Jerusalem Post's Stein says Iranian working assumption is that there will be a US attack, citing two regional diplomats, while the debate in Tehran is if they should attack first

Reported Iranian working assumptions of an imminent US strike, sourced through regional diplomats rather than officials, sit in the familiar pattern of pre-conflict signalling where secondhand attribution leaves room for escalation management on both sides. The more consequential element is the reported debate in Tehran over pre-emption, since episodes of this kind have historically turned on perceived inevitability: once a party concludes an attack is coming, the incentive structure shifts toward striking first, and that logic has tended to compress timelines faster than the underlying diplomacy would suggest. The transmission channel in comparable Gulf tensions runs through crude via freight, insurance and prompt spreads, with haven flows into the front of the rates curve and gold, while regional equity and credit underperformance concentrates in the Gulf peer set. What distinguishes noise from signal in past episodes is corroboration: whether the assessment is echoed by other regional or Western officials, whether force posture changes follow, and whether back-channel contacts continue. The tells to note are statements from the actors named, any movement in shipping and airspace restrictions around the Gulf, and whether Tehran's own official media adopts or disowns the framing. As a single-outlet, diplomat-sourced report, the informational content is directional rather than confirmed.