IRGC Adviser Sardar Fadavi says "We will give a much heavier response to any US and Israeli attack", Mizan reports

Rhetoric of this kind from senior IRGC figures is a recurring feature of the escalation cycle between Iran, Israel and the US, and on its own has historically been a low-information signal: the pattern in past episodes has been that the risk premium moves on capability and action, not on statements, with crude and gold tending to fade verbal threats within sessions when no operational follow-through emerges. The distinction that matters is between deterrent signalling ahead of any strike and retaliation framing after one; the former has usually marked a ceiling on positioning rather than a floor. What has tended to reprice the complex durably is evidence of preparation, force movements, shipping advisories, insurance repricing in Gulf waters, or disruption at chokepoints, rather than the tone of commanders. The transmission channels are established: Brent and WTI via supply-risk premium and freight and insurance costs, gold and the yen via haven demand, and Gulf-linked assets via regional risk. Worth observing is whether parallel messaging emerges from other Iranian institutions, whether US or Israeli officials respond in kind, and whether tanker traffic or war-risk rates in the Strait of Hormuz area shift, since those have been the reliable tells that rhetoric is becoming something more.