Trump’s Epic Fury Can’t Resolve His Iran Quagmire 71%

By Keith Johnson66%

7/22/2026, 5:25:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, False Dilemma, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.7% saturation with 299 hits. Analysis detected 1,522 faulty-reasoning hits from 793 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.7% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,240 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.60% of the article peer group.

Whatever the real goal of the ramped-up U.S. offensive on Iran, with 11 straight days of airstrikes on Iranian infrastructure, ports, and military installations after a brief cease-fire, it does nothing to address the ticking clock that threatens to scuttle the Trump administration’s entire approach: rapidly rising oil prices and rapidly falling global oil stockpiles. 
The Pentagon says that the renewed U.S. air offensive, if not necessarily prelude to a ground invasion, is “designed to continue degrading Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.” 
Iranian military capacity was already destroyed four months ago, according to the Pentagon, but Iran has shown a surprising ability to continue firing missiles and drones at ships passing through Hormuz, at the critical infrastructure of U.S.-allied countries in the region, and at U.S. military bases in the region. 
“What are we trying to do? 
Escalate the pain on Iran to change its red lines. 
Tactically, we are trying to degrade their ability to interdict the Gulf, and to isolate the strait of Bab el-Mandeb, and also showing a little leg on escalation, such as the attacks on [an Iranian missile complex in] Tabriz,” said Alan Eyre, a former U.S. 
State Department official who worked on Iran issues for decades. 
“A lot of this is just the reptile brain response of [U.S. 
President] Donald Trump,” he said. 
“He is like a pianist with one key, and that key is military strength,” said Eyre, who is now at the Middle East Institute. 
The renewed U.S. offensive is not working. 
Traffic through Hormuz is back to bare minimums, with single-digit transits now again the norm (and few of them tankers). 
Iran has targeted three different ships running the gauntlet in the last day or so. 
Oil analysts now expect the strait will remain choked, likely for the remainder of the year at least, if not longer. 
That sounds like the situation this spring, when oil prices soared, and conflict in the Persian Gulf raised the specter of widespread economic disruption. 
The difference this time is that the shock absorbers are gone, or nearly so. 
The U.S. 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is getting so dangerously low that there are only a little over a month’s worth of stocks left to compensate for missing barrels from the Middle East. 
The situation is so bad that the U.S. 
Department of Energy decided last week to redefine where the bottom of the barrel is for the SPR, storage-wise, far below levels that oil-industry professionals think is wise. 
“It’s a two-clocks issue. 
That is, will Iran capitulate due to mounting economic pressure before Trump does?” 
Eyre asked. 
Both sides got a reset during the recent cease-fire, with the world briefly enjoying lower oil prices and Iran briefly enjoying sanctions relief and a $6 billion export boom for its previously banned cargoes. 
That breather allowed it to empty its storage tanks, make money, and start fresh for another battle of economic attrition. 
“The two-clocks issue works in favor of Iran. 
We are running out of stocks,” Eyre said. 
Things could get worse if Iran’s Houthi proxies in Yemen make good on their threats to attack shipping, especially Saudi shipping, in the Red Sea (the other regional maritime choke point), which has been a safety valve for a good portion of the previously trapped volumes of crude oil from the Persian Gulf. 
In the meantime, Iran has not let up on its assault on shipping through what it considers unauthorized lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, which further discourages shipping lines from returning to anything like business as usual. 
Lloyd’s of London estimates that total traffic is down 90 percent year-on-year despite U.S. assurances that it controls passage through Hormuz. 
Iran’s military reprisals aren’t limited to the strait, either. 
Iranian strikes over the past week severely damaged a desalination plant in Kuwait, a U.S. ally that is 90 percent reliant on such plants for its drinking water. 
And despite months of “degrading” of Iran’s offensive capability, U.S. military bases in the region remain in the crosshairs, with the most recent lethal attack coming on a Jordanian base that hosts U.S. forces. 
The few levers the United States seems to have at its disposal—more airstrikes, more sanctions, or more tariffs—are unlikely to address the underlying problem, which is that Iran has new red lines and new leverage it never had before this war began. 
Trump’s dismissal this week of even the nascent shoots of a renewed try for a negotiated solution speaks to the impasse. 
“This administration doesn’t do diplomacy. 
They do pain and threats and tariffs. 
It’s not going to work with Iran,” Eyre said. 
This post is part of FP’s ongoing coverage. 
Read more here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 5.0%Foreign Policy: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Keith Johnson: 4.7%Foreign Policy: 2.6%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 6.1%Keith Johnson: 1.5%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 3.0%Keith Johnson: 0.7%Foreign Policy: 0.8%Hindsight Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 4.3%Foreign Policy: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Keith Johnson: 8.7%Foreign Policy: 4.9%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 3.9%Keith Johnson: 0.6%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Loss Aversion3.9%This article: 5.3%Keith Johnson: 1.0%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 1.9%Foreign Policy: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Keith Johnson: 8.9%Foreign Policy: 2.9%Pessimism Bias16.8%This article: 37.7%Keith Johnson: 12.0%Foreign Policy: 7.9%Negativity Bias37.7%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Keith Johnson: 0.8%Foreign Policy: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Keith Johnson: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.1%Keith Johnson: 4.2%Foreign Policy: 1.4%Recency Bias11.1%This article: 2.6%Keith Johnson: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 1.0%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.5%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.3%Keith Johnson: 5.8%Foreign Policy: 2.9%Appeal to Authority8.3%This article: 14.8%Keith Johnson: 4.2%Foreign Policy: 1.7%False Dilemma14.8%This article: 8.4%Keith Johnson: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 1.3%Slippery Slope8.4%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.6%Keith Johnson: 6.7%Foreign Policy: 4.8%Hasty Generalization14.6%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.5%Keith Johnson: 3.4%Foreign Policy: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion4.5%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.7%Keith Johnson: 2.6%Foreign Policy: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.7%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.3%Keith Johnson: 1.1%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Burden of Proof5.3%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.9%Keith Johnson: 0.7%Foreign Policy: 1.2%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.2%Keith Johnson: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.2%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.8%Keith Johnson: 1.7%Foreign Policy: 1.8%Unattributed Quote6.8%This article: 0.6%Keith Johnson: 4.6%Foreign Policy: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.6%This article: 1.0%Keith Johnson: 11.5%Foreign Policy: 5.5%Biased Writer Voice1.0%This article: 2.6%Keith Johnson: 0.6%Foreign Policy: 1.1%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.6%Foreign Policy: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Keith Johnson: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.4%Keith Johnson: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.4%

793 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers20%attributed speech632writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 8 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageLloyd’s of London • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 5 words • 100.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAlan Eyre • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lloyd’s of London

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words13% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+94.8 ptsWriter: 5.2%Lloyd’s of London: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Lloyd’s of London: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Lloyd’s of London: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.5 ptsWriter: 0.5%Lloyd’s of London: 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.