So here's what happened over the weekend: President Donald Trump went on Truth Social and said the U.S. would "hit and obliterate" Iran's power plants if the Strait of Hormuz stayed closed for more than 48 hours. That's the kind of language that makes markets nervous on a Monday morning.

Then, right before the stock market opened on Monday, he announced a shift. The U.S. had "very good and productive conversations" with Iran, he said, and would delay all planned strikes on energy infrastructure for five days.

This rapid reversal caught the attention of economist and market commentator Peter Schiff, who took to X to ask the obvious question: What's going on here?

"Trump used Truth Social to dramatically escalate the war on Saturday, only to do a complete 180 just before the stock market opened on Monday," Schiff posted. Then he offered three possibilities: "Is this Trump being a master negotiator, market manipulation, or just an indication that the President has no idea what he is doing?"

It's a fair question. The timing is interesting—Saturday escalation, Monday de-escalation right before trading begins. Markets don't love uncertainty, and this creates plenty of it.

The backdrop here matters. Last week's U.S. military action in Iran has already pushed oil prices higher and raised concerns about food and farming costs. When oil prices jump, everything gets more expensive, and that tends to show up in inflation numbers that the Federal Reserve watches closely.

The political fallout appears to be showing up too. An Emerson College poll conducted March 16–17 showed Trump's approval rating at 42%, down from 43% in February and marking his lowest since December. His disapproval rating fell to 51%, down from 55% the prior month. So while disapproval dropped more than approval, the overall trend shows some softening support as tensions rise.

Meanwhile, over on the cryptocurrency prediction market Polymarket, traders are betting real money on what happens next. The probability of U.S. troops entering Iran by the end of April rose from 42% to 57% in a week. The chance of a year-end invasion increased to 72% from 63%. Nearly $23 million was wagered on these outcomes, with only land operations qualifying. The platform has faced criticism for profiting from conflicts, which is a whole other ethical discussion, but the numbers show where speculative money thinks this is heading.

So we're left with Schiff's three options: master negotiator, market manipulator, or someone who's just figuring it out as he goes. The truth might be some combination, or none of the above. What we know for sure is that when a president threatens to "obliterate" a country's infrastructure over the weekend and then calls it off on Monday morning, markets notice, poll numbers shift, and people start asking questions about what happens next.