Iranian parliament member says that the Straight for Hormuz plan was reviewed by the National Security Commission and will soon be sent to the parliament floor

Iranian parliamentarians have periodically floated Hormuz closure plans, and the pattern is well established: such proposals tend to surface as signalling during periods of tension and rarely reach enactment, since a closure would sever Iran's own crude export route and invite a military response that Tehran has historically calculated as too costly. The distinction worth drawing is between rhetorical escalation and a procedural step that changes the odds; review by a national security body and referral to the floor is further along the legislative path than a typical soundbite, but Iranian procedure leaves ample room for the measure to stall, and the executive and supreme leadership, not the parliament, control the actual military decision. The transmission channel in past episodes of Hormuz brinkmanship has run through war risk premia on tanker insurance and freight rates first, then crude front-month spreads and the prompt end of the curve, with the move typically fading when no physical disruption follows. What separates a tradable event from noise is evidence of operational follow-through, such as tanker diversions, naval deployments, or insurance repricing, rather than the political theatre itself. Worth noting is who is speaking: an individual member, not the government or the security establishment, which in Iran's system carries less weight than statements from the leadership or the Guards. As it stands, this is process noise with a known tendency to be walked back.