US and Iran accuse each other after Strait of Hormuz closure and strikes

Unpacked: Left-leaning outlets present this as renewed US-Iran escalation around the Strait of Hormuz, but they do not tell the same version. Bloomberg keeps it narrow: the US and Iran “exchanged fresh strikes” and issued “conflicting declarations” over whether the strait was open. The New York Times frames it as a Trump-deal failure, saying Iran believed the agreement gave it “control of the waterway — and global energy supplies” and is now “violently asserting authority.” The Guardian goes much wider and more judgmental, calling the conflict an “illegal war launched by the US and Israel,” a “futile search for an exit from war via escalation,” and a “doom loop.” Its distinctive facts are largely absent from the NYT and Bloomberg snippets: the World Food Programme feeding “1.5 million fewer people,” an extra “2.5 million” in Somalia and “2.3 million” in Afghanistan struggling for basic food, the strait’s role in fertiliser exports, and the claim that thousands, including children, have been killed in Iran and Lebanon. The Guardian also gives the most specific account of the disputed MOU: Iran was to “restore shipping,” “ensure safe passage,” and work with Oman, while Iran read the ambiguity as confirming its control and targeted ships using a “separate US-coordinated route.” Right-leaning outlets had not covered this as of publication, so their readers are missing even the basic competing claims over whether Hormuz is open, plus the Guardian’s humanitarian and diplomatic details. The unasked question is concrete: what exact text in the MOU determines whether Iran gained administrative control, fee authority, or neither?