Iraqi Islamic Resistance says we postponed the response to Saudi Arabia, Fars reports

Threat rhetoric from Iraqi-aligned militia groups directed at Gulf producers has a familiar pattern: statements of intent, or of postponed intent, tend to be co-ordinated signalling rather than standalone operational updates, and the language of deferral has historically served to keep pressure priced without triggering retaliation. The relevant precedent set is attacks or threatened attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and shipping, where the market's response has depended on whether rhetoric converts to physical disruption; words alone have typically added only a thin risk premium to crude that fades absent follow-through. The transmission channel, were anything to materialise, runs through Saudi export capacity and Gulf transit risk, feeding front-month WTI and Brent and refining margins rather than the back of the curve, with insurance and freight costs the early tell. The distinction worth drawing is between threats aimed at Saudi directly and the more common pattern of strikes on softer regional targets, which have tended to move prices briefly before mean-reverting. Follow-ons are any corroborating reporting from regional wires, Saudi or US official response, and actual movement in Gulf shipping or security posture. As it stands this is rhetoric, and episodes of this kind have more often de-escalated verbally than escalated physically.