Salon76%

“Hate to see it happen”: Trump uses troop deaths to defend nuclear Iran narrative 70%

By Alex Galbraith75%

7/19/2026, 5:30:42 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.6% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 888 faulty-reasoning hits from 412 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.7% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,697 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.40% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump won’t let the deaths of two American soldiers knock him off-message. 
In interviews with NewsNation and the New York Post , the president used deadly Iranian attacks in Jordan to reinforce the idea that his ongoing war is focused on keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. 
An Iranian strike on the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan on Friday left two service members dead and another missing. 
The United States launched retaliatory strikes on Saturday at Trump’s urging. 
“The strikes are designed to further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and swiftly punish Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces who launched attacks against American service members in Jordan,” Central Command explained in a statement . 
Speaking to the Post , Trump called the death of US troops “a shame” and claimed their sacrifice was in service of hindering the Iranian nuclear program. 
“They did it because they don’t want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. 
Does the US have an endgame in Iran? 
Trump reportedly shared the same justification in a phone call with NewsNation correspondent Hannah Brandt. 
He called the deaths a “very sad thing.” 
“We hate to see it happen. 
They were in service of our country,” he said. 
“They’ll fight to the death…never allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” 
Start your day with essential news from Salon. 
Sign up for our free morning newsletter , Crash Course. 
Trump has repeatedly painted his war with Iran as a way to prevent the country from developing a nuclear weapon. 
The U.S. and Iran were party to a deal that reduced Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. 
Trump pulled the country out of that deal in 2018. 
He maintains that the ongoing war is necessary to keep Iran from making a nuke, despite his own claims that 2025 attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities had  obliterated  the country’s weapons program. 
The U.S. and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding meant to halt the ongoing hostilities last month. 
In the wake of continued U.S. attacks within Iran and Iranian strikes on regional U.S.-affiliated targets, Iranian officials shared that the agreement is effectively  suspended .” 
Trump: “1000 missiles are locked and loaded” for Iran if he’s killed 
Trump’s Obama vendetta has him trapped in his own forever war 
Trump’s weekend war approach to Iran might never end 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.0%Alex Galbraith: 5.6%Salon: 5.2%Confirmation Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 1.0%Salon: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Alex Galbraith: 2.0%Salon: 3.3%Availability Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 1.1%Salon: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 4.3%Salon: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.7%Alex Galbraith: 14.4%Salon: 7.3%Framing Effect19.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 1.2%Salon: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.2%Salon: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 1.0%Salon: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Alex Galbraith: 4.0%Salon: 2.2%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 20.1%Alex Galbraith: 11.6%Salon: 11.0%Negativity Bias20.1%This article: 14.8%Alex Galbraith: 3.5%Salon: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias14.8%This article: 2.7%Alex Galbraith: 1.3%Salon: 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error2.7%This article: 3.2%Alex Galbraith: 0.4%Salon: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 2.2%Salon: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.8%Salon: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Alex Galbraith: 1.3%Salon: 2.4%Halo Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 1.0%Salon: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.3%Salon: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Alex Galbraith: 0.2%Salon: 1.3%Recency Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.3%Salon: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Alex Galbraith: 2.3%Salon: 3.4%Ad Hominem2.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.3%Salon: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.9%Alex Galbraith: 1.5%Salon: 3.2%Appeal to Authority4.9%This article: 4.9%Alex Galbraith: 1.2%Salon: 2.3%False Dilemma4.9%This article: 4.9%Alex Galbraith: 2.8%Salon: 1.5%Slippery Slope4.9%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.6%Salon: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.2%Alex Galbraith: 7.5%Salon: 10.7%Hasty Generalization2.2%This article: 8.7%Alex Galbraith: 1.0%Salon: 0.2%Red Herring8.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.6%Salon: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.4%Alex Galbraith: 12.3%Salon: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion21.4%This article: 6.6%Alex Galbraith: 2.8%Salon: 1.5%Begging the Question6.6%This article: 9.2%Alex Galbraith: 2.0%Salon: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.2%This article: 8.3%Alex Galbraith: 0.7%Salon: 0.3%Tu Quoque8.3%This article: 7.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.9%Salon: 0.5%Burden of Proof7.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Alex Galbraith: 0.9%Salon: 2.7%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 1.3%Salon: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.9%Alex Galbraith: 0.3%Salon: 0.1%Special Pleading2.9%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 1.4%Salon: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.5%Alex Galbraith: 4.2%Salon: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection9.5%This article: 21.6%Alex Galbraith: 12.0%Salon: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice21.6%This article: 10.2%Alex Galbraith: 1.3%Salon: 2.6%Indoctrination10.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 6.4%Salon: 6.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Galbraith: 0.6%Salon: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Alex Galbraith: 3.4%Salon: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.4%

412 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers32%attributed speech280writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCentral Command • 42 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 27 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
90 attributed words68% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.8 ptsWriter: 31.8%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+3.7 ptsWriter: 9.6%Trump: 13.3%13.3%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Trump: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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