Market commentary is hopelessly trifling — where that means entirely insignificant — in the presence of war and human suffering.

Because there’s always a war going on somewhere, and considering the vast majority of humanity experiences some kind of suffering each and every day, market considerations can fairly be described as everywhere and always trivial.

So, why bother? To be honest, I don’t have a great answer for that, and I’ve never pretended to. Indeed, I’ve gone out of my way over the years to remind readers that stocks, bonds and all the rest are mere figments of our imagination, just like money in general and just like religion and all the other shared myths that help order (or, in too many cases, help shatter) our daily lives.

But, what can I do? Write, that’s what, and given the sheer amount of editorial energy I put into suggesting that a bullish reversal might be imminent for oversold bonds, I suppose I’d be remiss not to mention that Treasurys did manage to gain on Tuesday in a preordained, post-holiday catch up to futures.

It ended up an intermediates-led rally, with five- and seven-year yields richer by ~14bps, but 10- and 30-year yields fell double-digits as well.

Although I’m squarely in the bullish reversal camp, I’m by no means willing to say anything definitive about this bounce, which may well prove fleeting. The bullish impulse was attributed to a combination of Fed rhetoric which suggested officials are getting comfortable with the idea that the recent term premium repricing is tantamount to a rate hike (thus standing in, perhaps, for the “extra” hike telegraphed by the dots) and a safe haven bid tied to chaos in the Middle East.

I’m not sure Fed hawks determined to prove something about the institution’s credibility will ultimately decide that the extension of the Treasury selloff (whatever’s behind it) is sufficient to obviate another hike, although it certainly helps the dovish case that Philip Jefferson emphasized the need to “remain cognizant of the tightening in financial conditions through higher bond yields” while pondering “the future path of policy.” His remarks garnered a lot of attention on Monday and Tuesday.

Note that if officials continue to lean perceptibly in that direction (i.e., if they’re seen as inclined against another hike in light of the steady rise in yields), markets will fade the very hawkish repricing that policymakers are tentatively equating to a rate hike. They need to be aware of that. As ever, it’d be better if they just didn’t have so many speaking engagements, but there’s no use litigating that case.

Much as I’d like to say “I told you so,” I’m skeptical that Tuesday’s bid was an inflection point for beleaguered bonds. Nothing has changed fundamentally. Of course, that could change by the end of the week. PPI and CPI could easily tip the scales, but a warm read on core consumer prices could just as easily snuff out a nascent bond rally before it gets any traction at all.

And then there’s Wednesday’s 10-year supply (Tuesday’s three-year sale was a dud) and the September FOMC minutes. “In a typical environment, one might assume that an auction concession or jitters regarding a more hawkish tone from the Fed would be the base case outlook [but] war in the Middle East has shifted the market’s current focus,” BMO’s Ian Lyngen and Ben Jeffery said. “Given the array of potential outcomes on the geopolitical stage, we’re erring on the side of assuming investors won’t quickly return to trading the no-landing Fed narrative that has defined the last few weeks of trading in US rates.”