Senior Iranian official says US VP Vance's comments on Iran's nuclear programme are American "ideas and requests"; US ideas are at opposite with Iran's demands

Rhetoric of this kind is the standard opening posture in US-Iran nuclear standoffs: maximalist conditions stated publicly, enrichment recognition framed as a red line, and denial that negotiations are occurring, which in past episodes has often coexisted with indirect or back-channel contact. The pattern in comparable cycles is that headline risk premium in crude builds on exactly this sort of exchange, and tends to fade unless it is followed by something physical: sanctions enforcement shifts, tanker and insurance friction in the Gulf, or a change in Iranian export volumes. The distinction that matters for the oil leg is between diplomatic noise, which historically retraces, and any signal touching actual supply, since Iranian barrels moving through grey-market channels are the swing factor the paper market ultimately prices. The relevant follow-ons are whether the rhetoric is matched by actions on either side, such as enrichment steps, snapback-type measures, or enforcement against Iranian shipments, and whether intermediaries confirm or deny that indirect channels remain open. Official denials of talks have preceded eventual contact on previous occasions, so the statement reads as positioning rather than closure.