Iran's Speaker of the Parliament Ghalibaf says that if the US siege is intensified, "we will definitely respond militarily"

Rhetoric of this kind from senior Iranian officials is a recurring feature of standoffs with Washington, and the historical pattern is that conditional threats ('if X, then we will respond') carry less market weight than unconditional ones, since they preserve room to de-escalate while signalling resolve for domestic and negotiating audiences. Ghalibaf is a figure with a long record of hardline public positioning, and statements from the parliament speaker tend to track the official line rather than pre-empt decisions, which in Iran's system sit with the Supreme Leader and the security establishment. The transmission channel for crude in past episodes of this kind has run through the risk premium on supply passing through the Strait of Hormuz and through freight and insurance costs for Gulf loadings, rather than through any immediate change to physical flows, and that premium has historically built on threats and bled off when rhetoric is not followed by action. The distinction that has mattered in comparable escalations is between verbal exchange and kinetic follow-through: tanker incidents, seizures, or strikes on energy infrastructure reprice the curve durably, while words alone have tended to fade within sessions. Worth watching are any movement in shipping rates and war-risk premia in the Gulf, the posture of other Iranian institutions, and whether the US side responds in kind or lets the exchange stand.