Fox News, on Iran, 20 October 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Sea mine crisis re-emerges in Strait of Hormuz as Tehran urges Washington to accept deal

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

Sea mines have resurfaced as a threat in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran claimed Oct.17 that two oil tankers caught fire after striking the explosives, raising fresh alarms over the safety of one of the world's most critical shipping lanes. This came as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) warned that sea mines pose a serious threat to vessels navigating the strategic waterway and while Tehran continues to maintain its own unauthorized shipping corridor inside its territorial waters.

"The traffic separation scheme, the information that we have is that they still have mines. And of course, whilst the conflict is ongoing, it's very difficult for us to use third parties to verify that it is clear of these hazards," IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez told Fox News Digital. "So in the meantime, we cannot guarantee that a vessel that intends to transit that route will not be hit by a mine."

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy said Saturday that two oil tankers caught fire after striking naval mines while crossing the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported, citing Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). State media also said both tankers were carrying about 2 million barrels of crude oil, according to Reuters. IRNA also reported that the vessels had switched off their positioning and radar systems and attempted to use a route through the strategic waterway that Iran had not authorized.

IRAN WARNS SHIPS OF 'FORCEFUL RESPONSE' AS US-BACKED HORMUZ ROUTE CHALLENGES TEHRAN'S GRIP The second tanker was left immobilized after striking a mine, according to the Reuters report. The alleged strikes came as Tehran continued to maintain its transit passageway inside Iranian territorial waters, imposing tolls and safety fees administered by the IRGC — a framework rejected by Washington and the IMO as inconsistent with international maritime law.

International shipping through the narrow chokepoint has historically relied on an IMO-approved traffic separation scheme adopted in 1968. "Right now there's only one route that was adopted back in 1968 that is approved and recognized for IMO and that appears in all the charts for the vessels to operate," Dominguez explained. IRAN FAILS TO STRIKE DEAL WITH US AS DEADLINE PASSES AND TRUMP CALLS FOR ‘WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER' "There's only one route that should be used for transit, but it's not clear of mines right now, so it's not safe."

"We have received confirmation from Iran about the establishment of its temporary route in the waters," he added before stating that the route was not provided with "an official confirmation or a decision of the organization." "Any other route needs to actually be sent to the organization to go through the processes, and we have not received that." "We have received communication from Iran to use that route because of the conflict," Dominguez clarified.

"That's the way that it's been presented. But anything for us to approve needs to go through the mechanisms at the international maritime organizations and the member states need to review it." The developments also came amid stalled negotiations between Washington and Tehran over ending the conflict and restoring maritime traffic. DISTRESS CALL CAPTURES TANKER UNDER FIRE, IRAN SHUTS HORMUZ TRAPPING THOUSANDS OF SAILORS Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and a former Revolutionary Guard commander, said Tehran considered Washington's latest response to negotiations "insufficient," Reuters reported, according to IRNA.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article refers repeatedly to "the conflict" and to Iran's closure of the strait but never says that the conflict followed a US and Israeli military operation against Iran. Without this a reader may take Iran's route and closure as unprovoked.

How we know

Rezaei said the U.S. had accepted some of Iran's seven conditions but that other issues remained unresolved, adding that Tehran was no longer responding to Washington and that the U.S. needed to clarify the outstanding matters. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Tehran had submitted a proposal to Washington through Qatar, which is mediating the negotiations, outlining conditions under which the Strait of Hormuz could reopen and normal maritime traffic resume within seven days.

"Our situation is clear and based on ⁠the seven-day proposal presented to the US. They shared comments which ​we are reviewing, but our proposal is still on the table ​and if there is any honesty on the US part, which there isn't, the way to reopening the Strait of Hormuz is obvious," Araqchi said in ​Baghdad, Reuters reported IRAN REQUESTS TALKS WITH US AS WHITE HOUSE WARNS 'VIOLENCE WILL BE MET WITH VIOLENCE' Meanwhile, attacks on commercial vessels around the Strait of Hormuz have surged over the past two weeks.

Senior Iranian officials also told Reuters that Tehran has shifted its strategy for attacking commercial vessels during that period. For commercial shipping operators, Dominguez warned that the continued threat of mines and attacks means the waterway has yet to return to normal operations. The Strait of Hormuz is "not open for business in the way that it was before the conflict started," he said. "Our role right now is to prepare for when we have the opportunity to go back, resume the operations, follow all the procedures at IMO, but not until the root causes are addressed and those are beyond IMO."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP Fox News Digital reached out to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for comment.

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

Fox News reports Iran's claim that two tankers struck mines in the Strait of Hormuz, the IMO's warning on mines, and the stalled US-Iran talks, and it attributes most claims carefully. A promotional link in the body calls the mines Iran's, which the article never supports. The article refers to 'the conflict' without saying that it followed a US and Israeli military operation against Iran.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “INSIDE THE DANGEROUS US MISSION THAT CLEARED IRAN’S MINES FROM HORMUZ SHIPPING LANES”

    Why this matters
    The promotional link inserted into the body calls the mines "IRAN'S MINES" as a plain fact.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it that Iran laid the mines the tankers struck.
    The context
    Nothing in the article establishes who laid the mines. The IMO says only that mines remain in the traffic separation scheme, and the tanker claim comes from the IRGC via IRNA.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“the information that we have is that they still have mines”

    Show it in the article

  2. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article refers repeatedly to "the conflict" and to Iran's closure of the strait but never says that the conflict followed a US and Israeli military operation against Iran. Without this a reader may take Iran's route and closure as unprovoked.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

What it gets right

  • “Reuters reported, citing Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA)”

    It gives the full source chain for the claim about the tankers instead of stating it as fact.

  • “a framework rejected by Washington and the IMO as inconsistent with international maritime law”

    It attributes the legal objection to the parties that make it.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Fox News

Everything we scored from Fox News