Iran's Rezaei says that any new US attack would be met with the targeting of "distant" US military bases as well, Al Mayadeen reports; will not remove any enriched nuclear material from Iran

Iran's Rezaei says that any new US attack would be met with the targeting of "distant" US military bases as well, Al Mayadeen reports; will not remove any enriched nuclear material from Iran.

Statements of this kind from senior Iranian figures, carried through affiliated regional media rather than official state channels, have historically functioned as calibrated signalling rather than operational intent: they set the rhetorical ceiling ahead of any negotiation or escalation round. The case distinction that matters is between threats aimed at deterring a strike and threats issued after one; deterrent language of this kind has tended to fade without follow-through, while post-strike rhetoric has more often preceded proxy or missile responses. The reference to distant bases widens the declared target set beyond the immediate theatre, which in past episodes has been the point at which oil markets begin pricing a broader disruption risk through crude futures and tanker and insurance costs rather than spot supply, since actual supply losses have been rare in comparable standoffs. The refusal to remove enriched material addresses the core Western demand and signals where the negotiating floor sits, which has historically been the harder constraint on any de-escalation. Worth noting is the speaker's track record: military-linked figures have tended toward maximalist framing that the civilian negotiating track later softens. The follow-ons are whether the threat is repeated through official channels, any movement of forces or proxies, and the state of the nuclear track.