War or peace talks? The market's answer: Rise first, then see, change if wrong

The current market is very much like a gambler who "places a bet first and then looks at the cards." The US and Iran are still negotiating, but funds are already voting with their feet—risk assets are fully rebounding.
The question is: Is this rally rational, or is everyone collectively pretending to sleep?
From a game theory perspective, both the US and Iran are actually engaging in "dual-track operations": negotiating to release goodwill on one hand, while increasing troops to raise the stakes on the other. This isn't a contradiction; it's classic negotiation strategy— the more you can fight, the more willing I am to negotiate terms.
But the market's problem is that it only looks at "talk" and ignores "fighting."
If the final outcome is a moderate compromise, such as extending the uranium enrichment limit, the market might surge briefly, but the sustainability is limited because the good news has already been overextended in advance.
If negotiations break down, it won't be a simple pullback but a risk re-pricing.
Current allocation advice:
Don't go all in, and don't go all out.
Keep core assets, reduce high-beta positions, and increase hedging assets, such as gold or cash-flow-stable assets.
In one sentence: The market is now making money on expectations, not on actual results. #美伊局势和谈与增兵博弈