Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gharibabadi says the “aggressive actions” will receive an appropriate response

Rhetoric of this kind from Iranian officials is a recurring feature of escalation cycles with Israel and the US, and the historical read is that the language itself rarely moves crude durably; the premia that have stuck are those tied to physical disruption, whether to Iranian export volumes, Gulf shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, or regional energy infrastructure. The relevant distinction is between a symbolic, face-saving response and one that touches supply or transit: the former has typically seen the geopolitical bid fade within sessions, the latter has repriced the front of the curve and widened freight and insurance costs on Gulf routes. Gharibabadi sits on the diplomatic rather than military side of the apparatus, so phrasing from this channel has tended to signal intent to retaliate while leaving scope for calibration; the harder signal comes from the IRGC and the supreme leader's office. Worth noting is that Tehran has on previous occasions telegraphed responses in advance to allow de-escalation off-ramps, a pattern that has repeatedly capped the tail risk priced into WTI and Brent time spreads. Follow-ons are any movement of forces or proxies, statements from the more hardline channels, and tanker traffic or insurance pricing in the Gulf, which have been the earliest concrete tells in past episodes. Absent those, verbal escalation alone has historically been a fade rather than a trend.