Any closure or reopening of Hormuz depends on any actions taken by Washington, Al Jazeera reports citing a senior Iranian official

Rhetoric tying the Strait of Hormuz to Washington's behaviour is a recurring feature of US-Iran escalatory cycles, and the phrasing here is the standard conditional formulation: Tehran frames the waterway as leverage whose use is contingent on the counterparty's next move, which historically has signalled deterrence rather than imminent action. Episodes of this kind have tended to transmit through crude prompt spreads, tanker freight and war-risk insurance premia before any physical disruption, since roughly a fifth of seaborne oil transits the strait and the market prices the probability of interruption rather than the interruption itself. The distinction that matters is between threats issued through unofficial or regional media channels, which have tended to fade without follow-through, and actual interdiction of shipping or mining, which is where sustained repricing has occurred. Prior form on both sides is for signalling of this type to run in parallel with back-channel contact, so concurrent diplomatic traffic is as informative as the headline tape. Worth watching are statements from the IRGC naval command as distinct from foreign ministry officials, any change in tanker routing or AIS behaviour in the Gulf, and whether Washington responds with force posture language rather than sanctions rhetoric, since that pairing has historically marked escalation steps.