Brent Crude Rises to $84.18 in Third Straight Session of Gains as Hormuz Reopening Talks Continue
Oil gained again on Monday as Iran and Oman said a shipping-route deal was near but warned the Strait of Hormuz would not reopen right away.
Two Sides Agree a Deal Is Close. They Disagree on What "Reopen" Means
Brent crude hit $84.18 a barrel on Monday, August 10, its third straight session of gains[1][2]. U.S. crude, West Texas Intermediate, rose to $78.82[2]. The reason traders gave was simple: ships still are not moving normally through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that carries roughly a fifth of the world's oil[15].
That's despite genuinely good news. Iran and Oman say they've agreed on the map coordinates for a new shipping corridor, and a joint statement is close to final[3]. The U.S. Secretary of State says Washington is involved and progress has been made[21]. Everyone describes the same negotiation as nearly done.
And yet Iran spent the weekend making clear that a signed corridor is not the same as reopening the strait[1]. A tanker run by Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. was attacked in the strait over the weekend. Houthi fighters in Yemen claimed a strike on Saudi Arabia's Jazan refinery[1]. The gap between "deal is near" and "strait is open" is where this story actually lives.
What a Signature Would and Wouldn't Buy
Start with what nobody disputes. The strait is about 100 miles long, and its shipping lanes run close to Iranian territory[15]. The U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran began on February 28, 2026, and traffic through the strait has been sharply reduced ever since[15]. Iran's Foreign Ministry says it's been negotiating a safe transit route with Oman for about two months, and that the route's coordinates are settled[3].
Here's the detail that changes how that agreement should be read: Iran's deputy foreign minister says the corridor would run mostly through Iranian territorial waters, with Oman covering the rest, and that it would run for an initial two to four months[3]. That's not a technicality. A country's territorial waters are the strip of sea it controls under international law, and a state generally sets the terms for who passes through its own waters. A time-limited corridor is a country granting temporary access, not surrendering control of the whole strait.
Then, on August 8, Iran's Supreme National Security Council spelled out what full reopening would actually require. Secretary Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr said normal traffic wouldn't resume until the U.S. lifts its naval blockade and sanctions, withdraws its military forces from the region, pays reparations for war damage in 2025 and 2026, and releases frozen Iranian assets[22][23]. That's a far more specific price than "the war needs to end." It tells you exactly what Tehran considers real reopening to cost.
The Forecast That's Already $10 Off
The U.S. Energy Information Administration, the government's independent statistics arm, published its outlook for the oil market in July. It put Brent's June average at $85 a barrel and forecast it would fall to $74 in the third quarter of 2026, then $65 in 2027[5][6]. That forecast assumed something specific: that shipping through Hormuz would climb back to near-prewar levels by the end of the year[6].
Brent is trading at $84.18 — about $10 above that quarterly forecast[2][5]. That gap is the market's way of saying it isn't yet buying the assumption behind the official number. Traders, tanker owners, and marine insurers are pricing the odds that a ship actually completes its voyage without getting hit, not whether a diplomatic statement gets signed[1]. War-risk insurance, the added premium insurers charge for shipping through an active conflict zone, rises and falls with those odds — and reporting from late July put Gulf oil flows at roughly 36% of prewar levels[10].
Washington has one less tool than it used to for managing that gap. The Energy Department released 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the government's emergency oil stockpile, to blunt the price shock[7]. As of late July, the reserve held 308 million barrels — its lowest level since 1983 — and government auditors have flagged both the drawdown and a maintenance backlog on the reserve's aging storage sites[8].
Whose Bill Is This
For American households, the story isn't the strait — it's the pump and the mortgage. Gasoline has averaged above $4 a gallon during the conflict, and the EIA forecasts a third-quarter average of $3.80, down from more than $4.20 in the second quarter but still elevated[5][11]. Higher energy prices work their way into overall inflation within weeks, and from there into interest rates and mortgage costs[12][13].
