U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that President Trump prefers a "diplomatic" solution to the Iran conflict and leans towards avoiding the use of military force. Rubio told reporters over the weekend, "He (Trump) hasn't made a decision yet… The president is expressing great confidence that if we need to take military action, we have the capability to do so, and we certainly have everything we need to succeed. But we prefer to handle it peacefully." Reports indicate that both sides are preparing for further military strikes following the midterm elections.

Rubio stated: Diplomacy is the priority, but military options have not been ruled out.

Rubio's rhetoric presents a two-pronged stance of "diplomacy first, military as an option." On the one hand, he explicitly stated that Trump prefers a peaceful resolution; on the other hand, he reserved the option of military action and emphasized that the U.S. possesses all the capabilities necessary for success. The statement "no decision has been made" is particularly crucial—it neither commits to negotiations nor announces action, leaving room for policy direction after the midterm elections.

Trump's wording: Agreement or coercion, two paths coexist.

Trump said on Sunday, "We've won a huge victory, and we're going to end this in some way very soon," adding, "They'll either make a deal, or we'll end it." This wording also leaves open the possibility of both a deal and coercive measures, echoing Rubio's statement. Meanwhile, media reports indicate that Washington is preparing to potentially resume military operations after the November 3 midterm elections, although the U.S. has not explicitly stated plans to resume attacks.

Iran responds: Supreme Leader demands immediate and unrestricted retaliation.

Iran has sent a confrontational signal. On Saturday, Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba called on the Tehran armed forces to provide an "immediate, impactful, and unrestricted response" to "threats of any degree or type." He also ordered an update to the military database to "include all types of physical and non-physical assets of the United States and Zionist enemies within the reach of the armed forces," referring to US and Israeli forces. This statement indicates that Tehran has not softened its stance in response to diplomatic signals.

Friction between Britain and Iran: Iran designates British military intelligence as a "hostile organization"

New frictions have emerged on the diplomatic front. Last Sunday, Iran's Foreign Ministry designated British military intelligence as a "hostile organization" and accused the Royal Navy and Air Force of supporting "terrorist organizations." The agency stated that this move was a response to London's "malicious" actions, including designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "terrorist organization." Tehran further accused Britain of allowing US forces to use British military and logistical bases for involvement in a potential conflict with Iran. Media reports indicate that Britain had previously allowed US forces to use these bases to launch what was described as "defensive" strikes against Iran.

Editor's Summary

Through statements from Rubio and Trump, the US has publicly signaled a two-track approach of "diplomacy first, military as a backup," reserving room for policy choices after the midterm elections. Iran's Supreme Leader emphasized immediate and unrestricted retaliation, indicating that Tehran's stance has not softened despite diplomatic signals. Anglo-Iranian relations have become further strained due to the exchange of intelligence and military lists. The current situation is characterized by the parallel development of diplomatic maneuvering and military preparations, and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the global energy market remain highly uncertain. The election results and subsequent actions will determine the short-term risk premium, and the market needs to pay close attention to both the progress of negotiations and potential escalation signals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does Rubio's statement mean the US has ruled out military action? A: Not at all. Rubio clearly stated that Trump prefers a peaceful resolution, but emphasized that the US possesses all the military capabilities needed for success, noting that the president "has not yet made a decision." This statement is typical of two-track communication: diplomacy is the stated preference, while military options are reserved as deterrence and a backup plan. The key is that "not yet decided" leaves room for flexibility in post-election policy. The market should not interpret this as a closed military path, but rather as an attempt to open a dialogue window while maintaining pressure. The actual direction still depends on the progress of negotiations, Iran's response, and post-election political judgments. The current conflict has already impacted energy shipping, and any clarification of a single path will be quickly reflected in oil prices and safe-haven assets. Q: What does Trump's "deal or coercion" statement mean for the market? A: Trump stated that the conflict will soon end in some way, offering a binary choice of "deal or end it," preserving two paths. This means short-term pricing difficulties for the market: the agreement path may alleviate supply concerns and lower risk premiums, while the coercion path may push up oil prices and volatility. The coexistence of two paths makes it difficult for investors to adopt a unilateral approach; they need to simultaneously monitor signals from diplomatic maneuvering and military preparations. A clear action after the election could trigger a sharp market reaction. The Strait of Hormuz is already disrupted, and any escalation could further impact global crude oil and refined product flows. Investors should pay attention to whether subsequent official statements narrow down the path options. Q: What is the specific meaning of Iran's Supreme Leader's retaliatory directive? A: Supreme Leader Mojtaba demanded an immediate, impactful, and geographically unrestricted response to threats of any degree or type, and ordered an update to the target list to include US and Israeli assets. This means that potential conflict could quickly spill over, not limited to specific geographical areas, including shipping lanes and energy facilities. The requirement for immediacy reduces the reaction buffer time and increases the risk of miscalculation and escalation. Although mediation is still ongoing, this public directive shows that Tehran is strengthening its deterrent posture, rather than unilaterally softening its stance. For the market, this means that the tail risk of energy supply disruptions remains, and the Hormuz-related premium is unlikely to dissipate quickly. Q: What impact will Iran's designation of the British military intelligence service as a hostile organization have? A: Iran's move is a response to the UK's inclusion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on its list and its alleged permission for US military use of bases. Listing intelligence, the navy, and air force as hostile or terrorist is symbolic and could limit future bilateral communication and limited cooperation. In practice, it could affect personnel exchanges, intelligence sharing, and some commercial activities. For European stakeholders, this further complicates their role in the conflict and could increase the difficulty of diplomatic coordination. The direct market impact is limited in the short term, but in the long term, it could exacerbate regional polarization and indirectly affect expectations for energy and shipping security. Q: In the current situation, what signals should the global energy market focus on? A: The market needs to simultaneously track whether the US clarifies its post-election path, whether Iran maintains its hardline response, the progress of third-party mediation, and the actual navigation status of the Strait of Hormuz. If diplomatic signals translate into substantial de-escalation, it could alleviate supply concerns; if military preparations materialize, it could quickly push up oil prices. The current conflict has already caused shipping disruptions and risk premiums; any single event could trigger volatility. Investors should pay attention to details of official statements, shipping data, and inventory changes, and avoid over-reliance on a single path assumption. Overall uncertainty remains high, and energy pricing will continue to oscillate between geopolitical risks and fundamentals.