Attacks on Ships in Strait of Hormuz Escalate Sharply

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

Iran has ramped up attacks on ships in nearby waters, with about as many attacks in the last week as in all of September, raising the risks for ships navigating the Strait of Hormuz. On Wednesday, a container ship, the GFS Pride, sank off the coast of Oman after a strike the day before left it engulfed in flames, according to maritime analysts. Containers were left floating near the attack, according to Pakistan’s National Hydrographic Office , a maritime agency operated by Pakistan’s Navy.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never says that the US is enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports and has tightened sanctions, or that Iran says it is stepping up strikes in response. Without this, a reader believes the surge in attacks has no stated cause and that the US is only reacting.

How we know

Al-Monitor reported“with Iran saying it is stepping up strikes in response to the US blockade of its ports and tougher sanctions introduced last month”Two ships sink near Hormuz after being hit by projectiles amid surge in attacks (opens in a new tab)
CNN reported“The US military continues to enforce a blockade on Iranian ports to maintain economic pressure on Iran.”Two cargo ships sunk in Strait of Hormuz as Iran ramps up attacks in run-up to midterms (opens in a new tab)

Another container ship, the GFS Giselle, was hit by “unknown projectiles” while going through the strait on Wednesday, according to the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore . The crew members of both vessels were safe, the statement said, noting that both ships sailed under the Singapore flag. Dimitris Maniatis, the founder of Marisks, a maritime risk management firm, reviewed photos of the incident and said containers were scattered across a wide area of the waterway.

“All sorts of people are finding containers and opening them up,” he said. Photos showed people in the area in small boats filled with boxes of goods that had been in the containers. He said it was not immediately clear whether the United States or Iran had carried out the attack. Iran claimed the vessel hit a naval mine, but maritime analysts said there was no independently verified evidence supporting this claim. The sharp rise in attacks over the last week — at least 15, according to maritime analysts — represented a sea change in risk, even for an industry that had already normalized operating in a much more dangerous environment than before the start of the war nearly eight months ago.

The U.S. response to the increase in Iranian attacks has been muted, though a bulk carrier in the Gulf of Oman was struck by a U.S. military fighter aircraft on Saturday, according to Marisks. We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in . Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Read the original article on nytimes.com

What we found (3)

The New York Times states in its own voice that Iran is behind the surge in attacks on ships. Its own reporting says it was not clear whether the United States or Iran hit the GFS Pride, and that a US aircraft struck a bulk carrier. It casts the US strike as a muted response and never mentions the US blockade of Iranian ports, which Iran gives as its reason for stepping up strikes.

States one side's claim as fact
Minor
“Iran has ramped up attacks on ships in nearby waters, with about as many attacks in the last week as in all of September”
Why this matters
The opening line counts every attack in the past week as Iran's, with no attribution.
The impression it gives
All the recent attacks, including the sinking reported next, were carried out by Iran.
The context
The article's own source says it was not clear whether the US or Iran hit the GFS Pride, and the article reports a US aircraft striking a ship in the same period. Reuters reports that both Iran and the US have been attacking ships. Iran has said it is stepping up strikes, but the article does not attribute the claim or separate the attacks.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“it was not immediately clear whether the United States or Iran had carried out the attack”
- Elsewhere in the article“struck by a U.S. military fighter aircraft”
- Reuters reported“While Iran and the US have focused their attacks on tankers, cargo and container vessels have also been attacked, immobilised or sunk.”Two ships sink near Hormuz after being hit by projectiles amid surge in attacks (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
“the increase in Iranian attacks”
Why this matters
The article labels the whole surge 'Iranian attacks', after counting at least 15 attacks without saying who carried them out.
The impression it gives
The at least 15 attacks counted in S11 are all Iran's.
The context
The same sentence reports a US strike on a bulk carrier, and S9 says the attacker of the GFS Pride was unclear. The count of 15 is not broken down by attacker.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“at least 15, according to maritime analysts”
- Elsewhere in the article“not immediately clear whether the United States or Iran”
Show it in the article
Tells the event as something else
Minor
“The U.S. response to the increase in Iranian attacks has been muted, though a bulk carrier in the Gulf of Oman was struck by a U.S. military fighter aircraft on Saturday”
Why this matters
The article calls a US fighter jet striking a civilian bulk carrier part of a 'muted' US 'response', while Iran's strikes are called 'attacks'.
The impression it gives
The US is only reacting, and with restraint, to Iranian aggression.
The context
Reuters reports that both Iran and the US have been attacking ships, and the US is enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports that Iran cites as the reason for its strikes. Nothing in the article's facts shows why one side's strike is a response and the other's is an attack.
How we know
- Al-Monitor reported“with Iran saying it is stepping up strikes in response to the US blockade of its ports and tougher sanctions introduced last month”Two ships sink near Hormuz after being hit by projectiles amid surge in attacks (opens in a new tab)
- CNN reported“The US military continues to enforce a blockade on Iranian ports to maintain economic pressure on Iran.”Two cargo ships sunk in Strait of Hormuz as Iran ramps up attacks in run-up to midterms (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
Leaves out what changes the picture
Minor
What is missing
The article never says that the US is enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports and has tightened sanctions, or that Iran says it is stepping up strikes in response. Without this, a reader believes the surge in attacks has no stated cause and that the US is only reacting.
How we know
- Al-Monitor reported“with Iran saying it is stepping up strikes in response to the US blockade of its ports and tougher sanctions introduced last month”Two ships sink near Hormuz after being hit by projectiles amid surge in attacks (opens in a new tab)
- CNN reported“The US military continues to enforce a blockade on Iranian ports to maintain economic pressure on Iran.”Two cargo ships sunk in Strait of Hormuz as Iran ramps up attacks in run-up to midterms (opens in a new tab)
Show where it belongs

Attacks on Ships in Strait of Hormuz Escalate Sharply

States one side's claim as fact

Tells the event as something else

Leaves out what changes the picture

How other outlets reported it

More from The New York Times