation has increased sharply. The rise in energy prices quickly turned from geopolitical premiums into inflationary pressures. For the market, this means that the Federal Reserve cannot easily turn to easing and may even need to maintain a high-interest-rate environment for a longer period of time.The second layer of transmission comes from interest rates and the US dollar: higher real interest rates increase the opportunity cost of holding gold, while a stronger dollar makes dollar-denominated gold more expensive for non-US buyers. A Reuters report in late April on gold's trajectory also mentioned that rising oil prices pushed up inflation and interest rate expectations, thus putting pressure on gold through the dollar and yield channels. The third layer of transmission is the backlash from the crowded trade itself: before the war, gold had already experienced an extreme surge, rising from less than $3,000 in early 2025 to near its peak in January 2026. When a trade is too crowded, a sudden shock may cause funds to not continue adding to their positions, but rather to lock in profits. For some short- to medium-term funds, war is not a new reason to buy, but rather a window to realize profits. This is why the old formula "war = buy gold" seems too crude in this market trend. Gold remains a safe-haven asset, but it is not priced in a vacuum. As long as the war pushes up energy prices, inflation expectations, and real interest rates, gold will simultaneously face the pull of both safe-haven demand and tightening pressure. In other words, gold didn't ignore the war; it was simply reacting to its economic consequences. In contrast, the Nasdaq ETF's performance resembled a high-volatility stress test. After the outbreak of war, QQQ.M plummeted from positive returns at the beginning of the year into negative territory, with the technology sector experiencing significant capital outflows, and high-valuation growth assets giving way to energy, value, and sectors with more certain cash flow. However, when ceasefire expectations emerged, the Nasdaq quickly recovered, returning to positive returns for the year. The logic behind this rebound isn't mysterious; it mainly benefited from improved ceasefire expectations, a decline in oil prices from their peak, marginal easing of inflationary pressures, and a repricing of the possibility of interest rate cuts, allowing growth stock valuations to recover. However, the problem lies in the fact that every link in this chain is not yet fully confirmed. The Strait of Hormuz has not yet returned to stable navigation, negotiations are still ongoing, oil prices remain high, and the basis for the Fed's shift is not solid. Therefore, the Nasdaq ETF's rebound is more like a "risk appetite recovery" than a complete relief of macroeconomic pressures. III. Gold fell; who are the biggest winners? The answer is energy stocks. In this round of market activity, what the market is truly willing to pay a premium for is not an abstract sense of security, but rather verifiable, deliverable energy supply capabilities located away from conflict zones. This includes, for example, US energy giants that are far from the epicenter of Middle Eastern conflicts, possess stable production capacity, have more controllable transportation routes, and more certain cash flow. This explains the performance of OXY.M, XOM.M, and CVX.M's gains significantly outpaced those of gold ETF tokens and Nasdaq ETF tokens because the market's risk aversion logic has shifted from "buying gold" to "buying certain supply," and from "hiding in non-interest-bearing assets" to "holding cash flow assets that can benefit from supply shortages." This is one of the most noteworthy changes in the 2026 war. While geopolitical risks have not disappeared, the way capital markets react to them has clearly changed. The linear reflex of "war outbreak—risk escalation—buy gold" is being replaced by a more complex transmission framework: the market no longer trades solely on the war itself, but rather analyzes how the war will affect energy supply, inflation paths, interest rate expectations, the strength of the dollar, and the distribution of profits in the industrial chain, ultimately repricing the risk-reward ratios of different assets. For investors, the key is no longer just judging whether "the war will escalate," but further determining which chain of the conflict will affect the market, what tools should be used to express their views, and the choices must be more refined than ever before. If the conflict remains deadlocked, uncertainty persists regarding passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and oil prices remain high, then energy-related US stock tokens such as OXY.M, XOM.M, and CVX.M may remain a more direct indicator, as they trade on the revaluation of "secure supply" and "energy cash flow." If a ceasefire is truly implemented, passage through the strait gradually resumes, oil price pressures ease, and the market reprices expectations of interest rate cuts, then previously pressured technology growth assets may continue to recover. Tokens like QQQ.M (Nasdaq ETFs) would be more suitable to capitalize on the recovery in risk appetite. If pressure on the US dollar and real interest rates begins to ease, the precious metal attributes of gold and silver may regain pricing power. Tokens like GLD.M (Gold ETF) and SIVR.M (Silver ETF) are expected to regain elasticity, especially silver, which also possesses strong industrial attributes and is related to demand in photovoltaics, electronics, and AI hardware, potentially offering higher upside potential than gold. If global manufacturing, energy transition, grid upgrades, and AI data center expansion remain the main themes for the longer term, then CPER…The M Copper ETF token is more like a medium- to long-term structural tool. Although copper prices are affected by the US dollar, demand, and inventory in the short term, from a longer perspective, it remains one of the most important metals in the global infrastructure repricing process. It's worth noting that, from a trading structure perspective, for investors looking to participate in commodity market movements, the advantage of ETF tokens lies in their suitability for phased deployment and position management. Compared to directly trading futures or spot contracts, it avoids the more complex issues of delivery, rollover, and margin management, making it more suitable for expressing short- to medium-term swings or medium- to long-term allocation strategies. As for the Nasdaq ETF token, market divergence is equally clear. If investors believe that oil prices will remain high, inflation will continue to be sticky, and the interest rate environment will continue to suppress growth stock valuations, then shorting QQQ.M, or using SQQQ.M to 3x short the Nasdaq ETF token for hedging, might be a more direct risk management approach. If investors anticipate weaker non-farm payroll and inflation data, and the Federal Reserve re-emerges with easing signals, the tech sector is poised for a continued oversold rebound. In this case, going long on QQQ.M, or using TQQQ.M triple-leveraged Nasdaq ETF tokens to express a higher elasticity of recovery expectations, is also an option. Therefore, the focus here is not on providing a single correct direction. The market will never automatically gravitate towards a particular asset simply because of the word "war." What truly matters is whether investors can break down their macroeconomic judgments into tradable asset paths. For example, should they trade energy supply or interest rate declines? Should they bet on a precious metals recovery or a tech stock rebound? Should they go long on volatile, certain cash flows or hedge against the downside risks of overvalued assets? After all, in the new market environment, determining the direction is only the first step. More importantly, once you've formed a judgment, can you use sufficiently efficient, flexible, and low-barrier tools to translate that judgment into an executable trading strategy? Written 60 days before the end: If someone told you that the US and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, the Supreme Leader was assassinated, the Strait of Hormuz was closed, yet gold fell 16%; tech stocks initially fell 8%, then rebounded 8%, forming a V-shaped recovery in two months; few dared to heavily invest in energy at the beginning of the year, but OXY will rise nearly 40%; the Nasdaq and gold's year-to-date returns are almost identical (+8.21% vs +9.32%), while OXY is four times higher; you probably wouldn't believe it. But this is the market in 2026. The old logic hasn't completely failed, but it's no longer sufficient. The market, tempered by this 60-day conflict, has learned not to react simply to the keyword "war," but to dissect the economic transmission path of war, assess the credibility of a ceasefire, and dynamically price the stalemate.What we can do is not predict the next answer, but ensure we have the right tools when the answer emerges. In the global investment market under Trump, any possibility is real, and what we can do is not predict the next answer, but ensure we have sufficient and appropriate tools as the answer gradually becomes clear. The real dividing line is the ability to efficiently translate judgment into trades. [MSX Maitong]