Iranian President says negotiations are pointless with an enemy that assassinates and sanctions, reports Nour News; US attacked three times after talks

Statements of this kind from Iranian officials, particularly when carried by outlets affiliated with the security establishment rather than mainstream state media, have historically functioned as signalling rather than policy closure. The pattern in past episodes of this kind is that maximalist public rhetoric coexists with continued indirect or back-channel contact, and the operative tell has been whether negotiating teams are actually stood down or whether the language is aimed at domestic audiences and at raising the price of any eventual resumption. The claim of attacks occurring after talks is a familiar Iranian framing used to justify suspension of engagement, and markets have tended to fade single-instance rhetoric of this sort unless accompanied by concrete escalation: movement of forces, strikes on shipping, or disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. The transmission channel on confirmation of breakdown runs through crude via the geopolitical risk premium and through freight and insurance costs in the Gulf, with haven demand in gold and the front of the rates complex as the secondary expression. Worth observing is whether the other side issues a counter-statement and whether scheduled diplomatic contacts are formally cancelled, as that is the point at which rhetoric has historically converted into repricing rather than noise.