Fortune53%

U.S. launches new strikes on Iran while Tehran mocks Trump’s reversal on charging for Hormuz transits  ‘20% is of course too much. We will be fair’ 28%

By Jon Gambrell52% Konstantin Toropin67% Will Weissert51% The Associated Press65%

7/13/2026, 11:07:05 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.8% saturation with 238 hits. Analysis detected 1,648 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,336 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.2% and a BS Rank of 28% (14,737 of 20,370 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.30% of the article peer group.

The U.S. announced a new round of strikes on Iran on Monday, hours after President Donald Trump said Washington is “reinstating” a blockade on Iran in the Strait of Hormuz and, in a seeming policy reversal, will charge other ships for safe passage. 
All of that comes as Iran has insisted it actually controls the critical waterway, and as the new exchange of fire threatened a return to all-out war . 
U.S. 
Central Command announced on social media that the U.S. military had begun another round of strikes against Iran. 
“These strikes will continue imposing a heavy cost on Iranian forces and degrade their ability to attack innocent civilians and commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” the U.S. military said. 
Moments after the military announced the new strikes, Trump called it “another major attack.” 
“We’re hitting them very hard. 
And it’ll continue, and we’ll see what happens,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. 
“We’re knocking out all of their offensive capability and we’re controlling the straits. 
We’re putting the blockade back.” 
Trump also provided new details on his administration doing an about-face and suggesting it will charge tolls for ships going through the strait, after previously suggesting that it wouldn’t. 
“We’re protecting a very rich portion of the world,” he said. 
“We’re spending money. 
And so, what we’ve done is, we are going to be reimbursed for protection.” 
It’s a change in U.S. policy that, until now, said the strait should remain open to all without tolls  as it was before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 
28. 
Any attempt by the U.S. or Iran to charge fees would violate global norms on freedom of navigation and raise tensions, likely causing further economic disruption far beyond the region. 
The price for a barrel of Brent crude oil, the international standard, rose 7.8% to $81.92 a barrel on Monday , still well below the nearly $120 reached at the height of the war. 
Trump says Iran failed a test 
Earlier, Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that the agreement reached last month was “built to test” Iran, adding that “when you’re dealing with sleazebags don’t mean much.” 
Trump said he questioned why the U.S. was entering into a deal to create a ceasefire with Iran rather than moving toward a full deal first. 
Trump last week declared the ceasefire was “over.” 
“They didn’t honor the test,” the president said. 
Exchanges of fire in recent days, sparked by Iranian attacks on ships, had already cast further doubt on the interim peace deal. 
Washington had lifted a blockade it imposed in mid-April as part of that deal, which also called for the strait to be fully reopened. 
“We are reinstating the THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE,” Trump said on social media. 
“All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait.” 
The president said the U.S. would be “reimbursed” by 20% of the value of cargo to help cover “any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security.” 
The U.S. military said it will resume its blockade of Iranian ports Tuesday at 4 p.m. 
EDT. 
The struggle over the strait is escalating 
Iran asserts it has the right to manage traffic through the strait and potentially charge fees in accordance with the interim peace deal. 
The U.S. has disputed that. 
Iran on Monday vowed to fight back against any U.S. interference in the strait. 
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi mocked Trump on social media and used his support for tolls to legitimize Iran’s position. 
“POTUS is absolutely right. 
Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service,” Araghchi wrote on X. 
“Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER. 20% is of course too much. 
We will be fair.” 
The International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency overseeing international shipping, said it was waiting to find out more about Trump’s proposal but remained opposed to tolls for passage through international waterways. 
“There is no legal basis through which to introduce mandatory tolls simply to transit through a strait,” it said in a statement. 
The US had opposed charging fees in the strait 
Meeting with Gulf leaders late last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken forcefully against Iran charging fees for transit through the strait. 
“That’s international waterway. 
There isn’t a nation on Earth that supports having to pay money to go through the straits,” Rubio told reporters in Bahrain on June 25. 
Rubio also said there was “zero support among the Gulf countries for any sort of toll or fees or anything that charges for the use of international waters. 
The president’s made it clear that’s not going to happen.” 
A fifth of the world’s oil and gas passed through the strait before Iran effectively shut it down at the start of the war, driving up global prices of energy, fertilizer and other goods. 
Traffic had picked up after last month’s agreement but remained well below prewar levels. 
The American military has tried to establish a route through the strait along the coast of Oman that would be outside of Iranian control. 
Iran has attacked ships using that route, saying the U.S. is violating the interim peace deal. 
The U.S. has attacked Iran in response, drawing Iranian attacks on U.S.-allied Arab states. 
US strikes as allied Arab states report a wave of attacks 
The U.S. military said it struck dozens of sites Monday, including air defense systems, radar sites, missile and drone equipment, and small boats in response to an Iranian attack on a container ship the day before. 
The U.S. said it used drone ships for the first time to hit an Iranian ship maintenance facility and submarine on Sunday. 
Missile alert sirens sounded three times Monday in Bahrain, home to the U.S. 
Navy’s 5th Fleet. 
There was no immediate word on damage. 
Separately, Kuwait’s Foreign Ministry said its consulate in Iraq had been attacked. 
It did not immediately blame anyone for the attack or disclose damages or casualties. 
