OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

US strikes Iran and revokes Iran oil-sales waivers/licenses after Strait of Hormuz attacks; ceasefire declared over

243 sources · updated 2026-07-09
Left 63% Center 19% Right 19%
152 left · 45 center · 46 right

What happened

On July 7-9, 2026, three commercial vessels were damaged in or near the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil and gas shipping route; U.S., Qatari and Saudi officials blamed Iran, while Iran did not directly claim the ship attacks. The U.S. Treasury revoked a temporary license/waiver that had allowed Iranian oil sales under a June U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, and U.S. Central Command launched retaliatory strikes on Iranian coastal, air-defense, radar, missile, drone, naval and logistics targets. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting U.S. military sites and U.S.-allied Gulf states including Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar, according to Iranian and Gulf officials. At a NATO summit in Ankara, President Donald Trump said he considered the ceasefire with Iran “over,” though he also said U.S. negotiators could continue talks. Oil prices rose sharply and stock markets fell as the renewed fighting cast doubt on the interim deal meant to end the war that began with U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran in February.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

A concrete omission runs mostly one way: Trump’s threat to hit electric and desalination plants is reported by NPR and Mother Jones with the legal consequence attached — NPR says attacks on civilian infrastructure “could constitute a war crime,” and Mother Jones says international law experts consider striking desalination plants “war crimes.” Right-leaning pieces that mention Trump’s tougher threats, including DailyWire and the New York Post, do not include that war-crime framing. The sharpest word-choice split is over the same U.S. action: right outlets repeatedly call the strikes “retaliatory” (OAN: “retaliatory military strikes”; Fox: “massive US response”; Breitbart: “response to Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping”), while some left outlets use more accusatory language in headlines or framing, including Mother Jones’ “Trump Strikes Iran and Threatens War Crimes — Again” and The Intercept’s “Another Trump Ceasefire With Iran Crumbles,” calling it a “phony ceasefire” and “American capitulation.” The left-side coverage is generally fuller on Iran’s MOU argument: Guardian, BBC, NBC, NPR and CBS describe Tehran’s claim that the oil-waiver revocation and U.S. strikes breached the memorandum, and several explain the disputed Oman-side route and Iran’s claimed authority over Hormuz. Right coverage includes that argument in some places, especially Fox’s analysis, but many straight-news items foreground Iranian “bad behavior” or “unprovoked attacks” without the route/MOU detail. The unasked question across the board: what specific evidence, beyond U.S., Gulf-state or maritime-agency assertions, proves Iran carried out all three ship attacks?
Bottom line

The biggest verifiable gap is that left and center-left outlets more often explain the disputed MOU/Hormuz-route issue and the possible war-crime implication of civilian-infrastructure threats, while right outlets more often frame the same U.S. strikes as straightforward retaliation for Iranian aggression.

The Left View
Left-leaning coverage generally emphasized the fragility and possible collapse of the ceasefire, the human and economic risks of escalation, and the ambiguity in the June memorandum over who controls maritime arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz. Mainstream outlets such as NBC, BBC and NPR focused on the sequence of attacks, retaliation, sanctions-waiver revocation, oil-price spikes and the risk that diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program and Hormuz traffic could unravel. The Guardian and similar outlets gave more weight to Iran’s claim that the U.S. was violating the agreement by opening routes without Iranian permission and revoking oil relief, while also noting that Iran’s proposed fees for shipping resemble a coercive protection scheme and likely conflict with freedom-of-navigation norms. More progressive sources highlighted Trump’s inflammatory language, threats against infrastructure such as power and desalination plants, and the risk that expanded U.S. strikes could amount to unlawful escalation or war crimes if civilian infrastructure is targeted. Across the left-leaning set, the dominant framing was that Iran’s ship attacks were dangerous, but that U.S. military escalation and sanctions snapback could make a negotiated settlement harder and deepen global economic instability.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage framed the events primarily as Iranian aggression and a clear violation of a performance-based ceasefire agreement, requiring U.S. punishment to protect innocent crews, commercial shipping and the free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz. Conservative outlets emphasized that Iran attacked or threatened commercial vessels despite receiving sanctions relief, so reinstating oil sanctions and striking IRGC boats, missile sites, radar and air defenses were portrayed as justified consequences. They highlighted Trump’s argument that Iran’s leaders are dishonest, irrational and cannot be trusted with nuclear capabilities, and presented his threats of further force as necessary deterrence after Tehran targeted U.S. bases and Gulf allies. Some right-leaning analysis also argued that Iran’s demand to control routes or charge fees in Hormuz would reward extortion and destabilize U.S. partners, including Gulf states and Oman. While most conservative coverage supported a strong response, several analysts cautioned that Trump appears to want punitive strikes without a full-scale war, and that continued escalation could still risk broader conflict and higher energy prices.
Our Take (balanced)
The strongest argument from the right is that attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz cannot be treated as routine bargaining tactics: the waterway is central to global energy flows, and failing to respond could invite more coercion against civilian shipping and U.S. allies. The U.S. also has a plausible case that sanctions relief was conditional and that Iran’s attacks undermined the very safe-passage commitments that justified the waiver. The strongest argument from the left is that military retaliation and sanctions snapback may be legally and strategically risky if the memorandum’s Hormuz provisions are ambiguous, and Trump’s threats against civilian infrastructure are especially dangerous. The bigger problem is that both sides appear to be using force to shape negotiations while publicly declaring the other side untrustworthy, which makes accidental escalation more likely. A durable path would require immediate deconfliction for shipping, a clarified neutral transit regime for Hormuz, restraint on strikes outside military targets, and renewed talks that separate freedom of navigation from broader disputes over sanctions and Iran’s nuclear program.

243 sources

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.