Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Rezaei said during meeting with Pakistan Chief of Defence Forces Munir the US must change is behaviour and take practical actions regarding implementation of the terms of the memorandum of understanding

Munir said Pakistan has also made many efforts to establish security between the borders of the two countries.

Rhetoric from senior Iranian security officials framing US compliance as the precondition for further progress is the standard texture of indirect nuclear and sanctions diplomacy, and episodes of this kind have historically been read as positioning rather than escalation. The operative phrase is the reference to an existing memorandum of understanding and its implementation, which signals engagement continuing rather than breaking down; the harder line is reserved for demanding practical steps from the other side, a familiar sequence in drawn-out negotiations where public statements run harsher than the private channel. The venue matters: pairing the message with a Pakistan meeting adds a border-security dimension, and Tehran has long used its eastern neighbour relationship to manage Baloch militancy and cross-border trade, an agenda that runs on a separate track from the nuclear file. Statements of this kind from a security-council secretary rather than the foreign ministry or the negotiating team tend to carry less direct negotiating weight, and the transmission to crude markets through such rhetoric has historically been limited unless accompanied by actions affecting supply, transit, or enforcement. What distinguishes signal from noise in this pattern is follow-through: whether the US side responds, whether the negotiating channel issues a parallel statement, and whether freight and insurance pricing in the Gulf shows any change in risk assessment.