US unloads military might on Iran after Tehran closes Strait of Hormuz: 'Now they pay' ⁠79%

By David Spector⁠0%

7/12/2026, 12:16:58 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.5% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 973 faulty-reasoning hits from 266 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (4,424 of 20,474 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.40% of the article peer group.

See more of our coverage in your search results. 
Add The New York Post on Google 
The US unleashed its military might on Iran after the regime a ttacked a commercial vessel and declared the Strait of Hormuz closed Saturday. 
“Iran made a poor choice. 
Now they pay,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted on X . 
The Islamic Republic attacked the M/V GFS Galaxy, a container vessel hailing the flag of Cyprus, according to United States Central Command. 
The strikes are taking place at the order of President Trump. 
REUTERS 
A civilian crew member from the ship is now missing and the vessel suffered significant engine room damage in the strikes, CENTCOM added. 
The agency vowed that Tehran would pay a “heavy cost” and said that the retaliation, which began at 7:15 Eastern Time, was being carried out under the direction of the commander-in-chief, President Trump. 
Follow The Post’s coverage of the war in Iran: 
New satellite images show signs Iran may be trying to rebuild suspected nuclear facilities 
Iran holds crisis talks in Oman as US issues Strait of Hormuz demand 
Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei vows revenge for killing of father 
Trump warns US military will ‘destroy all areas of Iran’ in the event he’s assassinated by regime: ‘1,000 Missiles Locked and Loaded’ 
“Iran was provided yet another opportunity to demonstrate adherence to the Memorandum of Understanding after being held accountable for earlier attacks on commercial vessels but has again failed,” CENTCOM said in a statement on X. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.7%David Spector: 5.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 1.1%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%David Spector: 5.3%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic13.5%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.7%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 36.1%David Spector: 20.1%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect36.1%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%David Spector: 0.6%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias13.2%This article: 51.5%David Spector: 26.1%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias51.5%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 4.2%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%David Spector: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error8.3%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%David Spector: 2.8%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias13.2%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 1.7%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.5%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 2.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%David Spector: 1.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 5.4%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 34.2%David Spector: 2.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority34.2%This article: 8.3%David Spector: 1.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma8.3%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 1.1%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%David Spector: 7.8%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.7%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.4%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 36.8%David Spector: 11.9%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion36.8%This article: 13.2%David Spector: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question13.2%This article: 21.4%David Spector: 1.0%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.4%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.5%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 3.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.7%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.1%David Spector: 1.7%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.1%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.2%David Spector: 5.0%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote10.2%This article: 7.5%David Spector: 4.1%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection7.5%This article: 26.3%David Spector: 18.7%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice26.3%This article: 20.3%David Spector: 0.9%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination20.3%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 2.6%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Spector: 7.4%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%David Spector: 1.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.4%

266 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers45%attributed speech147writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 5 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 12 words • 100.0% coverageUnited States Central Command • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageUnited States Central Command • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 22 words • 100.0% coverageUnited States Central Command • 35 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words18% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+67.3 ptsWriter: 32.7%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-28.6 ptsWriter: 28.6%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -17.0 ptsWriter: 17.0%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%Donald Trump: 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.