Iranian Foreign Ministry says that the "Islamabad agreement has not collapsed and the possibility of returning to it remains", Al Arabiya reports

Statements of this kind, where a foreign ministry insists a stalled diplomatic framework has not collapsed, typically arrive after reports or counterpart claims to the contrary, and their market content lies less in the reassurance than in the fact reassurance was needed. The established pattern in Middle East diplomatic processes is that both sides keep the language of viability alive even through extended deadlocks, since formally declaring an agreement dead carries escalation costs that keeping it on life support does not. For the oil complex the relevant distinction is between a genuine negotiating track, which eventually prices through expectations for sanctioned supply returning to market, and rhetorical maintenance, which tends to fade from pricing within sessions. Iran's foreign ministry has historically been the softer of the state's voices on such matters, so the more informative tell is whether the more security-aligned institutions echo the line or contradict it. Follow-ons worth noting are any counterpart response, whether back-channel intermediaries are referenced by name, and whether the remarks coincide with movement in regional freight and insurance pricing rather than the crude curve itself. As a single-sourced wire item carried via a regional broadcaster, confirmation across other channels is the usual first checkpoint.