Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei says "we are in a situation where it is not possible to talk about a return to the understanding, and the reason is clear because the American side has violated it", Tasnim reports

• Full: "We are in a situation where it is not possible to talk about a return to the understanding, and the reason is clear because the American side has violated it. It was the United States that started the war, violated the understanding, and attacked again. It is the United States that must be held accountable by the international community".

Statements of this kind from an Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson follow a familiar script in past negotiating breakdowns: assign blame, invoke international accountability, and condition any return to talks on the counterparty making amends first. Historically this language has tended to signal a pause or hardening of position rather than a definitive rupture, with back channels and intermediary mediation typically reopening after a cooling interval. The transmission channel into crude is well established: the risk premium embedded in front-month WTI and Brent around Iranian supply, the prospect of tighter sanctions enforcement on existing export flows, and the tail risk around Gulf transit, which typically shows up in freight rates, war-risk insurance, and the front end of the curve moving into or deepening backwardation before flat price fully adjusts. The reference to an attack introduces a military dimension, and episodes where rhetoric follows kinetic events have tended to carry a more persistent premium than purely diplomatic friction. Worth noting is the sourcing: Tasnim is aligned with the security establishment, so the framing likely reflects the harder line within the system rather than the negotiating camp. The follow-ons that matter are any shift in enrichment posture, the response from Washington and European signatories, and whether mediators signal continued contact.