Research from the Centre for Economic Policy Research modeled what a relatively favorable outcome — a one-quarter closure of the strait followed by a gradual recovery in exports — would still cost. Their estimate: 0.6 percentage points added to headline U.S. inflation in 2026, and 0.2 points added to core inflation[13]. Headline inflation includes food and energy costs; core strips those volatile categories out, which is why economists and the Federal Reserve watch core more closely. A 0.2-point move in core is harder to write off as a passing energy blip.
Gulf oil producers have a different complaint entirely: they say they're caught in the middle. Roughly 15 vessels operated by Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. have been hit since the war began, and the Houthi-claimed strike on the Jazan refinery adds to the toll[1][22]. Their argument cuts against a common assumption — that OPEC nations can simply pump more oil to cool prices. Extra production doesn't help if the tankers carrying it can't leave the Gulf[15][18].
Whose Version of "Winning" This Is
Each side has a story where the current price action counts as evidence for them. U.S. coverage from outlets like Fox Business tends to frame oil prices as something the White House controls directly — falling when President Trump signals talks, rising when he threatens strikes[9]. Trump has said any deal must include the "Immediate, Complete and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT," full stop[9]. In that reading, Iran is the obstacle being managed, and the price tape is proof the approach is working.
Coverage from Al Jazeera, funded by the Qatari government, and Gulf News, aligned with UAE government positions, tells a different story — one where the U.S. is a participant in the talks, not their author[3][4][21]. Their reporting leans on granular diplomatic detail: agreed coordinates, a joint statement in drafting, a fixed initial term[3]. In that frame, any reopening is something Iran grants inside its own waters, not something it's forced to concede.
U.S. outlets on the left, including PBS NewsHour and CBS News, center the household bill instead — $4 gasoline, an inflation jump, rising mortgage costs — treating the war as the cause and the price as what Americans are left to pay[11][12][20]. Business-desk outlets like CNBC and Bloomberg mostly report the number first and the diplomacy as its cause, which is neutral in wording but still decides, by that framing, what counts as the news[1][19]. None of these framings is factually wrong. They just disagree about whose sentence this is — what Washington did, or what it's costing people.
What a Signed Corridor Still Wouldn't Settle
Every actor here has a reason to describe the same negotiation differently. The White House has an interest in treating any reopening as a policy win it produced, through pressure and reserve releases[7][9]. Tehran has an interest in treating the corridor as a limited, revocable favor granted through Oman, not a surrender[3][4]. Gulf producers and shipowners have an interest in keeping the focus on the attacks themselves, since that's the case for security guarantees and for who absorbs rising insurance costs[1][15].
What isn't in dispute is the geography, and geography doesn't change when a statement is signed. Iran controls much of the water the corridor would run through, which means the country granting passage today can restrict it again tomorrow[3]. That's exactly why Tehran's leverage is worth using now, before months of interdiction push shippers toward permanent workarounds and Gulf states toward accepting more U.S. escort operations[3][4].
The EIA's forecast assumes flows return to near-normal by year end. The market, trading $10 above that forecast, isn't there yet[5][6]. Whether a signed corridor actually moves oil — and how much, how fast — is the question that will settle this, not the signature itself.
Summary
Oil rose again on Monday, August 10, 2026. Brent crude, the global benchmark, reached $84.18 a barrel, up 0.75% on the day[2]. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude rose 0.81% to $78.82[2]. It was the third session in a row of gains[1]. The reason traders gave was simple: commercial ships are still not moving normally through the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow sea passage between Iran and Oman. Roughly 20% of the world's oil shipments pass through it[15]. Since the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran began on February 28, 2026, traffic there has been cut sharply, and tankers have been attacked[15][17]. Over the weekend a tanker operated by Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. was attacked in the strait, and Houthi fighters in Yemen claimed a strike on Saudi Arabia's Jazan refinery[1].
Talks are underway. Iran and Oman say they have agreed on the map coordinates for a new shipping corridor, and that a joint statement is in final drafting[3]. Iran's deputy foreign minister said much of the route would run through Iranian territorial waters, and that it would be used for two to four months at first[3]. The United States says it is involved and that a deal is close[21]. But Iran warned over the weekend that any arrangement would not mean an immediate reopening[1].
