"America has given Israel the green light to attack air defenses", Iraqi security sources say

Claims of this kind, sourced to unnamed security officials in a third country rather than to the principals, sit low on the confirmation ladder and have historically been prone to walk-back or quiet denial, so the headline trades on credibility until Washington or Jerusalem corroborates. The structural read is more durable than the specific claim: episodes in which the US is perceived to sanction or enable Israeli strikes have tended to mark step-ups in the regional escalation ladder, with the transmission running through the crude risk premium, freight and insurance costs on Gulf shipping, and haven bids in the dollar, yen, franc and gold, while regional equities and Israeli assets take the other side. The distinction that matters is between strikes on air defenses alone, which markets have historically treated as preparatory or degrading operations with contained follow-through, and any widening to energy infrastructure or direct exchanges with Iran, which is where oil supply risk becomes material rather than symbolic. Prior form on both sides is relevant: US public posture has typically coupled support for Israeli operations with pressure to keep them calibrated, and prior rounds of tit-for-tat strikes in the region have tended to spike and fade unless physical supply or shipping was actually disrupted. Worth watching is confirmation or denial from official channels, any movement in Gulf shipping insurance or tanker routing, and whether the rhetoric from Tehran shifts from deterrent to retaliatory.