Today Is “Bridge Day”

By Benjamin Picton, Senior Market Strategist at Rabobank

As traders return from the Easter break markets are again counting down to an ultimatum deadline set by President Trump. Trump took to Truth Social over the weekend to warn the Iranian regime to make a deal, threatening that Tuesday will be “Power Plant Day” and “Bridge Day” where infrastructure of that kind will be targeted by American forces if Iran does not open the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has set a deadline of 8pm ET for a deal to be reached; Iran has said that it will retaliate against energy and water infrastructure of Gulf states if it is struck.

So, today is ‘Bridge Day’, but will it be a day for burning bridges, or building them?

WILD FOOTAGE 🔴

A tanker blast near the Bridge of the Americas in Panama City ignited a major fire that spread to 2 additional storage units at the Balboa tank facility. Reports of 3 injuries, no foul play suspected (as of now) pic.twitter.com/GeAcicCVQe

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) April 6, 2026

US equity futures are pointing slightly negative in early trade. Ten-year sovereign yields are mostly lower, short yields are mixed, and hints of haven buying are again evident in precious metals, the Swiss Franc and Japanese Yen. Bitcoin is selling off in early trade after catching a sharper bid on Monday in continuation of a rally that has been underway since the Friday before last. Asian stocks have opened mixed with Chinese indices down slightly, the Nikkei mostly unchanged and the Aussie ASX is rallying to be up 1.5% at time of writing.

Axios reported over the weekend that the US and Iran were discussing terms for a 45-day ceasefire, but that prospects for agreement are slim. This puts us firmly back into ‘escalate to de-escalate’ territory, while also pushing us further along the severity spectrum where the Strait remains closed for longer and damage to economic infrastructure means that ‘re-opening’ does not imply any kind of rapid snap-back for the global economy.

Infrastructure damage is mounting. Israel recently struck Iranian petrochemical infrastructure at the South Pars gas field. Iran retaliated by launching ballistic missile strikes against Saudi Arabia’s Al-Jubail industrial city – the world’s largest petrochemicals production cluster. The WTI front future is up 0.7% this morning to $113.15/bbl, while dated-Brent closed at $141.26/bbl on Thursday – highlighting the wide spread between physical crude and the front future ($109.88/bbl), which is now the June contract.

Reports have emerged that Iran has issued a new 10-point peace plan via intermediaries to the United States. Axios reports comments from a US official calling the Iranian plan “maximalist” while Israeli PM Netanyahu has reportedly warned Trump against agreeing to a ceasefire plan. Trump himself has said that Iran’s overture was “significant” but “not good enough”.

According to the New York Times, the Iranian plan reportedly includes:

A permanent end to the war, rather than just a ceasefire
Guarantees that Iran would not be attacked again
An end to Israeli strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon
Lifting of all sanctions
Ending the de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz
Implementing a $2 million per ship Hormuz transit fee to be split with Oman
Iran’s share of the proceeds to be used for reconstruction in lieu of reparations

Notably absent is any mention of missile caps, missile production, uranium enrichment or what happens with the 500kg of uranium that Iran has already enriched close to weapons grade. Given that the entire rationale for the war has been ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions and dismantling its ability to sprint for a nuclear weapon behind the shelter of a conventional weapons deterrent, these are likely to be non-negotiables for the United States. Consequently, the risk of the US running out of patience and initiating large strikes on Iranian electricity and transport infrastructure is very real.

While the short term implications of the war are stealing the headlines this morning, the longer-term implications are potentially much more important. The FT and the Australian media are carrying stories of surging demand for electric vehicles as the oil shock prompts consumers to seek to reduce their exposure to the oil supply chain, but perhaps the most acute consequence of the war is the rift opening between the United States and other NATO allies.

Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO (and some non-NATO) allies in recent days for failing to lend a hand in the war against Iran. Spain, France and Italy have either fully closed or placed restrictions on US military operations within their airspace, as has Austria. The UK initially dragged its feet before offering limited support to the Americans while continually emphasizing that this is not Britain’s war and that it is not involved in offensive operations. Similarly, France recently joined with Russia and China at the UN Security Council to block a resolution backed by Gulf states to authorize the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz by force – insisting that the Strait will only re-open with the cooperation of Iran.

Needless to say, these actions have gone down like a lead balloon in Washington where senior officials are now publicly questioning what strategic purpose NATO serves for the United States. The argument goes that the US incurs great cost to maintain bases and forward deployment of troops to protect Europe, but is then stymied by Europeans when it seeks to use those assets for its own purposes. From the US perspective, NATO is a one-way street.

There is already a deep sense in Washington that Europe has been free-riding on US military might for years by under-investing in its own capabilities. This state of affairs might be hard enough to stomach on its own, but when it is combined with European moralising over the appropriate uses of military force it becomes untenable. As noted here last week, this puts the Greenland question back into play as European assurances over access to bases appear increasingly insincere.

On the European side, French President Macron (fresh from being subjected to personal slights by Trump) has echoed Canadian PM Mark Carney in calling for greater cooperation among medium-sized powers to stand up against the United States and China. It is unclear how this would work, or could work, given the disparate interests of prospective partners and the lack of economic integration between them.

For a comprehensive architecture that could truly withstand outside pressure from would-be hegemons, thought would need to be paid to mutual defence, the balancing of trade flows and capital market integration. All of these items have eluded the European Union for decades, despite its smaller size and advantage of common geography. It similarly eluded the British Empire, despite having the benefit of a unifying British culture amongst its dominions.

This latent re-ordering of the international security architecture is not playing out in isolation. It should be remembered that another major war continues to rage in Ukraine. Ukraine has managed to do substantial damage to Russian economic (oil) infrastructure in recent weeks even as the rest of the world is desperate for more oil to come to market. Ukraine is now offering its drone warfare expertise to the Gulf states, while Russia continues to support Iran militarily. Europe and the United States continue to view this as two distinct conflicts where each has a direct interest in one, but not the other.

As we approach the deadline for escalation a significant ‘what if’ lingers: If the lines between the two conflicts continue to blur and two coalesce into one, who then will say “not our war”?