From Horror to TACO: Trump's 12 Hours That Shocked the World

By Long Yue, Wall Street Insights

Eastern Time in the U.S., April 7, 2026, Tuesday, 8:06 a.m.

Trump posted a short message on the social media platform Truth Social: “Tonight, all civilization will perish, and can never be rebuilt.” He set a last deadline for Iran: before 8:00 p.m. that evening, either reach an agreement or face the consequences.

The post immediately triggered a chain reaction worldwide—from ordinary residents in Tehran, to trading floors on Wall Street, to emergency phone conferences among European diplomats.

This is the most dramatic instance of extreme pressure since Trump took office.

In addition, a commentary in The New York Times pointed out that Trump’s astonishing threat to “wipe out Iranian civilization” carries his usual, casual, cold-hearted cruelty, which has become his preferred communication style. Such extreme statements—even including war crimes that international law may define—were posted easily on Truth Social, alongside ads decorated with bullet-shaped pens, patriotic hats, and a dinner advertisement for a Mar-a-Lago event.

And with less than 90 minutes left until the deadline he had set for himself, Trump posted again, announcing that he had agreed to pause bombing operations against Iran for two weeks. According to Xinhua News Agency, that night Trump wrote on social media: “I agree to pause bombing and attack operations against Iran for two weeks.

From ‘all civilization will perish’ to ‘pause for two weeks,’ only ten hours and twenty-six minutes separated them.

However, this brief U.S.-Iran ceasefire is less about resolving the crisis than temporarily putting deeper contradictions on hold. If the two sides fail to reach an agreement, in two weeks Washington and Tehran could again be pushed to the brink of confrontation. Media analysis says that the fundamental issues between the U.S. and Iran that have lingered for years remain unresolved, and one of the core sticking points is Iran’s continually growing stockpile of enriched uranium in its nuclear program.

One post—while the world holds its breath

When Trump’s post appeared on screens, reactions around the world kicked off almost at the same time.

In Iran, many residents began preparing for power outages and disruptions to air supply. Reports say some people dug out old-fashioned camping stoves and refilled the oil tanks.

Less than 30 minutes after the post was sent, citing information from officials in Arab countries, the media reported that Iranian officials told Egypt that Tehran had cut off direct contact with U.S. negotiation representatives. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps also issued a warning right away: once the U.S. crossed the “red line,” Iran would “no longer hold back,” and would list Saudi Aramco, the Yanbu oil facilities, and the UAE’s Fujairah oil pipeline as potential strike targets.

When former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert read the message, Israeli air-raid sirens were sounding. He ducked into his own bomb shelter and, amid the alarm, stated: “I’m inclined not to take President Trump’s statement literally. I hope his intent is to destroy the regime, not to destroy Iranian civilization.”

At the same time, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine joined a daily video conference with Gen. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command. Reports said military planners had already been preparing potential strike options against Iran’s energy infrastructure and pulled up a target list that had been reviewed by military lawyers.

But the actual scale of that list was far smaller than the “every power plant in Iran will burn and explode” described in Trump’s post. It was reported that every target had to meet legality requirements: it must have a clear association with Iran’s military and security forces, and must not cause excessive harm to civilians. The report said that evening U.S. forces conducted strikes on more than 50 targets near Kharg Island in the Strait of Hormuz, but did not bomb oil infrastructure.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “The entire Department of Defense follows the president’s orders and will firmly carry out his military objectives.”

Wall Street: one eye on the screen, one eye on Truth Social

For the market, the day had a special tempo—it wasn’t dominated by battlefield updates like a traditional geopolitical conflict; it almost entirely moved up and down in step with every one of Trump’s social media posts.

As Wall Street Insights summarizes: over the past 12 hours, the market made sharp reactions to every statement, tweet, or media report:

In premarket trading, with the final deadline set by Trump—8:00 p.m. on the evening of the 7th Eastern Time—approaching, his rhetoric briefly pushed oil prices up by more than 3%.

In the early trading session, reports said Iran was no longer communicating directly with the United States. Then in Tuesday’s early session, losses in U.S. stocks widened further; the Nasdaq 100’s decline expanded to 1.5%, and crude oil moved higher again.

In midday trading, U.S. media, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that within the past 24 hours, negotiations between the United States and Iran had made some progress, and oil prices fell again.

