Iran reiterates that regional countries should prevent the US from using their territory for attacks against Iran

The mechanism that matters for pricing is not the rhetoric itself but whether it alters the calculus of states hosting US assets, since their cooperation shapes the feasibility of any strike and the breadth of any Iranian response. The established market channel runs through crude, via the risk premium on supply and shipping rather than through any immediate disruption; comparable episodes have tended to add a modest geopolitical bid to oil and freight insurance that fades if no kinetic follow-through materialises. The distinction worth drawing is between signalling aimed at deterring action and signalling that precedes it: the former typically coincides with back-channel diplomacy, the latter with visible force posture changes and evacuation advisories. The tells are movement in Gulf state statements, US force disposition in the region, and any shift in tanker routing or insurance rates through the Strait of Hormuz. As a reiteration rather than an escalation, this sits in the lower tier of the headline hierarchy.