Will Trump go to war with Iran? How will this affect Bitcoin?

null Current Situation

In mid-January 2026, the market is facing not an announced war plan, but a rapid escalation coupled with an intentionally ambiguous official stance: the U.S. has begun withdrawing or advising the withdrawal of some personnel from key Middle Eastern regions, including Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. According to the Financial Times, approximately 10,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed there; Reuters also pointed out that as regional tensions escalate and Iranian officials warn of retaliation if the U.S. launches strikes against Iran, the U.S. has taken preventive personnel withdrawal measures. For investors, the most important signal is that these actions are not merely “verbal deterrence” or media operations—relocating personnel and assets incurs high costs in reality and is usually not done for show; however, at the same time, these measures do not constitute confirmation of imminent military action, meaning the market is pricing in a “probability distribution” rather than a single certain outcome.

Why this change is quickly reflected in asset prices

When geopolitical risks rise from background noise to actionable tail risks, the first assets to react are often those directly pricing uncertainty. This week's market movements exemplify this: Reuters reported that on January 14, 2026, spot gold briefly hit a record high of $4,639.42 per ounce, and spot silver also broke through $90 per ounce for the first time. The rally was attributed to a combination of rate cut expectations and geopolitical uncertainty; the following day, as Trump signaled a “pause and observe” approach, gold retreated and profit-taking occurred. This process is significant because it indicates that the current market is in a state where investors are willing to pay a premium for safe-haven assets when the situation remains unresolved; but once official statements tilt toward de-escalation, panic sentiment can be quickly digested.

Bitcoin's position in this macro environment

Bitcoin's response is often simplistically categorized as either “risk asset” or “safe haven asset,” but a more accurate description is that it is a macro asset highly sensitive to liquidity. Its short-term movements depend on whether the dominant transmission pathway in the market is “panic” (which could push the dollar higher and tighten financial conditions) or “hedging demand” (which drives funds toward non-sovereign store-of-value assets). In this round of events, Bitcoin clearly participated in the rally of “macro hedge assets.” Bloomberg reported that on January 14, 2026, Bitcoin surged to $97,694 during trading, with a single-day increase of up to 3.9%, reaching the highest level since mid-November; simultaneously, this rally liquidated over $500 million in short crypto options positions, indicating a significant release of market structural pressure.

The core issue is not “whether to use force,” but “how to escalate”

For the market, what is more tradable than the question “Will Trump launch strikes?” is the nature and scale of potential escalation, and its impact on oil prices, the dollar's trajectory, and global liquidity. Even within the “digital gold” narrative framework, these variables continue to dominate Bitcoin's short-term direction. If the conflict is contained within a limited timeframe and does not affect energy supplies, markets can often quickly absorb the shock, especially in a context of accommodative monetary policy expectations; but if escalation involves regional energy disruptions or triggers broader retaliatory actions, risk assets—including highly leveraged positions in crypto markets—may face liquidity tightening pressures.

What to focus on next

The key to determining whether the market has moved from a “risk premium phase” into a “crisis mode” is not a single news item, but whether preventive actions evolve into sustained military posture adjustments, and whether official statements become consistent across different agencies. Isolated defensive measures may simply reflect caution, whereas coordination across agencies and regions usually indicates a higher intent to act. Current public reports show that Reuters emphasizes the preventive evacuations prompted by Iranian warnings, while the Financial Times and Associated Press focus more on U.S. efforts to reduce potential retaliation risks. Together, these depict a strategy of “preparing for volatility but not yet committing to action.”

Conclusion

From publicly available information, it is impossible to confirm whether Trump will necessarily take military action against Iran, but the market has already regarded this possibility as an unavoidable risk. This explains why traditional safe-haven assets like gold have hit new highs, and also why Bitcoin has risen to around $97,000 amid macro risk aversion. The future direction of Bitcoin is likely not determined by a single breaking headline, but by whether the evolving situation increases the probability of energy shocks and dollar strength (which is usually adverse for liquidity-sensitive assets), or further enhances the hedging demand in an environment of political and monetary uncertainty— in the latter case, Bitcoin has historically benefited alongside gold multiple times.