Deutsche Welle (English), on Iran, 9 November 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Strait of Hormuz still a source of leverage for Iran

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

Since the Iran war started, attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz have put crews at risk of death and injury, forcing shipping companies to choose whether to attempt the passage or delay cargos and face higher costs. Merchant vessels continue to use the strait despite the danger, but how long that can continue depends partly on Iran's ability to sustain its attacks and .

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article says only 'Since the Iran war started' and never says how it started. DW reported a day earlier that Trump ordered an attack on Iran in late February, after Israel launched what it called a 'preemptive strike'. Without this, a reader of a piece about Iranian attacks on shipping may assume Iran began the war.

How we know

Ali Mohammadi, an expert in Iranian affairs based in France, believes Iran's geography and the equipment it uses allow it to keep attacking ships. But he sees the economic burden of the war as Tehran's main constraint. "Iran's limitation in the Strait of Hormuz is economic rather than military, because continuing the war has a significant impact on its economy," he said. It's unclear how long Iran can sustain attacks given the lack of reliable information on the nation's weapons stocks and its ability to replenish supplies.

And sporadic attacks in the crucial waterway are also different from closing the strait completely. "Even if a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz were possible, it would not be sustainable because it could carry high political costs for Iran," Mohammadi told DW. "Iran cannot indefinitely disrupt its allies' access to the strait." By threatening shipping, Iran can raise the cost of confrontation and seek leverage in negotiations, but that may not guarantee success or yield concessions, the expert said.

Shipping crews caught in the crossfire of the Hormuz conflict To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video More crossings, but traffic remains depressed Data from the UK Maritime Trade Operations Center's (UKMTO) weekly report, released on November 6, show 325 reported transits through Hormuz between October 29 and November 4. That was up from 277 the previous week, an increase of about 17%.

It's still roughly 65% below pre-war levels, the UKMTO assessed. But vessel numbers alone cannot explain what is happening to energy supplies as cargo volumes and the routes used also matter, said Dalga Khatinoglu, an expert on Iran's energy and macroeconomics. "If we look only at crude oil, Middle Eastern exports across all routes, from the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea, have largely recovered to pre-war levels," he told DW.

"In some weeks in September and October, they even exceeded those levels." His assessment covers the region's overall crude exports across all routes, not just shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The picture for refined petroleum products is different, Khatinoglu said. "Before the war, the Middle East exported about 6.2 million barrels of petroleum products a day. That figure has now roughly halved." Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports have also suffered.

"As of September, exports from Qatar and the UAE were about 10% below pre-war levels. Although there has been some improvement, they remain severely disrupted," the expert underscored. The cost of getting through spikes Khatinoglu said recovering energy exports have not eliminated the costs associated with ongoing insecurity. "Although oil exports from Middle Eastern countries have approached pre-war levels, shipping and insurance costs have remained very high," he stressed.

Citing recent figures from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) , he said that average freight rates for a large tanker carrying crude from the Middle East to East Asia has risen about 12-fold, from $3.18 (€2.84) per barrel at the beginning of the year to $37.13 a barrel at the end of October. This means elevated costs for Asian importers even when crude is available. Reducing costs and restoring commercial confidence in the safety of the strait requires more than a US military presence, Mohammadi said.

"There is only one solution to the Strait of Hormuz issue and that's an end to the war, accompanied by a lasting agreement that brings lasting security," he said. Khatinoglu shared a similar view. "You cannot expect oil prices to return to pre-war levels simply by relying on US protection for ships in the Strait of Hormuz," he said.

Read the original article on dw.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

Deutsche Welle presents the Strait of Hormuz as a story of Iranian attacks on shipping and a US effort to protect it, from the headline onward. The article never tells its reader that the US is enforcing its own naval blockade of Iran, which Iran names as a condition for reopening the strait. It also never says that the war began with Israeli and US attacks on Iran. The shipping figures and the experts' views are clearly attributed.

  1. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    “despite US efforts to protect commercial shipping”

    Why this matters
    The headline gives the US one role in the strait: protecting commercial shipping against Iranian leverage.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the US presence in and around Hormuz is purely defensive, and that Iran alone is disrupting traffic.
    The context
    Other reporting on the same days says the US is tightening its own blockade of Iran. Iran's foreign ministry lists lifting the US naval blockade among its demands for ending the standoff. DW never mentions a US blockade anywhere in the article.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “the United States' capacity to protect shipping and bear the cost”

    Why this matters
    DW sets Iran's ability to sustain its attacks against the US capacity to protect shipping. It casts the two states as attacker and protector.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the confrontation in the strait runs one way, with Iran disrupting trade and the US defending it.
    The context
    Iran blames the insecurity in the waterway on US and Israeli military actions and ties reopening to an end of the US blockade. The article gives neither the US blockade nor Iran's account of the insecurity.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article says only 'Since the Iran war started' and never says how it started. DW reported a day earlier that Trump ordered an attack on Iran in late February, after Israel launched what it called a 'preemptive strike'. Without this, a reader of a piece about Iranian attacks on shipping may assume Iran began the war.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Deutsche Welle (English)

  1. 8 NovIran: US strikes ship after blockade breach6.0
  2. 6 NovIran war: Gulf tanker attacked, 1 seaferer killed6.0
  3. 6 NovDW debunks viral posts claiming that Iran has struck US and Israeli military installations0.0
  4. 6 NovFact check: Three viral Iran war posts debunked 0.0
  5. 6 NovHow a lack of reliable information from state media leaves Iranians in the dark about the ongoing US war3.0

Everything we scored from Deutsche Welle (English)