Iran President Pezeshkian says "We will not yield to force, but we are not seeking war or aggression either."; "If the pressure and threats against Iran stop, there will be no reason for the tension to continue".

• There is no gap between the government and the armed forces.
• In relation to our neighbors, we have solved many of our problems and relations have improved a lot. 

Statements of this kind from Iranian leadership have tended to serve a dual function: signalling resolve domestically while leaving a conditional off-ramp open, and the pattern across past tension episodes is that the conditional clause is where the market signal sits. The established sequence in these cycles runs from rhetoric to proxy or maritime incidents to direct exchange, and de-escalatory language of this sort has historically trimmed the geopolitical premium in crude and the safe-haven bid in gold and the yen only when corroborated by movement on the ground rather than repeated in words. The assertion of unity between government and armed forces is a standard accompaniment and carries little information on its own; the more relevant tell is whether back-channel contacts, sanctions posture, and shipping behaviour around the Gulf begin to align with the softer framing. Distinction worth drawing is between headline-driven fades in the energy risk premium, which have frequently reversed within sessions on a fresh incident, and sustained repricing, which has required verified steps rather than presidential remarks. What bears watching is the response from Washington and regional actors, since conciliatory framing absent reciprocal signalling has tended to decay quickly. As rhetoric rather than action, this sits at the low end of the escalation ladder.