Iran's Foreign Ministry says it will respond decisively to any further enemy military aggression, adds the US and parties supporting its military actions bear full responsibility for consequences of escalation

Statements of this kind from foreign ministries are the standard opening move in the escalation-retaliation sequence, following an actual or threatened strike with language that signals resolve while preserving room to calibrate any response. Historically, the phrasing matters more than the existence of the statement: 'respond decisively' without a timetable or named target is deterrence rhetoric, whereas naming specific bases, shipping lanes, or deadlines has tended to precede actual action. The assignment of responsibility to 'parties supporting' US military actions is the tell to watch, since episodes in which retaliation language extends to third parties have historically carried the wider tail risk for regional energy infrastructure and Gulf transit, the channels through which these exchanges have transmitted into crude, tanker rates, and war-risk premia. The established pattern in prior exchanges of this type is a period of rhetorical escalation, a measured retaliatory strike, and then a de-escalation signal, though the cycle has broken down when casualties are high or when one side miscounts the other's tolerance. The follow-ons worth noting are whether the language hardens toward specificity, movement of naval or proxy assets in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea corridor, and any shift in airline routing or insurance pricing, which have historically been the earliest observable confirmations of genuine risk repricing rather than headline noise.