A US official told Al Jazeera says Washington is in a strong position and controls the Strait of Hormuz, therefore we are not in a hurry to reach an agreement with Iran

Statements asserting control of the Strait of Hormuz sit in a well-worn negotiating pattern: both Washington and Tehran have historically signalled leverage over the chokepoint ahead of and during mediated talks, and the rhetoric has tended to intensify precisely when back-channel discussions are live, as the reported constructive contacts here confirm. The relevant distinction for crude is between rhetorical escalation and physical disruption; past episodes of this kind have produced risk premia that faded quickly absent interference with actual tanker traffic, while genuine supply events in the strait have been rare and short-lived given the mutual exposure of the parties. The reported transit volumes over the past 48 hours are the operative tell: uninterrupted flow alongside tough language is the classic negotiating posture, and freight rates, war-risk insurance premia and tanker tracking through the strait are the channels that historically reprice first if posture shifts to action. A 'not in a hurry' framing from the US side reduces the near-term probability of a sanctions-relief agreement, which in prior cycles has been the mechanism by which Iranian barrels return to market; the follow-ons are the pace of the mediated talks, any parallel enrichment or inspection headlines, and whether rhetoric from either side moves from capability claims to threats against shipping. As it stands this is positioning, not an event.