That gap is the real dispute. Everyone agrees a deal is being negotiated. What is contested is whether a signed corridor actually restores oil flows — and how fast. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's July forecast assumed flows return to near prewar levels by year end, and projected Brent averaging $74 a barrel this quarter[5][6]. Prices are running about $10 above that. Iranian officials describe the corridor as a limited, revocable arrangement inside their own waters[3]. Shipowners and insurers are watching whether attacks stop, not whether a statement is signed.
The Event
On Monday, August 10, 2026, Brent crude futures rose 0.75% to $84.18 a barrel and West Texas Intermediate rose 0.81% to $78.82[2]. It was Brent's third straight session of gains[1]. Traders cited continued uncertainty over reopening the Strait of Hormuz, where commercial traffic has been sharply reduced since the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran began on February 28, 2026[1][15]. Over the weekend, a tanker operated by Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. was attacked in the strait, and Iran said its talks with Oman on a shipping route were near agreement but would not immediately reopen the waterway[1][3].
Undisputed Facts
- Brent crude traded at $84.18 a barrel on August 10, 2026, up 0.75% from the prior session; WTI traded at $78.82, up 0.81%[2].
- The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly 20% of global oil shipments and is about 100 miles long[15].
- The U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran began on February 28, 2026[15].
- Iran's Foreign Ministry says it has been in talks with Oman for about two months on a safe transit route, and that the route's geographic coordinates have been agreed[3].
- Iran's deputy foreign minister said the proposed corridor would run largely through Iranian territorial waters and partly through Omani waters, and would be used for two to four months or longer[3].
- Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr said on August 8, 2026, that reopening the strait to normal traffic would require the United States to lift its naval blockade and sanctions, withdraw military forces from the region, pay war reparations for damage from the 2025 and 2026 wars, and release frozen Iranian assets[22][23].
- The U.S. Secretary of State said progress had been made in the Oman-Iran talks and that Washington was involved, but that no final agreement had been reached[21].
- The U.S. Energy Information Administration's July 2026 outlook put Brent's June average at $85 a barrel and forecast an average of $74 for the third quarter of 2026 and $65 in 2027[5][6].
- The Energy Department announced a release of 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during the closure[7]; as of July 24, 2026, the reserve held 308 million barrels, its lowest level since 1983[8].
- U.S. retail gasoline averaged above $4 a gallon during the conflict; EIA forecast a third-quarter 2026 average of $3.80 a gallon, down from more than $4.20 in the second quarter[5][11].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Geography beats diplomacy
- The strait is about 100 miles long and narrow, and shipping lanes run close to Iranian territory[15]. That fact does not change when a statement is signed. Any deal that leaves Iran physically able to interdict traffic leaves the risk premium partly in place[3].
- Spare capacity is useless without a route
- OPEC producers can raise output, but Gulf barrels still have to exit through the same water[18]. This is why extra production has not calmed prices the way it does in a normal supply shortage[15].
- The U.S. cushion is nearly spent
- The Strategic Petroleum Reserve — the government's emergency stockpile, drawn down to lower pump prices — stood at 308 million barrels on July 24, 2026, its lowest since 1983, after a 172-million-barrel release[7][8]. The Government Accountability Office has flagged both the drawdown and a maintenance backlog[8]. Whatever tool Washington used in March is smaller now.
- Iran's leverage decays if it is used
- Every month of interdiction pushes buyers, insurers and shipowners toward workarounds and pushes Gulf states toward accepting U.S. escort operations. Tehran's incentive is to trade the lever before it depreciates, while keeping it reusable — which is exactly what a two-to-four-month corridor through its own waters does[3][4].
- Election-year inflation math
- Energy prices show up in the headline inflation number within weeks, and in mortgage and freight costs after that[12][13]. That timeline, not the diplomatic one, sets the political clock in Washington.
