What Would We All Say If Iran Razed MIT Because of Military-Related Research? 83%

By Natasha Lennard91%

3/30/2026, 8:37:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.5% saturation with 429 hits. Analysis detected 2,622 faulty-reasoning hits from 867 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.5% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,826 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.50% of the article peer group.

Over the weekend, the U.S. and Israel bombarded two universities in Iran, the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology in Tehran. 
These are not, of course, the first attacks on civilian infrastructure in President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s illegal war on Iran; hospitals, desalination facilities, power plants, and an elementary school have all been hit. 
Iranian students and educators received no warning. 
The U.S. and Israel claimed that the attacks on the universities were justified, because they said the schools were connected to Iran’s weapons programs. 
In response, Iranian authorities said on Sunday that American university facilities in the region would be considered legitimate targets, should the U.S. not condemn the strikes on Iranian educational institutions. 
In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned “all employees, professors and students of American universities in the region to stay at least a kilometer away.” 
Iranian students and educators received no such warning. 
Iran’s university campuses have been closed since the U.S.–Israeli war began last month; the weekend strikes nonetheless severely damaged buildings and reportedly wounded at least four staff members. 
Cynical Justification 
Leaving aside the fact that nothing in Trump’s war of choice against Iran is justified, the U.S. and Israel’s purported grounds for targeting Iranian universities are hollow and cynical. 
It is true that both universities had ties to military research. 
Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? 
Of course not. 
By stated U.S. and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Johns Hopkins University, among dozens of other schools. 
Numerous Israeli universities, including Technion and Tel Aviv University, have research institutes dedicated to military technologies. 
And the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has a military base on campus for training intelligence soldiers. 
Asymmetric warfare offers powerful aggressors the privilege of hypocrisy. 
It has long been pointed out that Israel’s justifications for mass slaughtering civilians  that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure  would in turn justify strikes on civilian areas in Israel. 
The Israeli government, after all, has facilities and even military installations within and near major cities and towns, not to mention the integration of the military into vast swaths of civilian Israeli life. 
This is true almost everywhere that commercial and military technologies become intractably integrated, but that integration is especially robust in Israel. 
The idea that any site related to military research is a justified target could be used to attack any technological hub. 
Indeed, in this grim conjuncture, the idea that any site related to military research and development is a justified target could be used to attack any industrial, educational, and technological hub  which is precisely what the U.S. and Israel are doing in Iran. 
The U.S. and Israel’s own justifications for the Iranian university strikes de facto legitimize strikes against an MIT or a Technion, but American and Israeli leadership know that Iran and its allies don’t have the firepower to flatten whole campuses. 
This is not to say that Iran will not retaliate and attempt to extract a cost from its enemies; this has been the pattern since the U.S. and Israel launched their illegal offensive in late February. 
Universities including New York University, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, and others have lucrative campuses in the Persian Gulf monarchies, primarily in Abu Dhabi and Qatar. 
These schools have all already moved to online instruction and most international students and faculty have left countries facing retaliatory Iranian strikes. 
These international campuses are not known for housing advanced research labs connected to military and surveillance research, but, as the student-led Gaza solidarity movement made clear, U.S. academia at large is deeply invested in multinational arms manufacturers and U.S. and Israeli military industries. 
Dozens of American institutions of higher education are deeply involved in the government-funded weapons research that helps make the U.S. military the most potentially destructive force in the world. 
“Systematic” Targeting 
Let’s not pretend, however, that the ongoing war on Iran follows any sort of valid justificatory reasoning. 
According to Helyeh Doutaghi, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Tehran who spoke to Al-Jazeera, the university bombings reflect a “consistent and clear pattern, and that is the systemic de-industrialization and underdevelopment” of Iran’s capabilities. 
“The targeting is very systematic,” she said, “and very designed to make Iran incapable of defending its sovereignty by relying on its iedingeounous development and indigenous industries.” 
Strikes against civilian infrastructure follow the same genocidal logic that saw every university in Gaza razed to rubble within 100 days of October 7, 2023. 
In a video shared by members of the Israeli military on social media in 2024, a soldier walked through the rubble of Al-Azhar University. 
“To those who say, ‘There is no education in Gaza,’” he says, “we bombed them all. 
Too bad, you’ll not be engineers anymore.” 
The point, that is, is the devastation of a place and a people, foreclosing their capacity to rebuild. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.7%Natasha Lennard: 9.7%The Intercept: 5.3%Confirmation Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Natasha Lennard: 3.4%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 5.9%Natasha Lennard: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.9%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Natasha Lennard: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias3.3%This article: 2.9%Natasha Lennard: 15.3%The Intercept: 9.2%Framing Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.4%Natasha Lennard: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 4.2%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.5%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Natasha Lennard: 4.4%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias9.0%This article: 49.5%Natasha Lennard: 16.3%The Intercept: 12.3%Negativity Bias49.5%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Natasha Lennard: 1.7%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.7%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 2.6%The Intercept: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Natasha Lennard: 1.5%The Intercept: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Natasha Lennard: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias3.1%This article: 0.2%Natasha Lennard: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.2%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Natasha Lennard: 5.0%The Intercept: 2.4%Ad Hominem3.3%This article: 3.5%Natasha Lennard: 0.8%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man3.5%This article: 9.1%Natasha Lennard: 4.2%The Intercept: 3.4%Appeal to Authority9.1%This article: 2.9%Natasha Lennard: 3.8%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 13.4%Natasha Lennard: 4.9%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope13.4%This article: 3.5%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.5%This article: 24.9%Natasha Lennard: 10.0%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization24.9%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon2.0%This article: 18.1%Natasha Lennard: 12.1%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion18.1%This article: 14.1%Natasha Lennard: 4.9%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question14.1%This article: 2.1%Natasha Lennard: 2.6%The Intercept: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.1%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.5%Natasha Lennard: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.7%Burden of Proof3.5%This article: 1.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature1.0%This article: 5.9%Natasha Lennard: 1.0%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division5.9%This article: 12.5%Natasha Lennard: 2.0%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal12.5%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.1%Natasha Lennard: 1.5%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.1%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.1%Natasha Lennard: 2.4%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote9.1%This article: 4.0%Natasha Lennard: 2.6%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 31.0%Natasha Lennard: 32.1%The Intercept: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice31.0%This article: 6.8%Natasha Lennard: 6.3%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination6.8%This article: 12.9%Natasha Lennard: 22.5%The Intercept: 6.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Natasha Lennard: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

867 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers10%attributed speech777writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageIslamic Revolutionary Guard Corps • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageHelyeh Doutaghi • 36 words • 100.0% coverageHelyeh Doutaghi • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Helyeh Doutaghi

100%flagged-word coverage
63 attributed words70% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+97.9 ptsWriter: 2.1%Helyeh Doutaghi: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.6 ptsWriter: 34.6%Helyeh Doutaghi: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-14.4 ptsWriter: 14.4%Helyeh Doutaghi: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Helyeh Doutaghi: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Helyeh Doutaghi: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.