US President Trump says Iran will be hit very hard if it is behind the copilot who tried to crash flight to Israel, reports AP

The conditional framing is the story: attribution of the attempted incident to Iran is not established, and threats of this kind from this source have historically oscillated between escalation and de-escalation within short order, which is why markets have tended to fade initial headline moves absent confirmation or kinetic follow-through. The relevant precedent pattern is that geopolitical risk premia in crude, gold, and the dollar build on attribution and retaliation cycles, not on rhetoric alone; episodes that stopped at rhetoric have typically seen the premium bleed out over subsequent sessions. The channel to watch is the Gulf supply risk premium in crude, where the transmission runs through tanker and insurance pricing rather than through any immediate change in physical flows. The distinction that matters is between unilateral rhetorical escalation and a verified attribution backed by allied governments, which is the point at which such episodes have historically moved from headline noise to a durable repricing. Worth observing are whether US or Israeli officials corroborate the claim, any movement in Gulf military posture or shipping advisories, and whether the threat is repeated or walked back, since this actor's prior form includes both rapid escalation and abrupt reversals.