The Times (London) · Iran · 5 Sept 2026

The headline editorialises, the dead are labelled, the other side is not, and Iran's government is delegitimised as 'the regime'.

4.4
/ 10 · article score
scored on 6 of 11 measures

The double standard

Iranian military actions are attributed directly and labelled aggressively, while American and allied strikes are reported in the passive voice or with the US military as a detached institutional actor, shielding individual agency from scrutiny.

How it builds, in Iranian attack on Kuwaiti tanker through US strike on Iranian tankers

  1. Iran named as direct actor in attack on named victim

    an Iranian attack on a Kuwaiti tanker exiting the Strait

    Full attribution: aggressor named, victim named, act named

  2. Iran named as actor; pejorative 'regime' applied

    On Saturday the regime fired ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and destroyer

    Full attribution with loaded terminology: 'the regime fired'

  3. US strikes buried in subordinate clause, sourced to US military only

    Their attack did no damage to those warships but prompted predictable retaliation against Iranian targets, with the US military saying it struck three Iranian oil tankers.

    Partial attribution via institutional self-report; framed as reactive 'retaliation'

  4. Iran characterised by ongoing pattern of aggression

    the Iranian forces that have been attacking tankers

    Habitual framing: continuous present tense implies sustained criminality

  5. No actor named for mine-laying; agentless passive used

    the navy had cleared some sea mines laid months ago in the waterway

    Agentless passive removes Iranian agency from mine-laying act

  6. US strikes in passive voice; Iranian equipment foregrounded

    Truck-mounted missile launchers were targeted by the US in recent days.

    Passive construction softens US agency in offensive strike

  7. Iran named with full institutional label and weapon specification

    the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had fired Fajr-5 heavy artillery rockets carrying mines into the strait

    Full attribution: named institution, named weapon, named act

The same decision, both sides

Whether the actor is named and how they are labelled when striking

Iran is named directly, labelled 'the regime', and given full institutional identification (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) when it attacks.

On Saturday the regime fired ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and destroyer

The United States is identified only as 'the US military' in a subordinate clause reporting its own claim, when it strikes Iranian tankers.

prompted predictable retaliation against Iranian targets, with the US military saying it struck three Iranian oil tankers

Active versus passive construction when describing strikes

Iranian strikes are rendered in the active voice with Iran or the IRGC as the grammatical subject.

the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had fired Fajr-5 heavy artillery rockets carrying mines into the strait

American strikes are rendered in the passive voice, removing the US as grammatical subject.

Truck-mounted missile launchers were targeted by the US in recent days.

Whether the victim of an attack is named

The victim of the Iranian attack is identified by nationality and vessel type, grounding the harm in a concrete, named target.

an Iranian attack on a Kuwaiti tanker exiting the Strait

The victims of the US strike are described only as 'Iranian targets', an abstraction that removes any sense of concrete harm.

prompted predictable retaliation against Iranian targets, with the US military saying it struck three Iranian oil tankers

Source qualification for casualty or damage claims

Iranian actions are stated as fact by the article's own voice, requiring no attributed source.

On Saturday the regime fired ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and destroyer

The US strike on Iranian tankers is attributed solely to the US military's own account, flagging it as a claim rather than a fact.

with the US military saying it struck three Iranian oil tankers

What a reader is left with. A reader is left with the impression that Iran is a named, labelled, and habitually aggressive actor whose every strike is stated as fact, while American military force is a measured, reactive, and institutionally diffuse response whose strikes are reported only on the US military's own authority and softened by passive constructions.

File a complaint

This article can be challenged with The Times (London)'s editorial-standards team.

  • Amend the headline to reflect the harm reported in the article as well as the response to it, for example: "US force and ingenuity push back against Iranian attacks on Strait of Hormuz shipping."
  • Amend the phrase "the Iranian forces that have been attacking tankers" to include a named-source verification caveat making clear this is an attribution rather than an established and uncontested fact.
Be the first to complain

Every highlight is a quote the model flagged. Tap one — or a metric below — to see what it measures and why it scored the way it did.

Aggressor framingHeadline analysisRegime terminologyVictim affiliation labelsSanctions framing

