IRGC Spokesperson says "If the US attacks again, it will face a more decisive, broader, and stronger response", Mehr News reports

Threats of this kind from Iranian military spokespeople are a recurring feature of escalation cycles and historically function more as deterrence signalling than as intent to act; the pattern in past episodes is an exchange of rhetoric that fades unless accompanied by observable military movement, proxy activity, or actual strikes. The distinction that matters for crude is between rhetorical escalation, which has tended to add only a modest and short-lived geopolitical premium to Brent and WTI, and any disruption to physical flows, whether through attacks on regional energy infrastructure, tanker traffic, or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, where a large share of seaborne oil transits. Freight rates, war-risk insurance premia, and tanker fixture activity are the channels through which genuine supply fear has shown up in previous episodes, well before any actual loss of barrels. What is worth watching is whether the rhetoric is matched by alerts to shipping, movements of US or allied assets in the region, or statements from the US side that indicate retaliation is genuinely under consideration rather than hypothetical. Absent a kinetic follow-through, headline-driven spikes in the crude complex have tended to retrace within sessions; the premium becomes sticky only when infrastructure or transit is actually at risk.