Iranian Foreign Minister says US' goal from the war is Iran’s surrender, and we will not surrender; adds America is begging to negotiate with us now "according to our terms", Al Jazeera reports

• The memorandum of understanding we signed with the United States included 13 items in favor of us and one item in favour of them.
• Our military and field capabilities are what gave our diplomacy strength in negotiations.
• We have won the war and diplomacy as well, and we have forced the enemy to accept our terms.

Rhetoric of this kind from an Iranian foreign minister, maximalist in public while a negotiating channel exists underneath, is a familiar feature of past US-Iran escalations and de-escalations alike. In comparable episodes, public victory claims and refusal-to-surrender language have more often been positioning ahead of talks than a signal that talks are dead; the tell has historically been whether the rhetoric is paired with continued back-channel contact and a pause in kinetic activity, rather than the language itself. The reference to a signed memorandum, if it maps onto an actual framework, is the substantive element and would mark the shift from escalation management to terms-setting. For crude, the established transmission runs through the geopolitical risk premium and, beyond it, freight and insurance costs on Gulf transit and any threat to actual export flows rather than headline noise; premia built on rhetoric alone have tended to fade once physical supply is confirmed uninterrupted. The distinction worth drawing is between a diplomatic track that caps the tail risk of supply disruption and one that eventually puts sanctioned barrels back on the market, the two pulling front spreads and the curve in opposite directions. Follow-ons are confirmation of the referenced understanding, any movement on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and the tone of the US response.