CNN, on Iran, 17 October 2026

7.3out of 10Serious

How the US-Iran war upended two critical global trade routes

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

has upended the global oil market by severely disrupting the flow of oil through two critical waterways: the Strait of Hormuz and, in recent weeks, the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. Iran is now stepping up attacks on tankers transiting Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, curtailing the volume of oil exiting the region and keeping global crude prices north of $100 a barrel. There have been 12 reported attacks on vessels in or near Hormuz in the past week, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations, which monitors maritime security in the region.

And, earlier this week, two cargo ships sank after attacks by unknown projectiles in separate incidents. The US military has led an effective operation to ferry oil across the strait by assisting “dark” transits – tankers sailing with their transponders turned off and shuttling oil to ships waiting in the Gulf of Oman.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to struggle to sail its own tankers through the waterway because of a US naval blockade. The conflict, now in its eighth month, has also widened to include fighting between Saudi Arabia and in Yemen. The Houthis have targeted Saudi oil tankers transiting the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and, in recent days, launched deadly strikes on Riyadh’s main international airport. The crisis will have long-term ramifications on the global oil market, say analysts.

Oil-importing countries increasingly understand they must “structurally reduce their oil consumption” to become less vulnerable to external shocks, Georg Zachmann, a senior fellow at think tank Bruegel, told CNN. That, alongside other measures, could help “shield (them) from this increasingly uncertain world,” he said. The Bab al-Mandeb Strait became more strategically important after the war disrupted the neighboring Strait of Hormuz.

At its peak, around 4.5 million barrels of crude per day were exported from the Saudi Red Sea port of Yanbu, with the bulk – about 3 million barrels per day – exiting via Bab al-Mandeb, according to Richard Bronze, co-founder of Energy Aspects. But those flows “collapsed” after the Houthi threat started escalating this summer, he said. Johannes Rauball, senior crude analyst at Kpler, said that if the Houthis begin threatening ships from all countries, “This would really create another blow for crude markets.

It would really push prices higher again, really tighten balances.” But after an attack last month by drones from inside Iraq on Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline – which pumps crude toward the country’s Red Sea ports – Riyadh pivoted quickly, stepping up crude exports through the Strait of Hormuz via the US military-assisted shuttle operation. US President Donald Trump said Iran was probably behind the September attack, .

Iran’s foreign ministry has “categorically denied” the accusation. The East-West pipeline is now back online, according to several reports. Asian countries — the biggest buyers of Saudi oil — have borne the brunt of the crisis during the war, but they have adapted by cutting consumption. China has also greatly reduced its imports by tapping into its strategic reserves. The crisis has also pushed some Middle Eastern countries to explore new export routes through yet-to-be-built pipelines.

“The longer this conflict drags on, the less leverage Iran actually has, because other countries are able to create bypass routes,” Rauball, at Kpler, said.

Read the original article on cnn.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

CNN tells the Hormuz shipping crisis as Iran's escalation against an effective US operation. It gives unnamed analysts' reading of why Iran is attacking ships and leaves out Iran's own stated reason, the US blockade and new sanctions. It also links a Saudi pipeline attack to Iran through Iraq, although CNN's own earlier reporting named the Houthis as the attackers, and it writes Israel out of a war that other outlets call a US-Israeli war on Iran.

  1. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    “Analysts say intensifying attacks by Iran are in response to the large quantities of oil that have managed to exit Hormuz in recent weeks.”

    Why this matters
    The sentence gives unnamed analysts' account of why Iran is stepping up attacks: to stop oil getting out. It is the only explanation of motive the article offers.
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away believing Iran's attacks are simply a bid to choke off other countries' oil, with no stated grievance of its own.
    The context
    Iran has said it is stepping up strikes in response to the US blockade of its ports and the tougher sanctions imposed last month. Other outlets reported this about the same wave of attacks. CNN never gives Iran's stated reason and never mentions the sanctions.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Iran says it is stepping up strikes in response to the US blockade of its ports and tougher sanctions imposed last month. Some analysts link the attacks to the volume of oil leaving Hormuz in recent weeks.

  2. Drops what it reported before

    Serious

    “with Iran-backed militia groups known to operate inside Iraq”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice, CNN adds a clause that lends weight to Trump's claim that Iran was probably behind the attack.
    The impression it gives
    A reader reads Trump's accusation as backed by known facts about Iraqi militias, so Iran's denial in the next sentence looks weak.
    The context
    Nothing in the article ties any Iraqi group to the attack, and CNN's own earlier reporting named the Houthis as the attackers. The clause supports one side's accusation with context that does not show who carried out this attack.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    “The war between the United States and Iran”

    Why this matters
    CNN describes the war as a two-party war between the US and Iran and never names Israel or says how the war began.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes this is a war between two parties with no account of who started it, and that Israel is not involved.
    The context
    Other reports of the same events call it the US-Israeli war on Iran, which began on 28 February. Israel appears nowhere in the article.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  4. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “Iran-backed Houthi militants”

    Why this matters
    CNN labels the Houthis "militants" and "Iran-backed" in its own voice, with no source for either.
    The impression it gives
    A reader sees the Houthis as an armed arm of Iran rather than as a Yemeni movement fighting Saudi Arabia.
    The context
    The article attaches no source to the Iran link or the label. Other outlets describe the Houthis as Iran-aligned and name them as themselves.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from CNN

  1. 23 OctThe Iran war’s toxic impact on one of the planet’s most unique seas0.0
  2. 22 OctTrump keeps hinting he’ll resume the Iran war after the midterms. These Iowa GOP voters sound wary0.0
  3. 20 OctTwo men rearrested on suspicion of assisting Iran’s intelligence service in RAF Fairford incident3.0
  4. 19 Oct‘The world will be amazed:’ Iran’s commanders prepare for further war3.0
  5. 15 OctTwo cargo ships sunk in Strait of Hormuz as Iran ramps up attacks in run-up to midterms3.0

Everything we scored from CNN

See how 207 outlets covered this story