Material realityOil flows through the Strait of Hormuz are far below normal and have been since late February[10][15]. Ships are still being attacked there: a tanker operated by Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. was hit over the weekend, and the Houthis claimed a strike on Saudi Arabia's Jazan refinery[1]. Brent is at $84.18, above the $65-$70 range that prevailed before the war and far below the $118 peak reached earlier in the conflict[2][15]. U.S. gasoline is around $4 a gallon and the emergency reserve is at a 43-year low[8][11]. The EIA's official forecast of $74-a-barrel Brent this quarter was built on the assumption that flows return to near prewar levels by year end[5][6]. Prices about $10 above that forecast are the market's way of saying it is not yet convinced. None of this turns on which framing wins: the barrels either sail or they do not.
Narrative as a weaponThree actors are actively shaping how this reads. The White House wants you to believe the price is a dial it controls — strikes threatened, strikes withheld, reserves released — and that any reopening is a win it produced[9][7]. Tehran wants you to believe the corridor is a sovereign favor extended through Oman, limited in time and revocable, so that the world treats a reopening as something Iran granted rather than something it was forced to concede[3][4]. Gulf producers and shipowners want you to focus on the attacks themselves, because that is the argument for security guarantees and for insurance and freight rates that others help pay. U.S. outlets on both sides mostly agree on the numbers and disagree about the subject of the sentence: whether the story is about what Washington did or about what it cost Americans. The one thing no side has an interest in emphasizing is the boring middle case — that a signed route may restore some traffic slowly, leave a war-risk premium in place, and satisfy nobody's narrative.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTehran's strongest case is legal and geographic, not just military. Much of the Strait of Hormuz runs through Iranian territorial waters, and Iran argues it is entitled to set conditions on passage through its own waters — especially while it is under attack and its ports are blockaded[3][21]. Officials present the Oman corridor as a sovereign accommodation, not a surrender: a defined route, agreed with a neighbor, for a fixed initial term of two to four months[3]. Iranian officials have been explicit that agreeing a route is not the same as reopening the strait[1]. On August 8, Iran's Supreme National Security Council went further and made its actual price explicit: Secretary Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr said normal traffic would not resume until Washington lifts its naval blockade and sanctions, withdraws U.S. military forces from the region, pays war reparations for damage from the 2025 and 2026 wars, and releases frozen Iranian assets[22][23]. In their telling, the waterway is the one lever that makes the world's largest economies care whether the war ends, and giving it up for nothing would be strategic malpractice.
WhyConvert control of the chokepoint into concrete relief — an end to strikes and the blockade of Iranian ports, lifted sanctions, war reparations and the return of frozen assets — while keeping the lever reusable if the deal collapses[4][21][22].
Impact on themIran's own oil exports are constrained by the same conflict and blockade. A corridor through its waters would also give Tehran a monitoring and enforcement role over traffic, which is itself a form of standing leverage[3][4].
Frames it asWashington's case is that freedom of navigation in an international strait is not Iran's to sell. Its best advocates argue that letting one state meter 20% of the world's oil sets a precedent every other chokepoint operator will notice[15]. The administration has paired threats of strikes with an offer of talks, and points to the price tape as evidence the approach works: Brent fell more than 5% when a deal looked close and jumped when strikes were threatened[9][10]. President Trump has said any agreement must include the "Immediate, Complete and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT" and an end to Iran's nuclear threat[9]. On the home front, officials point to the 172-million-barrel reserve release as proof they acted to blunt the price shock[7].
WhyEnd the disruption before the price shock hardens into an inflation problem, without letting Iran keep a permanent veto over the world's oil supply[9][12].
Impact on themGasoline above $4 a gallon and higher inflation are direct political costs in a U.S. election year[11][12]. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve — the government's emergency oil stockpile — is now at 308 million barrels, its lowest since 1983, which limits how much more the administration can cushion prices[8].
Frames it asSaudi Arabia, the UAE and their neighbors argue they are victims here, not parties. Their crude is loaded onto tankers that are being shot at; the Houthis claimed an attack on Saudi Arabia's Jazan refinery, and roughly 15 vessels operated by Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. have been hit in the strait since the war began[1][22]. Their case is that no amount of spare production capacity helps if the barrels cannot leave the Gulf — a point that cuts against the common assumption that OPEC can simply pump more to calm prices[15][18]. They favor a negotiated corridor over further escalation, because escalation lands on their export terminals first.
