An Iranian political and security source told Al-Mayadeen the Strait of Hormuz has not been opened, and Iran has not made any change or even modification to its policy.

• We warn any ship that violates the existing Iranian procedures and regulations in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Large ships cannot cross due to the existing risks.
• If any ship makes the mistake of not complying with Iranian procedures, it may face technical problems or safety risks.

Statements of this kind through affiliated regional media are a recurring feature of Hormuz tension cycles, and the pattern is worth noting: formal closure of the strait has historically been threatened far more often than attempted, with actual disruption more often arriving through harassment, seizures, or ambiguous incidents than through declared blockade. The operative language here is procedural rather than declaratory, warning of consequences for non-compliance with Iranian regulations, which in past episodes has functioned as a mechanism for raising friction without assuming responsibility for closure. The transmission channel is freight and insurance: war risk premia and tanker availability have tended to move crude delivered costs before any physical shortfall materialises, and the distinction that matters for pricing is between deterrence signalling and an actual reduction in transit volumes. The tells worth tracking are tanker traffic counts through the strait, insurance rate quotes on Gulf loadings, and whether the rhetoric is matched by naval positioning or seizures. Verbal escalation alone has tended to fade from prices unless followed by a kinetic or interdiction event.