Bessent rules out government intervention in oil futures market during Iran war 95%

By Eric Mack0%

3/19/2026, 1:52:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Overconfidence Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 31.2% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 579 faulty-reasoning hits from 398 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.1% and a BS Rank of 95% (1,199 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.30% of the article peer group.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. government will not intervene in oil futures markets even as the administration moves to offset supply disruptions tied to the Iran conflict, arguing that Washington’s response will focus on boosting physical crude availability instead. 
"We’re absolutely not doing that," Bessent told FOX Business' "Mornings With Maria" on Thursday, when asked about possible Treasury intervention in the futures market. 
"We’re not intervening in the financial markets. 
We are supplying the physical markets." 
In an interview with Maria Bartiromo, Bessent said the administration has prepared a coordinated supply response designed to cushion the impact of any temporary disruption around the Strait of Hormuz. 
He said the U.S. had already moved to "unsanction" Russian oil cargoes already on the water, estimated at about 130 million barrels, and could do the same with roughly 140 million barrels of Iranian oil in floating storage. 
"In essence, by the time we unsanctioned the floating Iranian oil, we would have intervened and we would have created about 260 million excess barrels of energy," Bessent said, calling that a "physical intervention" rather than a financial one. 
Bessent said that volume could help cover what he described as a temporary deficit of 10 million to 14 million barrels per day if shipping through the strait is interrupted, providing roughly three weeks of market stabilization. 
He also pointed to a 400 million-barrel coordinated Strategic Petroleum Reserve release approved last week and said the U.S. could act again unilaterally if needed. 
"The largest coordinated SPR release in history, 400 million barrels, was approved last week," he said. 
"The U.S. could unilaterally do another SPR release to keep the price down." 
Bessent framed the strategy as part of a broader effort to balance pressure on Iran with energy market stability. 
He said the U.S. has avoided striking Iranian energy infrastructure even while escalating military operations, arguing the goal is to preserve supply while keeping pressure on Tehran. 
"We have lots of levers," Bessent said. 
"We’ve got plenty more that we can do." 
Supplying the world more oil from Iran is going to ultimately bring down prices in America, according to Bessent, who noted the U.S. does not rely on Middle East oil but the chokepoint on oil through the Strait of Hormuz has indirectly strained supply and spooked crude futures markets. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Eric Mack: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 3.5%Anchoring Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Eric Mack: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias16.3%This article: 31.2%Eric Mack: 9.2%FoxBusiness: 13.0%Framing Effect31.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 29.1%Eric Mack: 5.0%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias29.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 7.0%FoxBusiness: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Eric Mack: 3.5%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 3.5%FoxBusiness: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 4.3%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 3.7%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.8%Eric Mack: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma6.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.3%Eric Mack: 3.1%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization12.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Eric Mack: 7.1%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.9%Eric Mack: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 9.8%Eric Mack: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading9.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 3.3%Eric Mack: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination3.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 2.3%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Mack: 1.8%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

398 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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