Two oil tankers have caught fire in the Strait of Hormuz after entering restricted waters without coordination with Iranian authorities, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy announced. IRGC announced on Friday that the two tankers had attempted to leave the Strait of Hormuz through unauthorized passages, despite maritime restrictions imposed by Iran. The vessels had switched off all their navigation and identification systems while attempting to transit the waterway with the support of the “aggressive and terrorist US military,” the IRGC Navy noted in a statement.
The “violating tankers” struck naval mines and subsequently caught fire, forcing them to stop in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. "The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, by God's grace and through the efforts of the brave men of the IRGC Navy, and this situation will not change until the seven conditions (put forward by Iran) are fulfilled," IRGC emphasized. On Thursday, the IRGC reported that two other oil tankers had caught fire in separate incidents after attempting to use unauthorized routes, while a tugboat that approached one of the vessels to help extinguish the blaze also caught fire.
Iranian officials have repeatedly warned commercial vessels against using routes that Tehran has announced as unauthorized and unsafe, particularly those that bypass its maritime coordination requirements. The Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, is one of the world's most important energy passageways, carrying a substantial share of global seaborne oil supplies. Iran imposed restrictions on the Strait in response to the latest round of US-Israeli aggression, preventing US and allied ships from navigating the strategic waterway.
The move resulted in a significant increase in oil and energy prices across the globe, especially in the US, forcing Washington and the International Energy Agency (IEA) to release their strategic reserves several times. Following the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Tehran opened the Strait of Hormuz, but after the US violated the MoU by blockading Iranian ports, Iran’s Armed Forces closed the maritime corridor once again.
Press TV rests its whole account of the tanker fires on the IRGC Navy's statements and quotes no shipowner, crew or other party. It loosens the attribution when it says the tankers struck naval mines. In its own voice it states that the US violated the Islamabad MoU and calls the war 'US-Israeli aggression'.
States one side's claim as fact
Minor
“struck naval mines and subsequently caught fire”
Why this matters
Press TV drops the attribution it gave in S1 and S3 and states in its own voice that the tankers struck naval mines and then caught fire. It never says whose mines they were or who laid them.
The impression it gives
That the cause of the fires is established fact, and that the mines were simply there, with no one responsible for placing them.
The context
The mine account comes from the IRGC Navy's statement. Other outlets reporting the same statement keep it attributed. The Tehran Times writes that the IRGC Navy 'says' the tankers struck mines. Press TV's own earlier report attributed similar fires to the 'malicious actions' of the US military. The article gives the reader no independent account of what hit the ships.
“after the US violated the MoU by blockading Iranian ports”
Why this matters
Press TV states in its own voice, with no source, that the US violated the Islamabad MoU by blockading Iranian ports.
The impression it gives
That a breach of the agreement by the US is settled fact, and that it alone explains why the strait was closed again.
The context
This is Iran's position on a contested question between two parties to the agreement. The article attributes it to no one and gives no US account of the MoU or the blockade.
Press TV calls the US and Israeli strikes 'aggression' in its own narration, not in a quotation.
The impression it gives
That the outlet itself has settled the character of the war as aggression, with Iran's closure of the strait a pure response.
The context
The word carries a verdict that the article does not support with facts in this piece. The article's other charged terms, such as 'aggressive and terrorist US military', sit inside quotation marks attributed to the IRGC.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article““aggressive and terrorist US military,” the IRGC Navy noted”
“the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy announced”
Why this matters
Press TV builds the whole account of the fires on the IRGC Navy's statements. It quotes no shipowner, crew, flag state or US source.
The impression it gives
That the IRGC's version is the only account of what happened to the tankers and the people aboard them.
The context
The article never says whether crews were hurt or who owned the ships. Press TV's own earlier report referred to the 'tanker owners', but none is named or heard here.