In the late session (tail of the trading day), Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz said he requested that Trump delay the final deadline by two weeks; the three major U.S. stock indexes narrowed their declines again, and the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq narrowly closed higher.

After the market close, Trump extended the final deadline for Iran talks, saying Iran agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz. The decline in WTI crude futures deepened, while gains in S&P stock index futures and Dow Jones futures expanded to 1.7%.

Peter Boockvar, Chief Investment Officer of OnePoint BFG Wealth Partners, described the feeling: “Dizzying. One eye is on the market screen, the other on Trump’s Truth Social page.”

During this period, Citigroup also activated emergency arrangements similar to those used during a presidential election, pausing small code updates to trading tools and other operations that might slow system performance.

Tech investors and corporate executives’ group chats also quickly exploded after Trump’s posting. Even while on vacation, Bryan Lanza—former Trump adviser and now a corporate adviser—was still flooded with consultations from clients in the energy and financial industries. He urged everyone to stay calm and believed Trump would not truly carry out the threats.

Overall, Wall Street’s consensus was similar to that of several prior Trump-style deadlines: view them as negotiation tactics, not the prelude to real action.

Supporters waver; allies rarely speak up

Pressure is coming not only from the market, but also from within Trump’s political circle.

According to reports, inside the White House, some officials privately felt uneasy about the president’s post, believing his excessive focus on foreign affairs was distracting attention from domestic issues—issues that are key to winning public support.

On social media, Tim Pool, a web media personality with more than 2 million followers, said in an interview: “He’s trying to look threatening and crazy.” He warned that if Trump fails to follow through, “we’ll see the emperor without clothes… and that will be his last bet.”

Criticism from European allies was even more direct. France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated publicly: “A civilization cannot be erased.” One of Trump’s closest European allies, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, also rarely spoke out to criticize: “It must be clearly distinguished between a regime’s responsibility and the fate of millions of ordinary citizens. Iranian civilians cannot—and should not—pay the price for their leaders’ crimes.”

Pope Leo and actor Ben Stiller also called for stopping escalation through their respective public channels.

Pakistan offers a “step,” and Trump takes it

A diplomatic turn comes in the afternoon.

According to media reports, just after 3:00 p.m. local time on April 7, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly called on Trump to extend the final deadline by two weeks, pushing for a U.S.-Iran ceasefire, and also urged Tehran, during the same period, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as a show of goodwill. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded immediately: “The president has been informed about the proposal and will respond.”

Trump later told Fox News that the U.S. was in “intense negotiations.”

Throughout the afternoon, Trump and core aides held closed-door discussions in the Oval Office, weighing the pros and cons of all sides.

According to Xinhua News Agency, at 6:32 p.m. Eastern Time that evening, Trump posted on Truth Social, announcing that he would pause the planned strike operations: “Given that the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to open the Strait of Hormuz in a comprehensive, immediate, and safe manner, I agree to pause bombing and attack operations against Iran for two weeks.”

According to Xinhua News Agency’s comprehensive report, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council subsequently issued a statement confirming that it would hold two-week political negotiations with the United States in Islamabad, Pakistan, while also indicating that Iran has “complete lack of trust” in the U.S. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz confirmed that the two sides agreed to immediately cease hostilities at all locations starting from that day, and invited delegations from both the U.S. and Iran to travel to Islamabad on April 10 for further negotiations.

After the ceasefire: the fundamental issues remain unresolved

An article in The New York Times, citing the views of analysts, said that this short-term ceasefire may be a tactical success for Trump’s extreme pressure strategy, but the fundamental disagreements left by five weeks of fighting have not been resolved as a result.

The list of issues is fairly specific. Iran currently still holds about 970 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%—which is one of the nominal triggers for this war. The report said that if negotiations ultimately fail to remove it from Iranian territory, Trump would achieve less than what the Obama administration achieved in the 2015 nuclear deal, in a war that Trump would be “spending billions of dollars every day.” At that time, under the deal, Iran exported 97% of its nuclear stockpile out of the country.

In addition, Iran has demonstrated its ability to sustain an asymmetric war even after enduring more than 13,000 precision strikes—by blocking oil transport and launching cyberattacks against U.S. infrastructure.

Cracks have also appeared within the U.S. According to reports, some of Trump’s early supporters have begun publicly accusing the president and Vice President Vance of breaking the campaign promise of “not letting the United States get bogged down in messy wars in the Middle East.”