The oil-rich kingdom  home to several U.S. military bases  also condemned Iran and “its factions and militias loyal to it in Iraq” for attacking what it described as “several border points” and a maritime oil drilling platform that belonged to the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation. 
In Jordan, the kingdom’s military said it shot down four Iranian missiles in an incident that “resulted in zero casualties or material damage.” 
Jordan also hosts U.S. military forces and aircraft. 
In Iran, authorities reported attacks in Hormozgan, Khuzestan and Markazi provinces and said at least two people were killed, according to state-run IRNA news agency. 
Semiofficial Iranian media also reported strikes in the eastern Sistan and Baluchestan province, which is on a coast of the Gulf of Oman. 
Iran blames the US for the chaos in the region 
Those attacks on Iran raised the possibility that Gulf Arab states were retaliating. 
There were unclaimed attacks on Iran on Thursday. 
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei blamed Washington for the chaos gripping the region. 
He said Iran wouldn’t agree to visits by the International Atomic Energy Agency to nuclear sites the U.S. bombed in 2025. 
That’s where Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is believed to be entombed. 
Trump suggested last week that the interim deal in the war was “over” and the U.S. ended waivers allowing Iran to sell crude oil on the open market in U.S. dollars. 
But mediators, including Pakistan, Qatar and Egypt, have continued efforts to reach a final agreement to end the war. 
Iran and the U.S. are nearly halfway through the 60-day period in which they were supposed to negotiate such an agreement, which was also supposed to address Iran’s disputed nuclear program. 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.6%Jon Gambrell: 2.0%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.7%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Jon Gambrell: 2.7%Fortune: 3.2%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 4.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.7%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 5.4%Jon Gambrell: 0.4%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias5.4%This article: 4.1%Jon Gambrell: 2.3%Fortune: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias4.1%This article: 7.1%Jon Gambrell: 10.2%Fortune: 6.8%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 1.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.4%Fortune: 0.6%Loss Aversion1.0%This article: 4.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.4%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 1.4%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect1.4%This article: 2.9%Jon Gambrell: 2.1%Fortune: 3.2%Optimism Bias2.9%This article: 3.2%Jon Gambrell: 2.7%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 17.8%Jon Gambrell: 11.1%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias17.8%This article: 3.4%Jon Gambrell: 1.6%Fortune: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 1.5%Jon Gambrell: 0.9%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 1.2%Jon Gambrell: 0.2%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias1.2%This article: 3.4%Jon Gambrell: 1.1%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 3.9%Jon Gambrell: 0.8%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.9%This article: 0.3%Jon Gambrell: 0.5%Fortune: 3.1%Halo Effect0.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Jon Gambrell: 1.6%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 2.2%Jon Gambrell: 0.2%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Jon Gambrell: 0.5%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem2.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.3%Jon Gambrell: 3.6%Fortune: 4.9%Appeal to Authority9.3%This article: 1.9%Jon Gambrell: 1.4%Fortune: 2.1%False Dilemma1.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 1.2%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.0%Jon Gambrell: 2.3%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization4.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.3%Fortune: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Jon Gambrell: 5.0%Fortune: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 4.4%Jon Gambrell: 0.7%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 10.2%Jon Gambrell: 3.5%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.3%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.2%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.6%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 2.1%Fortune: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground2.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.9%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 3.0%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.0%Jon Gambrell: 1.7%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 2.7%Fortune: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.5%Fortune: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.5%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%Fortune: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.5%

1336 words analyzed.

Speakers

10speakers43%attributed speech765writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. military • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 32 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. military • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAbbas Araghchi • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAbbas Araghchi • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAbbas Araghchi • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAbbas Araghchi • 4 words • 0.0% coverageInternational Maritime Organization • 32 words • 0.0% coverageInternational Maritime Organization • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMarco Rubio • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMarco Rubio • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMarco Rubio • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMarco Rubio • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. military • 36 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKuwait’s Foreign Ministry • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKuwait’s Foreign Ministry • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageJordan’s military • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageIRNA • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageEsmail Baghaei • 14 words • 0.0% coverageEsmail Baghaei • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

92%flagged-word coverage
185 attributed words32% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.9 ptsWriter: 0.9%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.