IRGC Spokesperson Mohebbi says "in the event of a new attack, we will use different weapons", YJC reports

Rhetoric of this kind from IRGC spokesmen is a familiar feature of escalatory cycles involving Iran: public signalling of unused capability tends to follow exchanges of strikes, and historically the gap between threat language and operational follow-through has been wide, with actual retaliation more often telegraphed, symbolic, or channelled through proxies than the statements imply. The references that matter to crude are 'changing the geography of the conflict' and 'different targets', since the transmission channel for oil in these episodes has consistently run through perceived risk to Gulf supply infrastructure and shipping rather than through Iranian rhetoric itself. Past episodes have tended to price a geopolitical premium into the front of the crude curve and into freight and insurance rates on Gulf transits, with the premium fading when no physical disruption materialises. The distinction worth drawing is between escalation that stays rhetorical and escalation that touches Hormuz logistics, export terminals, or third-country bases; only the latter has historically sustained a bid. Statements attributed to an agency-linked outlet also carry a domestic-audience function, which has in prior cycles diluted their predictive value. The follow-ons are whether the rhetoric is echoed at senior political level and whether any force-posture or shipping advisories accompany it.