WhyRestore reliable loadings and protect their reputation as dependable suppliers, while avoiding becoming a battlefield between Washington and Tehran[15].
Impact on themHigh prices raise revenue per barrel, but only on barrels that ship. Reduced Gulf flows mean lost volume, higher war-risk insurance, and damaged infrastructure such as the Jazan refinery[1][17].
Frames it asThis group's argument is about pass-through: an oil shock is not confined to the gas pump. Higher crude raises the cost of shipping, groceries and air travel, and the resulting inflation feeds into interest rates and mortgage costs[12][20]. Research by the Centre for Economic Policy Research estimated that even a relatively good outcome — a Hormuz closure lasting one quarter, followed by a gradual return of exports — would add 0.6 percentage points to U.S. headline inflation and 0.2 points to core inflation in 2026[13]. Headline inflation includes food and energy; core strips them out, and is what the Fed watches most closely. So a 0.2-point core move is the part that is hardest to dismiss as a temporary energy blip.
WhyGet prices back down without a policy response that causes its own damage — the Fed does not want to raise rates against a supply shock it cannot control[13][14].
Impact on themGasoline averaged $4.06 a gallon by mid-2026 and rose again toward $4.10 in recent weeks[11][12]. For a household filling a 15-gallon tank weekly, roughly a dollar a gallon above prewar levels is about $15 a week, or near $780 a year. Mortgage rates have also risen alongside the inflation jump[12].
Frames it asTheir position is that the market is pricing risk, not politics — and that a signed statement is not a safe passage. What they price is the probability that a tanker completes a voyage without being hit. Recent attacks on ADNOC-operated vessels and on the Jazan refinery are the specific evidence they cite[1]. Traders note that Brent is trading about $10 above the EIA's third-quarter forecast of $74, which is a measurable gap between the official assumption of reopening and what buyers will actually pay today[2][5]. Insurers price war-risk premiums per voyage; when those premiums rise, some owners simply decline the charter regardless of any diplomatic communique.
WhyAvoid catastrophic loss on a single hull and cargo; profit from correctly reading how long the disruption lasts[1][15].
Impact on themWar-risk insurance costs and rerouting have raised freight rates. Reporting in late July put Persian Gulf oil flows at roughly 36% of prewar levels[10]. Every idle or rerouted tanker is revenue lost on one side and supply withheld on the other.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.2
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNBC | U.S. center, business press | 2 | "Oil prices rise amid uncertainty over U.S.-Iran Strait of Hormuz deal" — price move first, diplomacy as the cause. | Frames the story as a trade. The war's human dimension is absent; Iran appears as a variable in a supply model. Neutral in wording, but the market lens itself decides what counts as news. |
| Bloomberg | U.S. center, financial press | 3 | "Oil Holds Decline as Trump Says Talks Are Iran's 'Last Chance'" — quote-marked, attributed, price-led. | Careful attribution, but the running headline structure repeatedly pairs price direction with a Trump statement. That correlation, repeated daily, implies causation the reporting itself does not test against shipping data. |
| PBS NewsHour | U.S. center-left, public broadcasting | 4 | "Iran war hits home as gasoline prices fuel significant U.S. inflation jump" — the war is the cause, the household bill is the effect. | "Hits home" and "significant" do editorial work that the CPI number alone would not. The chain runs war → gas → inflation, with little room for the argument that Iranian interdiction, not U.S. policy, set the price. |
| Fox Business | U.S. right | 5 | "Oil slides as Trump delays Iran strikes, signals peace talks" — the president's move is the subject of the sentence. | Prices are attached to Trump's decisions rather than to Iranian action or shipping data. When oil falls it follows a Trump signal; the framing gives Washington the causal role and Tehran a reactive one. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 5 | "Iran says Hormuz talks with Oman in 'final' stages as route approved" — and a standing section label, "US-Israel war on Iran." | The section label assigns authorship of the war before any article is read. Coverage is detailed and sourced on the diplomacy, and centers Iranian statements and sovereignty over the route. Qatar borders Iran across the Gulf and has mediated in the region, which shapes what gets foregrounded. |
