USA odebraly Íránu výjimku z ropných sankcí po útocích na tankery v Hormuzském průlivu

Index ověření faktů: 72/100 — The article's core claims — the sanctions-waiver revocation, the three-tanker attacks in the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, and the strain on the U.S.-Iran ceasefire — are well supported by the cited headlines, but several framing, motive, and background details are inferred beyond what the terse source snippets actually establish.

• Trump administration revoked Iran's oil sanctions waiver — Directly stated in CNN, The Hill, and The New Arab headlines; correctly cited.
• Three tankers were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday — Washington Times snippet confirms three tanker ships attacked while traveling in the strait on Tuesday, per maritime authorities; correctly cited.
• Revocation came 'after' the attacks / attacks were the trigger — All headlines link revocation temporally to the Hormuz strikes ('after Hormuz attacks'), supporting causation framing.
• Attacks strain a U.S.-Iran ceasefire and pressure international shipping — Washington Times explicitly states the attacks strain the U.S.-Iran ceasefire and pressure international shipping.
• The waiver was granted 'as part of arrangements tied to the ceasefire,' per The Hill — The Hill snippet is only a headline; it does not establish the waiver was tied to the ceasefire. This linkage is not in any source text.
• The ceasefire 'that the waiver underpinned,' per The New Arab — The New Arab snippet is a headline only; it does not state the waiver underpinned the ceasefire.
• Iran's renewed attacks expose a dilemma for hard-line leaders relying on grip over Hormuz (WSJ/RealClearWorld) — Matches the RealClearWorld/WSJ excerpt almost verbatim ('exposing a growing dilemma for Tehran's hard-line leaders, who are relying on their...').
• Attribution of the attacks to Iran — CNN headline says 'after Iran strikes ships' and WSJ references 'Iran's renewed attacks,' but the article's own callout concedes attribution is unconfirmed; sources assert but do not evidence it.
• The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly a fifth of global oil flows — A commonly cited real-world figure, but none of the provided source snippets state it; not established by the cited material.
• Hormuz is the sea passage between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula through which Gulf crude reaches world markets — Geographically accurate general knowledge and consistent with WSJ framing, but not explicitly stated in the source snippets.
• The waiver had allowed limited Iranian oil to move despite U.S. sanctions — A reasonable inference from an 'oil sanctions waiver,' but the mechanism/scope is not described in any source text.
• Hypothesis on Iranian motive (signaling vs. sinking the ceasefire) — Explicitly flagged by the article as inferred; motive is not stated in the sources, correctly labeled moderate/inferred.