An Iranian official says US President Trump's talk about bombing Iran is illogical and has no effect; his statements are absurd and have no impact, Al Mayadeen reports

Rhetorical exchanges of this kind between Washington and Tehran have recurred across prior rounds of tension and have typically been absorbed by crude and Gulf risk premia only when accompanied by movement on the ground: tanker incidents, proxy activity, sanctions enforcement shifts, or actual military repositioning. Dismissive responses from Iranian officials are the standard opening sequence in these cycles, serving to signal that escalation talk has not produced deterrence, and they tend to precede either quiet de-escalation through back channels or a gradual hardening of posture on both sides. The actor on the Iranian side matters less than the channel it runs through; wire service and regional media framing often marks this as message discipline rather than policy. The established transmission to markets, when it occurs, runs through Brent via expected supply disruption and freight and insurance costs in the Strait of Hormuz, not through the rhetoric itself. What carries signal from here is whether the exchange moves from words to measures: naval deployments, IRGC activity, or any shift in enforcement of existing sanctions. Absent those follow-ons, comparable episodes have faded from pricing within sessions.