Iran President Pezeshkian says despite US attacks, we never left the negotiating table

Signals of this kind, a head of state asserting that negotiations remain open despite kinetic escalation, form a familiar sequence in Gulf flare-ups: strike, then a prompt effort to reframe the exchange as ongoing diplomacy via intermediaries. On past occasions the telling element has not been the statement itself but whether the channel is confirmed by the counterparty and by the mediators who typically carry it; a unilateral claim that the table remains open has historically capped, rather than resolved, the risk premium. For crude, the relevant distinction is between attacks that disrupt physical supply or transit and ones that are managed for signaling value; premium built on the latter has tended to unwind through prompt spreads and options skew once diplomatic channels are verified, while actual supply or shipping exposure keeps it bid. The declared status here, proposals being compiled and routed through mediators, is procedural rather than substantive, and comparable episodes have often continued such exchanges even while strikes persisted. The meaningful follow-ons are confirmation from the receiving side, any disclosed text from the mediating channel, and whether military activity escalates or pauses in step with the talking claims. Absent those, remarks of this kind are directional sentiment, not a change in the underlying question of supply or sanctions.