Iranian MP Jowkar says the US "thinks it can push us back by intensifying the maritime blockade... conditions will not return to before the 40-day war, and control of the Strait of Hormuz will remain with Iran.", Iran International reports

Rhetoric of this kind around the Strait of Hormuz is a recurring feature of Iran-US confrontations, and the established pattern is that parliamentary-level statements carry a crude risk premium only when accompanied by tangible escalation: tanker seizures, harassment by IRGC naval units, or insurance and freight re-pricing in the Gulf. The transmission channel to watch is not the headline itself but shipping behaviour, war-risk premia quoted on Gulf loadings, and any diversion of tonnage, since that is where a chokepoint threat has historically bled into prompt crude spreads and Brent-WTI differentials. The notable element here is the explicit framing that conditions will not revert, which reads as an attempt to lock in a new baseline after active hostilities rather than a fresh threat; on previous occasions, such language has preceded negotiation as often as further escalation. The reference to a maritime blockade suggests US interdiction of Iranian exports is already in train, so the follow-ons are enforcement actions against shadow-fleet vessels, any change in Iranian crude loadings, and whether the rhetoric migrates from an MP to senior IRGC or government officials, whose words have historically carried more weight with the market. As commentary rather than action, the signal is a floor under the geopolitical premium rather than a catalyst in itself.