Strait of Hormuz crisis

US
The New York Times
The New York Times presents the strait closure as Iranian wartime escalation after U.S.–Israeli strikes in late February. Tanker traffic falls near zero, Brent passes $100, and dozens of commercial ships are attacked. The paper condemns strikes on merchant traffic and remains sceptical that a June framework will quickly restore normal shipping.
Read
EU
Le Monde
Le Monde reports the same hard numbers but stresses the diplomatic context: a paralysed Hormuz on one side, Washington's parallel blockade of Iranian ports on the other. A mid-June protocol is announced and Brent eases, yet shippers stay cautious while the strait remains mined and unstable.
Read
MENA
Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera puts Gulf populations and seafarers first: a de facto closed strait, at least 46 ships hit, rising energy prices and local shortages across the Arab world. A June deal opens a window, but the outlet warns the region could remain hostage to a lasting Iran–West standoff.
Read
RU
TASS
TASS portrays the Hormuz crisis as the consequence of U.S.–Israeli aggression: an Iranian blockade, counter-strikes and a global oil shock. Moscow denounces Western blockades on Iranian ports and asks why Iranian responses are condemned while Western actions are downplayed.
Read
CN
Xinhua
Xinhua refuses to reduce the crisis to oil prices alone. The agency calls for restraint, respect for maritime law and a comprehensive political settlement — not merely a technical exit negotiated between Washington and Tehran.
ReadWorldLens Alignement
Alignment index on how this event is interpreted
Hormuz blockade and oil shock · Rather low
Media tell very different stories.