Senior Iranian officials tell regional diplomats in recent days: "We are certain that the US will attack", i24 reports; the same senior officials say "There is an atmosphere of war in Tehran"

Statements of expectation from the targeted side rather than the potential aggressor sit in a specific category of pre-conflict signalling: they can reflect genuine intelligence, domestic positioning ahead of retaliation, or an attempt to internationalise pressure and raise the diplomatic cost of a strike, and the market read historically depends on which it is. The established pattern in Gulf escalation episodes is that crude carries the risk premium first, with the transmission running through freight rates, war-risk insurance on tankers, and front-month spreads, while gold and the Swiss franc take the safe-haven leg and regional equities and credit underperform. The distinction that has mattered in past episodes is between rhetorical escalation, where premia have tended to fade within sessions once no kinetic event follows, and actual disruption to shipping or infrastructure through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a small share of outcomes but the one that re-prices the curve durably rather than just the front end. Sourcing here is second-hand via a regional outlet citing unnamed senior officials, a channel that has produced both accurate foreshadowing and noise in comparable situations, so corroboration from other wires and any movement in force posture, airspace closures, or evacuation advisories is the usual tell. The follow-ons that have historically separated signal from posturing are official confirmation or denial from either capital, tanker traffic behaviour in the Gulf, and whether back-channel mediation efforts surface. As an unverified attribution of intent, the headline fits the pattern of premium-building rather than premium-confirming.