Ingenuity and US force are easing Iran’s grip on the Strait of Hormuz

On any given day you can spot the tankers at anchor, transferring oil off Sohar Industrial Port in Oman. It is part of a multi-pronged effort to ease the pressure on world energy markets as the war between the United States and Iran grinds on, and lately it has moved up a gear. Zooming in on a satellite photograph taken one day in late August, ten pairs of tankers at anchor were visible. One that had just exited the Strait of Hormuz pumped oil to the vessel that would take it on for delivery. On other days as many as 15 such transfers had been logged. Most commented 1 Argentina calls for Hong Kong-style handover of Falklands Latin America 1,371 comments 2 US says Labour’s plan to boost BBC on social media is censorship US news 134 comments 3 Drone hits Ukraine’s ⁠SBU security service headquarters in central Kyiv Russia-Ukraine war 21 comments 4 The Times Saturday Quiz: September 5, 2026 Quizzes & Teasers 289 comments 5 Horsing around — and other news in pictures Photography 63 comments This led to claims last week by the US Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, that 17 million barrels of crude oil a day had recently come out of the Gulf, close to the pre-war figure of 20 million, minus 4 million Iranian barrels that had been since embargoed. Analysts at Goldman Sachs suggested that before the past week’s fighting, Gulf oil exports might be hitting 15 to 16 million barrels a day, which would effectively mean a return to normal. Many experts dispute that, but there is a growing consensus that the Iranian grip on the waterway is being loosened to some degree. President Trump, for his part, repeated claims that America now controlled the strait — a characteristic exaggeration but one that should not obscure some developments to Iran’s disadvantage. A combination of American power, Arab ingenuity and commercial interest is allowing significant amounts of oil to make their way to market. Top stories 1 Top five 2027 cruise and tour packages to book with Times Holidays Promoted content A month’s relative calm was shattered a week ago with an Iranian attack on a Kuwaiti tanker exiting the Strait. On Saturday the regime fired ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and destroyer, reinforcing the sense that they were trying to reverse recent American and Gulf Arab gains. Their attack did no damage to those warships but prompted predictable retaliation against Iranian targets, with the US military saying it struck three Iranian oil tankers. Advertisement So how tight is the Iranian regime’s chokehold on the strait right now? Independent analysts point out that the daily numbers of oil exports are highly variable. TankerTrackers.com, one respected oil market source, estimated there were six days in August in which more than 10 million barrels “crossed the US blockade line”, and reported transfers at a high of 17 paired vessels off Oman on Friday, but said the average for the month was about 7.5 million daily. Top stories 1 Would you wear a ‘personality coat’? India Knight road-tests the trend Fashion 2 The Times and Sunday Times Travel Awards 2026: vote to win £34,500 worth of prizes Inspiration 3 I’m a Bangkok regular and this is my favourite neighbourhood Bangkok 4 Forget rest and relaxation — high-stress holidays are all the rage Comment 5 The up-and-coming wine region you’ve likely never heard of Denmark To complete the sums, we should note that about 1.5 million of that figure is Emirati oil piped to the Gulf of Oman without clearing the strait. We can also add Saudi Arabian exports through its pipeline to the Red Sea and Iraqi ones via road convoys to the Mediterranean, giving us average flows of about 10 to 11 million barrels a day. You might spin that as being little more than half the pre-war total, with obvious implications for energy markets. Or you might say that, nowadays, about twice as much oil is getting out of the Gulf as in March, when the US and Iran were fighting a higher-intensity battle — something that points to a largely unseen effort by the US and its Gulf Arab allies. What analysts call ship-to-ship transfers (STS) are a key part of this. Big producers have been using smaller ships to shuttle through the strait while also adopting some of the “shadow fleet” tactics pioneered by Russia and Iran. Such vessels “go dark”, not only disabling their navigational and positioning systems but also getting crews to switch off mobile phones. There have been shifts of ownership and crewing too, with, for example, nine Saudi tankers adopting Liberian flags in mid-August. Taken together, these tactics have inevitably made it harder to track the number of vessels coming out. But the detection by shipping analysts for the first time of three liquified natural gas tankers using the STS method off Oman last month (something that’s harder for them to do than oil tankers) can be seen as another indicator of confidence in the covert shipping routes. Advertisement The American military campaign to suppress the Iranian forces that have been attacking tankers while clearing the international shipping lanes running through the centre of the strait also appears to have achieved some success. Last month Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US forces in the Middle East, announced that the navy had cleared some sea mines laid months ago in the waterway. A commuter walks past a wall mural along the street in Tehran ATTA KENARE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES While the Iranians used speedboats to attack shipping over the summer, these have been countered with US Apache helicopters and A-10 fighters to the point that attempts by Iran to re-lay those minefields required the regime to use new weaponry. Last week the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had fired Fajr-5 heavy artillery rockets carrying mines into the strait. Truck-mounted missile launchers were targeted by the US in recent days. Their use was both a measure of the lengths Iran will go to maintain its grip on the strait and of America’s rapid pursuit of the forces engaged in that effort. Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen appear to have faltered in their attempts to close another maritime chokepoint — the Bab el Mandeb, the so-called Gate of Tears where the Red Sea meets the Arabian Sea — adding to the sense that the balance of power is shifting. Once again a combination of force and stealth seems for now to be keeping traffic moving. The US blockade on Iranian oil exports , reimposed since July, is also said by the US and independent analysts to be completely effective. For many years, Iranian negotiators told their western interlocutors that if Iran could not get its oil out, it would ensure that nobody else would be able to either. Early in the war, due to the Trump Administration’s failure to prepare, Iran achieved something much better than that — only its oil was being exported. But now, due to the blockade, it has found itself in the situation that it hoped for so long to avoid. Add renewed banking restrictions and the unease among many in Tehran about how it will keep the government functioning is evident. Advertisement US should intensify economic pressure on Iran With diesel prices climbing in the US, the White House is now putting the emphasis on free navigation of the strait as the key ambition in the war. Critics point out that Iran’s nuclear programme was central to the administration’s case for war in the first place, and now the objective has been reduced to reopening a waterway that was operating normally before the bombing started in February. It seems likely that Iran will try to keep up its own campaign of pressure on the world economy, at least until the US midterm elections in November. But bent on survival as they are, leaders in Tehran will eventually have to get the oil flowing and bank accounts unfrozen. And, with newfound ways to get oil onto the markets, the US may have bought themselves a bit more time.

Read the original article ↗