| Gulf News | UAE, close to Emirati government positions | 6 | "Oil prices skyrocket amid US-Iran War" and "Oil prices nosedive amid US intervention signals in Strait of Hormuz." | "Skyrocket" and "nosedive" are volatility words, and the framing treats U.S. intervention as the stabilizing force. Emirati-operated tankers are among those attacked, which aligns the outlet's coverage with the case for reopening by force if needed. |
References
- Oil prices rise amid uncertainty over U.S.-Iran Strait of Hormuz deal — CNBC · U.S. business news; owned by Comcast/NBCUniversal; market-desk framing
- Brent Crude Oil - Price, Chart, Historical Data — Trading Economics · Commercial market-data provider; price data, minimal editorial
- Iran says Hormuz talks with Oman in 'final' stages as route approved — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded broadcaster
- Iran deliberates Hormuz arrangement amid uncertain prospects with US — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded broadcaster
- July 2026 Short-Term Energy Outlook — U.S. Energy Information Administration · U.S. federal statistical agency; statutorily independent of DOE policy offices
- EIA increases global oil production forecast after the opening of the Strait of Hormuz (press release, 07/07/2026) — U.S. Energy Information Administration · U.S. federal statistical agency
- United States to Release 172 Million Barrels of Oil From the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — U.S. Department of Energy · U.S. executive-branch department; reflects sitting administration policy
- The Strategic Petroleum Reserve — Does the U.S. Have a Long-Term Plan Amid Massive Drawdowns & Maintenance Backlogs? — U.S. Government Accountability Office · Congressional audit agency; reports to Congress, not the executive
- Oil slides as Trump delays Iran strikes, signals peace talks — Fox Business · U.S. right-leaning; Fox Corporation
- Oil price: Strait of Hormuz crude flows recover, Trump's Iran tariff push — CNBC · U.S. business news; Comcast/NBCUniversal
- Iran war hits home as gasoline prices fuel significant U.S. inflation jump — PBS NewsHour · U.S. public broadcaster; center-left newsroom, partly federally and donor funded
- In 8 weeks, the Iran war has dented the U.S. economy. The damage could linger, economists say. — CBS News · U.S. center-left mainstream network news; Paramount
- Quantifying the impact of the Iran war on US inflation — Centre for Economic Policy Research (VoxEU) · European academic economics network; member-funded, mainstream macroeconomics, not a primary data source
- The Impact of the 2026 Iran War on U.S. Inflation (Working Paper 2609) — Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas · Regional Federal Reserve bank research; working papers are staff views, not Fed policy
- From chokepoint to crisis: The Strait of Hormuz and global oil markets — Brookings Institution · Washington think tank; centrist-to-center-left, corporate and foreign-government donor funded
- Iran says agreement on Hormuz shipping reached with Oman — Fortune · U.S. business magazine; market-oriented, centrist
- Oil prices skyrocket amid US-Iran War — Gulf News · UAE daily; operates under Emirati media rules, generally aligned with government positions
- Oil Market Report - June 2026 — International Energy Agency · Intergovernmental agency of oil-importing OECD countries; consumer-country perspective
- Oil Holds Decline as Trump Says Talks Are Iran's 'Last Chance' — Bloomberg · U.S. financial news; privately held, market-desk framing
- What's the war in Iran costing American consumers — NPR · U.S. public radio; center-left newsroom, member- and donor-funded
- Iran, Oman, US 'close' to Hormuz deal: What do they all want? — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded broadcaster
- Iran makes new strait demands, the UAE says a ship was targeted and other Middle East news — NBC News · U.S. center-left mainstream network news; Comcast/NBCUniversal
- Iran sets conditions for opening Strait of Hormuz after UAE says one of its ships was targeted by airstrike — CNBC · U.S. business news; Comcast/NBCUniversal