Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei says Iran has demanded compensation for damage caused by the US-Israel war, while the Strait of Hormuz could reopen if no third party interferes, Al Jazeera reports

Statements pairing a conditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz with fresh demands on Washington follow a familiar pattern in past Gulf standoffs: Tehran has historically kept the strait open as the default while using the threat of closure, and the conditionality around it, as negotiating leverage rather than an operational signal. The demand for compensation for war damage is new framing, and demands of that kind have tended to function as a precondition-setting device that stalls rather than accelerates any settlement track. The refusal to hold talks while the interim deal is described as violated fits the established sequence in which public rhetorical escalation precedes quiet back-channel contact, not the reverse. For crude, the relevant transmission is the war-risk premium embedded in prompt spreads and in tanker freight and insurance rates through the strait, which have historically repriced faster on shipping incidents and insurance repricing than on foreign ministry commentary alone. The distinction worth drawing is between rhetoric about the strait and physical or insurance-market evidence of disruption; only the latter has durably moved the curve. The tells from here are any change in tanker traffic or war-risk premiums in the Gulf, and whether the compensation demand is repeated by officials above spokesperson level, which in past episodes has marked the difference between posturing and policy.