For several days, a number of Western media outlets and sources close to US circles have focused on tanker traffic through the southern route of the Strait of Hormuz in an effort to portray the return of oil flows and a reduced Iranian influence over this strategic waterway. An Axios report on the creation of a special route under US military protection, with 15 to 20 tankers passing each night, is a prominent example of this narrative. Other media outlets have also republished and amplified the report. The key issue with this narrative is that even if the limited and risky passage of several tankers claimed in these reports is accepted, this situation in no way amounts to a return to normal traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. On the contrary, the very creation of a special route, the guidance and military protection of vessels, and efforts to secure their passage indicate that conditions remain far from normal.

Even the Axios report acknowledges that oil flows remain below prewar levels and that US operations are aimed at helping maintain part of the region’s energy flows. Therefore, the passage of a number of tankers cannot be interpreted as meaning that the Strait is “fully open.”

More importantly, there is an effort to turn “passage” into “the ineffectiveness of Iranian control.” These are not the same thing. A limited number of vessels may be able to pass through this strategic waterway under special security arrangements in some cases, but this is fundamentally different from normal, unrestricted and low-risk traffic carrying millions of barrels of oil per day. The Financial Times has also reported a sharp increase in the cost and risk of transporting oil in the region, showing that shipping companies are demanding significantly higher rates to accept the risk of passage.

But perhaps the best response to these narratives can be found not in media headlines but in the behavior of energy markets. Brent reached $94.06 per barrel today, rising for a fifth consecutive day. Reuters attributed the increase to concerns over continued disruptions to Middle Eastern supplies and stressed that cargo flows through the Strait of Hormuz remain far below prewar levels.

The situation in refined products is even more telling. According to a recent Reuters report, European diesel prices have risen by more than 70% since the start of the war, while US gasoline prices have increased by about 60%. At the same time, reduced refining capacity in the Middle East and disruptions to crude oil exports have intensified pressure on refined-product markets.

Prices in the US market also remain elevated, with the upward trend continuing. Reports published today, citing AAA data, indicate continued upward pressure on gasoline prices, while diesel is still trading above $5 per gallon. A Reuters report on the fuel market also shows that US and Indian refiners are benefiting from supply disruptions caused by the wars and restricted access to crude oil and refined products, itself a sign of continued imbalance in the global fuel market.

Even the diesel market, contrary to the simplified narrative of returning energy flows, is showing signs of shortages and uncertainty. Axios also warned in a separate report about a “diesel crisis,” saying that the Iran war and the Russia-Ukraine war have put global diesel supplies under pressure through several channels.

Therefore, the main issue is not whether several tankers have managed to pass through the southern route under special and costly conditions. The question is whether this limited passage has returned the Strait of Hormuz to normal conditions. The market’s answer remains no.

If the Strait had truly returned to normal, there should be evidence of this in lower shipping risks, a sustained increase in oil flows, lower crude oil prices and, most importantly, easing pressure on refined-product markets. What we are seeing now is the opposite: continued risk, higher shipping costs, restricted flows, and pressure on inventories and refining capacity.

From this perspective, the passage of several tankers should not be presented as evidence that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer having an impact. A special route for limited passage is different from a return to security and normal traffic. What Western media outlets are highlighting may have a temporary propaganda effect, but turning this limited development into the broader picture is precisely where “news” can become “narrative-building.”

The best judge of this dispute is the market itself: it still has Brent above $94, refined products under pressure, and tanker operators demanding higher costs and accepting greater risks to pass through the Strait.