When asked bout earlier Telegraph article on the US and Israel are considering a land blockade of Iran, a WH official says “The Commander-in-Chief has all options at his disposal"

The 'all options at his disposal' formulation is standard Washington boilerplate, historically used to neither confirm nor deny a reported contingency while keeping coercive leverage intact; episodes of this kind have tended to be read as deliberate ambiguity rather than as policy signal, and the initial wire move often fades when no operational follow-through emerges. The substantive question is the reported blockade concept itself: any restriction on Iranian seaborne crude flows transmits through the prompt end of the oil curve, freight and insurance rates on Gulf loadings, and physical differentials, with a land versus maritime distinction mattering for enforcement credibility given Iran's geography. Officials have on past occasions walked back or contextualised such press reports within a session or two, so the near-term tell is whether the administration repeats, refines, or drops the framing, and whether counterpart statements emerge from Tehran or regional actors. The dollar in comparable risk episodes has behaved as a haven against the energy importer complex, while the Strait of Hormuz remains the escalation tail that separates rhetorical from material supply risk. Worth watching is any matching rhetoric around sanctions enforcement on Iranian barrels already in transit, which is the channel through which verbal escalation has most often become actual supply loss.