Oil rises back above $100, but US stocks hold steadier after US-Iran talks failed to end the war 30%

By STAN CHOE0%

4/13/2026, 7:20:35 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 19% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 1,010 faulty-reasoning hits from 780 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40% and a BS Rank of 30% (15,334 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.10% of the article peer group.

By STAN CHOE 
Updated 7:16 AM PDT, April 13, 2026 
Terrance McCauley works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange in New York, Tuesday, April 7, 2026. 
(AP Photo/Seth Wenig) 
NEW YORK (AP)  Oil prices are back above $100 per barrel on Monday after 21 hours of ceasefire talks between the United States and Iran failed to end their war. 
But U.S. stocks are holding relatively steady, an indicator that Wall Street still hopes both sides will ultimately avoid a worst-case scenario for the global economy. 
The S&P 500 was virtually unchanged in morning trading after erasing an earlier dip. 
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 250 points, or 0.5%, as of 10:05 a.m. 
Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 0.3% higher. 
The moves were much more modest than the extreme swings that have been hitting financial markets since the war began in late February. 
The oil market showed more concern, and prices there rose roughly 5%. 
But even there, prices pared bigger, earlier gains as the morning progressed. 
After the weekend’s talks failed, President Donald Trump threatened a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a move that raises the pressure on Iran by trying to prevent it from making money by selling oil. 
A blockade would keep even more oil off the global market, after prices already jumped for everyone worldwide because of shortfalls due to Iran’s restrictions on traffic in the important strait. 
That narrow waterway is how much of the oil produced in the Persian Gulf area reaches customers worldwide. 
Iran responded by threatening all ports in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. 
“Security in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman is either for everyone or for NO ONE,” the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting reported Monday. 
“NO PORT in the region will be safe,” according to a statement from the Iranian military and the Revolutionary Guards. 
The price of Brent crude, the international standard, rose back to $100.18 per barrel and is well above its roughly $70 price from before the war. 
But it remains below the $119 peak it’s touched at times, when worries about the U.S.-Iran war have been at their heights. 
It also pulled back from its nearly $104 price reached earlier Monday morning. 
“Markets are taking some encouragement from the fact that the two sides are talking and that the broader ceasefire seems to be holding, for now,” according to Sameer Samana, head of global equities and real assets at Wells Fargo Investment Institute. 
And, as with so many pronouncements made so far in the U.S.-Iran war, much will depend on the details of the blockade and exactly what gets restricted. 
“Not all blockades are created the same,” said Brian Jacobsen, chief economic strategist at Annex Wealth Management. 
“The developments over the weekend might not be as negative for the markets as many fear.” 
In the meantime, big U.S. companies are beginning to tell investors how much money they made during the first three months of the year. 
Goldman Sachs, the investment bank, said it made $5.63 billion in profit during the quarter, more than investors expected. 
But financial analysts pointed to some potentially concerning signals underneath the surface, including lower revenue from the trading of fixed income, commodities and currencies. 
Its stock fell 4%. 
Big banks traditionally lead earnings reporting season, and Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America will all report later this week. 
So will Johnson & Johnson, Netflix and PepsiCo. 
In the bond market, Treasury yields held relatively steady. 
The yield on the 10-year Treasury erased an earlier rise and was at 4.31%, where it was late Friday. 
A report said that sales of previously occupied homes were weaker in March than economists expected. 
The housing market has taken a hit because of more expensive rates for mortgages, which have largely climbed with the 10-year Treasury yield on worries that the U.S.-Iran war will keep oil prices and inflation high. 
In stock markets abroad, indexes fell across much of Europe and Asia. 
Hong Kong’s Hang Seng fell 0.9%, and South Korea’s Kospi dropped 0.9% for two of the world’s larger losses. 
“The outcome of the talks was not really what people were hoping for, that’s for certain,” Neil Newman, Managing Director, Head of Strategy at Astris Advisory Japan, said in Hong Kong about the U.S.-Iran negotiations. 
“As we stand here at the moment, it doesn’t look very nice. 
Certainly, the oil prices are a big concern.” 
AP journalists Yuri Kageyama, Matt Ott and Mayuko Ono contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.5%Stan Choe: 2.3%One America News Network: 4.6%Confirmation Bias6.5%This article: 7.9%Stan Choe: 1.6%One America News Network: 2.4%Anchoring Bias7.9%This article: 5.8%Stan Choe: 3.0%One America News Network: 3.9%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 5.4%Stan Choe: 1.0%One America News Network: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 2.2%One America News Network: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Stan Choe: 4.3%One America News Network: 15.3%Framing Effect4.5%This article: 4.0%Stan Choe: 0.3%One America News Network: 1.0%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.4%One America News Network: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.6%Stan Choe: 6.3%One America News Network: 4.3%Optimism Bias8.6%This article: 2.1%Stan Choe: 2.8%One America News Network: 1.8%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 16.0%Stan Choe: 5.9%One America News Network: 11.8%Negativity Bias16.0%This article: 2.4%Stan Choe: 0.3%One America News Network: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias2.4%This article: 1.5%Stan Choe: 0.5%One America News Network: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.3%One America News Network: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 1.0%One America News Network: 5.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Stan Choe: 1.2%One America News Network: 2.0%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Stan Choe: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.6%One America News Network: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%Stan Choe: 2.5%One America News Network: 6.3%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.7%One America News Network: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.4%One America News Network: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.4%Stan Choe: 2.6%One America News Network: 5.4%Hasty Generalization5.4%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.6%One America News Network: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.1%Stan Choe: 1.6%One America News Network: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion3.1%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.0%Stan Choe: 8.0%One America News Network: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.4%Stan Choe: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.3%Composition/Division2.4%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.4%One America News Network: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.7%Stan Choe: 1.7%One America News Network: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.7%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.1%One America News Network: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 1.0%One America News Network: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.3%Stan Choe: 1.2%One America News Network: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 2.0%One America News Network: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.4%One America News Network: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.2%One America News Network: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stan Choe: 0.0%One America News Network: 3.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Stan Choe: 0.1%One America News Network: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.4%

780 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers23%attributed speech603writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSTAN CHOE • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageIslamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSameer Samana • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Jacobsen • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Jacobsen • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGoldman Sachs • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageNeil Newman • 35 words • 0.0% coverageNeil Newman • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNeil Newman • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sameer Samana

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words23% of attributed speech70% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.