Iranian lawmaker Qashqawi said there are no discussions with the US or talks on the nuclear issue, adding that US sanctions amount to war; lasting peace can only be pursued once the military, economic and media conflict ends, SNN reports

Statements from individual Iranian lawmakers denying engagement with Washington are a recurring feature of the negotiation cycle and have historically carried less weight than remarks from the presidency, the foreign ministry, or the Supreme Leader's office, since parliamentary figures frequently stake out maximalist positions that the executive later walks around. The framing of sanctions as war and the conditioning of peace on an end to economic conflict is familiar rhetoric, the standard opening position in episodes where back-channel contact is nonetheless underway; on previous occasions of this kind, public denials from Tehran have coexisted with indirect talks, and the market has learned to discount single-source lawmaker commentary. The transmission channel where this actually bites is crude, through the risk premium embedded in prompt spreads and in tanker insurance and freight rates for Gulf loadings, rather than through any immediate change in physical supply. The distinction worth drawing is between rhetoric, which fades, and any accompanying kinetic or enforcement step, such as interdiction, seizure, or a shift in sanctions waivers, which is what has historically sustained a repricing. Follow-ons are confirmations or contradictions from more senior Iranian actors, any parallel statement from Washington, and whether state-affiliated outlets like SNN are floating a trial position or reporting settled policy. As it stands, this is noise-level commentary rather than a signal of broken talks.