Fox News98%

NEW: China-backed 'shadow fleet' helping Iran skirt US oil sanctions 76%

5/29/2026, 11:15:29 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.4% saturation with 112 hits. Analysis detected 1,111 faulty-reasoning hits from 834 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.4% and a BS Rank of 76% (4,872 of 20,247 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 75.90% of the video peer group.

US and Iranian negotiators reaching an 
agreement on a 60-day ceasefire 
extension pending President Trump's 
final approval. But even as diplomacy 
moves forward, a high seas black market 
is keeping Iran afloat despite economic 
and military pressure. Hundreds of 
tankers known as the Shadow Fleet 
continue helping Iran move billions of 
dollars in oil through covert shipto- 
ship transfers largely into China and 
largely beyond the reach of US 
sanctions. 
>> Nearly 1.5 million oil barrels travels 
through the network from Iran to China 
and the fleet is secretly transporting 
between other countries like Russia and 
Venezuela. 
The Trump administration is 
trying to crack down on the shadow 
fleet, but some experts remain skeptical 
about how quickly the trade can be 
stopped. Joining us now to discuss this 
is former deputy national security 
adviser and Heritage Foundation vice 
president of national security, Victoria 
Coats. 
Victoria, thank you so much for 
joining us. This according to uh a 
really interesting Wall Street Journal 
report that came out yesterday. How much 
of a boom is this to the Iranian economy 
and how can the United States prevent 
this shadow fleet from, you know, going 
around our sanctions? 
>> Well, good morning, Carly. Good to be 
with you. I mean, this is a really 
important report. And what's also 
important, though, is that the Treasury 
Department is getting after it. You 
know, we have new sanctions that have 
been announced under our rewards for 
justice program. Uh, Treasury is 
offering $15 million to anyone who gives 
them more information on this so we can 
disrupt it. And right now, $15 million 
is a lot of money in Iran. So, I bet 
they're going to get some tipsters, 
especially with the internet starting to 
open up, you know, calling them and 
telling them how to get after these 
ships. Also important that this network 
seems to be running through Hong Kong. 
So, this is a Chineseup supported uh 
network. This is where where China's 
continuing to try to access its uh you 
know it its lowpriced oil out of Iran. 
And clearly President Trump is signaling 
he's not going to let that happen. That 
said, despite what you just said about 
sanctions, one expert is telling the 
Wall Street Journal that disrupting this 
shadow fleet would require sustained 
military and economic pressure far 
beyond traditional sanctions, arguing, 
quote, "To truly reign in the fleet, 
though, the US would likely need to 
maintain a warlike footing against the 
ships indefinitely, keeping its blockade 
on Iranian ports, using military assets 
to intercept shadow fleet ships, and 
intensifying pressure on China an 
experts expert adding even if the 
straight of Hormuz doesn't reopen Iran 
will likely be receiving money for its 
oil on the water until October. So 
Victoria to me that begs the question do 
we have the capacity to do that? We've 
done tons of stories where we don't do 
not have the number of Navy vessels that 
we used to. We're trying to build more 
but we don't have that capacity right 
now. And many of what we do have are 
active in the Gulf. So, can we 
reposition these closer to China to do 
what that expert says? 
>> No, I think we can. And you make a 
really important point there, Todd, 
which is that we do have to get after 
rebuilding our Navy. That's why the 
president's $ 1.5 trillion historic uh 
request for a Department of War budget 
is so important, and we will increase 
that capacity. But for the time being, 
you know, we have a just hugely superior 
navy to the Iranian Navy, which is, as 
the president says, at the bottom of the 
ocean. Uh, you know, let alone the 
Chinese Navy, which is nowhere near the 
Gulf. They don't have that ability to 
project power. So, if we want to do 
this, if we want to get after these 
ships, which are old, they're not 
properly maintained, and they're 
certainly not properly insured or 
flagged, you know, we can certainly do 
that. But bear in mind, you know, even 
if the Iranians continue to export, 
which is in the grand scheme of things, 
a fairly small amount of oil, the rest 
of their economy is so thoroughly 
undermined and and and just weakened and 
and it just this isn't going to save 
them is the point. They have to uh they 
have to get sanctions relief from the 
United States, which means they have to 
agree to the points that the president 
has demanded from them. And I think 
that's what's going to come out of this 
this 60-day uh negotiation period. 
>> Yeah, it's a great point as all of this 
still remains deeply in flux. Victoria 
Coats, thank you so much for joining us 
this morning. 
Be sure to like and subscribe for all 
the Fox News latest on YouTube and catch 
full shows streaming now on Fox 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.9%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias2.9%This article: 0.5%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.5%This article: 4.7%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic4.7%This article: 4.2%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias1.0%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias7.2%This article: 9.6%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.4%This article: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias6.8%This article: 5.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 13.4%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias13.4%This article: 1.6%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 1.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error1.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias1.7%This article: 2.3%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.3%This article: 2.9%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias4.3%This article: 1.1%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.1%This article: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.2%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority8.2%This article: 4.2%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.6%This article: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.8%This article: 8.6%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization8.6%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.2%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon1.2%This article: 5.8%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 5.8%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question5.8%This article: 5.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.0%This article: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.8%This article: 1.6%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof1.6%This article: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.1%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal3.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.3%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.3%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.6%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

834 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.9%attributed speech760writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 8 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 8 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 8 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 8 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 8 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 7 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 9 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 7 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 7 words • 0.0% coverageVictoria Coats • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Victoria Coats

70%flagged-word coverage
74 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Indoctrination-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Victoria Coats: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Victoria Coats: 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.