Two weeks later, when the ceasefire expires, whether negotiations can achieve substantive progress is something no one can provide a definite answer to. As Fontaine said: “Maybe it will ultimately work. But there’s also the possibility that when this war ends, the United States and the world will be in a worse position than before the war.”

According to Xinhua News Agency, some U.S. officials have also expressed concerns: if Iran cannot fully meet Trump’s demands, in two weeks Washington and Tehran could again be pushed to the brink of confrontation.

Ceasefire terms: Iran’s “ten-point plan”

Reaching a ceasefire does not mean differences are bridged; the truly thorny part lies in the negotiation terms.

According to Xinhua News Agency, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council released a ten-point ceasefire framework delivered to the U.S. through Pakistan. The core content includes:

• Coordinate with Iran’s armed forces to control passage through the Strait of Hormuz;

• End the war against all members of the “Axis of Resistance,” and end the aggression of the Israeli regime;

• Withdraw U.S. combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region;

• Establish a secure transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz to ensure Iran has a leading position;

• Fully compensate Iran for its losses based on the assessment results;

• Lift all first- and second-tier sanctions and related UN Security Council resolutions;

• Release all Iranian assets and property frozen overseas;

• Accept Iran’s uranium enrichment activities;

• Terminate the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and terminate the IAEA Board of Governors’ related resolutions;

• Stop frontline fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

According to CCTV News, an anonymous regional official also revealed that the ceasefire plan includes allowing Iran and Oman to charge transit fees for ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran will use that money for post-war reconstruction. This would be the first time transit fees have been levied in the history of this international waterway.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi issued a statement announcing that the Strait of Hormuz will achieve safe navigation within two weeks, but did not provide a specific date for restoration. In his statement, he emphasized that passage would be conducted under the control of “Iran’s armed forces.”

In response, Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, told The New York Times: “Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz, whereas it did not before the war. I find it hard to believe that the United States and the international community can indefinitely accept a situation in which Iran controls this critical energy chokepoint. That would be a worse outcome than before the war.”

Fontaine also noted that the ten-point plan submitted by Iran “reads like Iran’s pre-war wish list,” and that Trump agreed on the evening of April 7 to use it as a negotiating basis—despite the fact that only a few weeks earlier, he had been demanding that Iran “surrender unconditionally.”

Trump’s extreme rhetoric drew criticism: the world increasingly sees the U.S. as “mentally unstable and dangerous”

A commentary in The New York Times noted that Trump’s astonishing threat to “erase Iranian civilization” carries his customary, casual cruelty, which has become his preferred way of communication. Such extreme statements—even including war crimes that international law may define—were posted easily on Truth Social, alongside ads featuring a bullet-shaped pen, patriotic hats, and a dinner advertisement for a Mar-a-Lago event.

In the view of the president and his supporters, this is all part of Trump’s chaotic negotiation style, intended to push to end the conflict he staged himself and persuade Tehran to open the strait. Some presidential advisers even believe Trump’s escalating rhetoric is a negotiating strategy, showing that he is more inclined to look for a way out of the war rather than truly launch destructive attacks.

However, this “impulsive and unpredictable” leadership style is facing unprecedented questioning. Alex Wellerstein, a historian of nuclear conflict, said that even if the threats ultimately are not carried out, this violent rhetoric damages America’s credibility as a negotiator and its international standing, making the world increasingly view the U.S. as “mentally unstable and dangerous,” not “a reliable partner.”

Criticism inside the U.S. has also been rising. Right-wing podcast host Tucker Carlson said the president’s Easter message “undermines the holiest day in Christianity” and is “disgusting on every level.” He said openly that the act of using U.S. military force to destroy another country’s civilian infrastructure is “a war crime, a moral crime against the people of that country.”

Former director of the National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent also posted on X, saying: “Trump thinks he’s threatening Iran to make it destroy itself, but now the U.S. is the one in danger. If he tries to eradicate Iranian civilization, the U.S. will no longer be seen as a force for world stability, but as a maker of chaos—effectively ending our status as a superpower. ” Even some Republican lawmakers, such as Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, said “hopes and prays” that President Trump is only bluffing.

Although Trump previously had similar “scripts”—securing some kind of agreement by escalating threats and declaring victory—his continuing escalation of violent rhetoric has exposed a sense of frustration that he failed to achieve his goal by the previously delayed final deadline for strikes on infrastructure.