Ships Attacked in Strait of Hormuz as Iran Declares Strict Control of Vital Shipping Route ⁠5%

By Lynsey Chutel⁠0%

4/18/2026, 4:33:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 27.4% saturation with 157 hits. Analysis detected 1,118 faulty-reasoning hits from 573 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠5% (20,814 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.10% of the article peer group.

Iran’s declaration on Saturday that it was retaking strict control of the Strait of Hormuz added a new round of uncertainty, and increased peril, to navigation in the critical shipping route. 
Less than 24 hours since it declared the strait open to commercial ships after the start of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon, Iran’s military said in a statement that it had returned the strait “to its previous state.” 
It said that it would continue to exert “strict control” there unless the United States ended its own blockade of Iranian ports. 
Before that, 19 ships had passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Friday and early Saturday, according to Kpler, a maritime data firm. 
Dimitris Ampatzidis, an analyst with Kpler, called that a “slight uptick” from before. 
“Following the reported attacks on commercial shipping, the risk environment has clearly intensified,” he added. 
At the same time, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations organization, which is administered by Britain’s Royal Navy, recorded two incidents of vessels being hit. 
Those ships, and several others, then reversed course. 
In the first incident, the U.K.M.T.O. said, gun ships operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a force separate from its regular navy, fired at a tanker without radio warning. 
The ship’s captain reported that the crew were safe, the U.K.M.T.O. said. 
In the second incident, a container ship was “hit by an unknown projectile which caused damage to some of the containers,” the organization said. 
The Indian government appeared to acknowledge both ships as sailing under its flag. 
In a statement Saturday, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said it had summoned Iran’s ambassador and “conveyed India’s deep concern at the shooting incident earlier today involving two Indian-flagged ships in the Strait of Hormuz.” 
Iran had previously allowed safe passage to Indian merchant vessels, the ministry said. 
TankerTrackers.com, a company that monitors global oil shipments, said that the Guards had forced two Indian-flagged vessels sailing through the strait to reverse course. 
Kpler’s data said that an Indian-flagged container ship, owned by the French company CMA CGM, turned around as it neared Larak Shari, an island belonging to Iran that has become a checkpoint for Iranian authorities. 
Kpler’s data only tracks the movement of the ship and does not say whether it was hit. 
Kpler’s data showed that three more ships, all belonging to CMA CGM, turned around on Saturday. 
The company declined to comment. 
The Danish shipping giant Maersk said that its vessels would not pass through the strait until it was safe to do so. 
“Since the outbreak of the conflict, we have followed the guidance of our security partners in the region, and the recommendation so far has been to avoid transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” the company said in a statement. 
At least 20 vessels have been attacked in recent weeks, according to the International Maritime Organization, an arm of the United Nations. 
In the last seven days, an average of one ship a day has successfully passed through the strait, according to Signal, a maritime analysis firm. 
Most shipping companies were waiting to see if the current cease-fire would hold, said Maria Bertzeletou, a senior market analyst at Signal. 
“The strait is still in a danger zone,” Ms. 
Bertzeletou said. 
“The next 72 to 96 hours of actual tanker transits will determine whether confidence returns, or remains constrained.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.1%Lynsey Chutel: 0.8%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias3.1%This article: 8.4%Lynsey Chutel: 2.1%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias8.4%This article: 14.8%Lynsey Chutel: 6.3%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic14.8%This article: 4.2%Lynsey Chutel: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 3.8%Lynsey Chutel: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Lynsey Chutel: 3.4%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect11.2%This article: 3.8%Lynsey Chutel: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.8%This article: 2.3%Lynsey Chutel: 2.2%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Lynsey Chutel: 3.7%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias10.8%This article: 16.4%Lynsey Chutel: 10.4%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Lynsey Chutel: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.9%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Lynsey Chutel: 1.3%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Lynsey Chutel: 3.1%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias6.8%This article: 3.8%Lynsey Chutel: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect3.8%This article: 3.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.4%Lynsey Chutel: 6.8%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority27.4%This article: 3.1%Lynsey Chutel: 0.8%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Lynsey Chutel: 1.0%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.1%Lynsey Chutel: 1.5%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion6.1%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.9%Lynsey Chutel: 3.2%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.9%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.8%Lynsey Chutel: 2.7%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.8%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.3%Lynsey Chutel: 6.7%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote25.3%This article: 1.6%Lynsey Chutel: 0.8%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 5.4%Lynsey Chutel: 4.7%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice5.4%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lynsey Chutel: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

573 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers49%attributed speech290writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDimitris Ampatzidis • 13 words • 100.0% coverageDimitris Ampatzidis • 15 words • 0.0% coverageUnited Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations organization • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageUnited Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations organization • 30 words • 100.0% coverageUnited Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations organization • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageIndia’s Ministry of External Affairs • 35 words • 100.0% coverageIndia’s Ministry of External Affairs • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTankerTrackers.com • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCMA CGM • 5 words • 0.0% coverageMaersk • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMaersk • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMaria Bertzeletou • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMaria Bertzeletou • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMaria Bertzeletou • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMaria Bertzeletou • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Maria Bertzeletou

96%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words18% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Quote-first Misdirection+17.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Maria Bertzeletou: 17.6%17.6%Unattributed Quote+1.8 ptsWriter: 15.9%Maria Bertzeletou: 17.6%17.6%Biased Writer Voice-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%Maria Bertzeletou: 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…

Analysis

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