MS NOW95%

The Houthis’ commandeering of a Red Sea strait is a huge deal 71%

By Zeeshan Aleem94%

7/24/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 28.2% saturation with 226 hits. Analysis detected 1,824 faulty-reasoning hits from 801 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.3% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,528 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.20% of the article peer group.

The Strait of Hormuz remains at a virtual standstill because of President Donald Trump’s foolish war , and now, in what represents a new global energy price nightmare, Houthi militants in Yemen have begun to block a separate corridor that is critical for global oil shipping. 
On Thursday, oil surged past $100 a barrel for the first time since May in response to the news that the war with Iran is on the brink of expanding to a new front. 
And Trump’s promise to bomb the Houthis should they continue is unlikely to improve the situation. 
Those Houthi militants, who are allied with and supported by Iran, announced Monday that they would were enacting a blockade in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait against Saudi Arabia. 
The Houthis said their blockade is retaliation for airstrikes against a Yemeni airport intended to prevent an Iranian aircraft from landing. 
(Yemen’s Saudi-backed government claimed credit for the attack.) 
On Thursday, the Houthis said they had attacked two Saudi oil tankers and successfully warned 10 more to turn back . 
(Saudi Arabia’s official news agency confirmed at least one tanker was hit.) 
Should the Houthis continue to attack ships, Trump ought to be concerned; his record fighting the scrappy militia is not impressive. 
The Houthis’ blockade is a huge deal . 
Before the Iran war, about a fifth of the world’s oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz. 
Now it’s effectively closed . 
Saudi Arabia, which had transported the bulk of its oil through the Strait of Hormuz, started moving oil west through a pipeline. 
From there, Saudi Arabia was sending its oil out through the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. 
Thus, the Houthis’ blockade of the Bab al-Mandab Strait means they have foiled Saudi Arabia’s back-up plan. 
And it’s not just oil that’s at stake in the waterway. 
The Associated Press noted that “around 12% of the world’s trade, including a fourth of global container traffic, passes through [the strait], moving between Europe and Asia via Egypt’s Suez Canal.” 
Helima Croft, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, told the Financial Times that “extreme pressure” is building across the region and described the pressure on oil markets as “everything, everywhere, all at once.” 
She told the publication that a regional war could push oil above its 2008 record of about $146 a barrel. 
The Houthis said their blockade is a response to a “continued Saudi siege” of Yemen . 
But because the Houthis are backed by Iran and have reportedly been encouraged by Iran to be ready to block the Red Sea to hit back against the U.S. for targeting Iran’s power infrastructure, the blockade marks the Houthis’ de facto foray into a broader geopolitical conflict. 
Even if that’s not what the Houthis intended, that’s how Trump is treating it. 
Trump threatens Iran infrastructure strikes—but report says U.S. already did 
July 23, 2026 / 06:10 
“If they do this again, the U.S. will hold Iran responsible, in that the Houthis are a Surrogate and/or Proxy of Iran, and major military punishment will be inflicted upon Iran and, of course, the Houthis, themselves, who I am very disappointed with in that they have, until now, acted very professionally and smart,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Thursday. 
Should the Houthis continue to attack ships, Trump ought to be concerned; his record fighting the scrappy militia is not impressive. 
In 2025, after nearly two months of bombardment against the group that cost over $1 billion , the Houthis remained operational, and Trump cut his air campaign short. 
During that operation, the Houthis shot down a number of $30 million U.S. drones , nearly struck several American fighter jets, and forced an aircraft carrier to turn so abruptly to avoid fire that a $67 million F/A-18E Super Hornet tumbled off the ship. 
The Houthis’ ability to inflict pain on the U.S. shouldn’t necessarily be seen as purely Trumpian incompetence  former President Joe Biden also failed in his attempt to use naval power to rein in the Houthis 
Should the Houthis become a major actor in this war, and the U.S. fights against them, then Trump will burn through military resources at an even quicker rate  while fighting an even more extreme disruption to global oil supply. 
He entered this war for no intelligible reason, failed to grasp its basic dynamics, and he’s now stuck with a potentially metastasizing conflict with no foreseeable way to win. 
Trump chose this war, but as the spiking oil prices reflect, the entire world is paying the price. 
The post The Houthis’ commandeering of a Red Sea strait is a huge deal appeared first on MS NOW . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.6%Zeeshan Aleem: 12.2%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Zeeshan Aleem: 3.6%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic8.2%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 2.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Zeeshan Aleem: 13.5%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%Zeeshan Aleem: 6.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias28.2%This article: 20.6%Zeeshan Aleem: 21.2%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias20.6%This article: 2.2%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias2.2%This article: 12.1%Zeeshan Aleem: 5.8%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error12.1%This article: 4.5%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias4.5%This article: 3.5%Zeeshan Aleem: 2.6%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 2.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Zeeshan Aleem: 6.3%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem2.6%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 6.5%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority12.0%This article: 9.5%Zeeshan Aleem: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma9.5%This article: 10.9%Zeeshan Aleem: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope10.9%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.1%Zeeshan Aleem: 11.1%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization5.1%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.7%Zeeshan Aleem: 9.8%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 3.6%Zeeshan Aleem: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 12.2%Zeeshan Aleem: 3.5%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.2%This article: 4.5%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque4.5%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.1%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division2.1%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.4%Zeeshan Aleem: 2.3%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 11.6%Zeeshan Aleem: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection11.6%This article: 20.8%Zeeshan Aleem: 21.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice20.8%This article: 5.9%Zeeshan Aleem: 2.6%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination5.9%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 9.1%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zeeshan Aleem: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

801 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.9%attributed speech770writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 62 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Associated Press

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words100% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+91.9 ptsWriter: 8.1%Associated Press: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.7 ptsWriter: 21.7%Associated Press: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Associated Press: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Associated Press: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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