Saudi Arabia says that it will respond "firmly" to the Houthi attacks

Rhetoric of this kind from Riyadh has historically served as signalling rather than a prelude to imminent escalation; the Saudi posture toward the Houthis has oscillated between retaliation and de-escalation, and on previous occasions firm language has preceded both limited strikes and, at other times, quiet back-channel engagement. The transmission channel to crude runs through perceived supply and transit risk rather than actual disruption: past episodes have added a geopolitical premium to the front of the curve and to freight and insurance costs on Gulf and Red Sea routes, with the premium tending to fade quickly when no infrastructure is hit and to stick only when export facilities or shipping are materially affected. The distinction worth drawing is between attacks on Saudi territory and energy assets, which have historically moved flat price and timespreads, and attacks confined to shipping lanes, where the impact has shown up more in tanker rates and rerouting than in outright crude levels. Saudi form here matters: the kingdom has generally preferred to protect its production and export infrastructure narrative and avoid actions that jeopardise its demand for stability around its economic programme. The follow-ons that have mattered in comparable episodes are whether the rhetoric is matched by kinetic action, whether coalition partners are drawn in, and any change in loadings or shipping behaviour through the strait.