Oil Prices Surge Above $100 After Peace Talks Fail and Trump Threatens Blockade ⁠7%

By The New York Times⁠0%

4/12/2026, 3:14:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 21.1% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 411 faulty-reasoning hits from 470 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (20,501 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.70% of the article peer group.

Oil prices rose and stocks fell on Sunday evening after peace talks between the United States and Iran ended without a deal overnight. 
Hours later, President Trump announced plans to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. 
It is not yet clear what that escalation will mean for the fragile cease-fire the countries agreed to last week, leaving no clear path to ending a war that is now entering its seventh week. 
That uncertainty continues to rattle investors who are eager for a path to stabilizing the flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf. 
In attempting a blockade, Mr. 
Trump is repeating a playbook he used recently against Venezuela to cut that country off from a vital source of revenue. 
This time, he does not want Iran to be able to use the strait, a vital waterway, for exports. 
U.S. 
Central Command clarified on Sunday that U.S. forces would interfere only with vessels traveling to and from Iranian ports. 
“We’re not going to let Iran make money by selling oil to people that they like,” Mr. 
Trump told Fox News. 
Here is the latest: 
Oil rises sharply 
Oil prices surged above $100 once more as markets opened on Sunday evening. 
The price of Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, rose more than 7 percent to around $102 a barrel. 
West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, climbed more than 8 percent to about $105 a barrel. 
Investors and analysts are focused on the continued disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that is a vital trading route for oil and natural gas. 
As much as one-fifth of the world’s oil supply and substantial amounts of natural gas typically pass through the strait. 
But few vessels have attempted that trip since the war started out of fear that Iran might attack. 
Stocks dip 
Futures on the S&P 500, which give investors a chance to bet on the market before exchanges open on Monday morning, fell roughly 1 percent. 
The stock market had stabilized after a fragile cease-fire took hold last week, with the S&P 500 rising 3.6 percent for the week through Friday, its second consecutive week of gains. 
Gasoline prices remain elevated 
Gas prices were little changed on Sunday, at a national average of about $4.13 a gallon, according to the AAA motor club. 
The rise in prices since the war began has raised the cost of regular gas for drivers by 38 percent. 
Gas prices don’t move in lock step with crude, usually trailing increases or drops by a few days. 
Diesel prices have increased more quickly in recent weeks and stood at $5.66 on Sunday, up some 50 percent since the start of the war. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.7%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%The New York Times: 3.3%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 4.5%The New York Times: 1.1%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.6%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%The New York Times: 5.9%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.9%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%The New York Times: 3.5%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias7.4%This article: 1.5%The New York Times: 8.2%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%The New York Times: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.5%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.6%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.7%The New York Times: 4.7%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority8.7%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.1%The New York Times: 2.1%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization8.1%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.3%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 21.1%The New York Times: 3.9%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.1%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.6%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%The New York Times: 5.8%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 3.6%The New York Times: 1.2%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 4.5%The New York Times: 1.2%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice4.5%This article: 3.6%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

470 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers4.9%attributed speech447writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Central Command • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

U.S. Central Command

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words83% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%U.S. Central Command: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%U.S. Central Command: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%U.S. Central Command: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%U.S. Central Command: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.