Truthout74%

Smotrich Says US Fighting Iran as Israel Sits Back Is “Best for Us” 87%

By Sharon Zhang79%

7/22/2026, 7:18:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.2% saturation with 245 hits. Analysis detected 1,497 faulty-reasoning hits from 659 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.6% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,897 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.80% of the article peer group.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said this week that his government has “no interest” in rejoining the U.S. in the war on Iran that Israel helped start, saying that the “correct” situation is the current one  in which Israel sits back and watches while the U.S. burns billions of taxpayer dollars committing potential war crimes against Israel’s biggest adversary. 
“When it comes to the state of Israel, there is no interest in joining the campaign. 
The current situation, where there is a confined campaign between Iran and the United States, is the correct [situation] and best for us,” Smotrich said at a pro-settlement Israeli conference, per *Al Jazeera*’s translation. 
He said that Israel is prepared to return to the fight if Iran strikes them, but that otherwise, Israel is more focused on harming Iran economically in hopes of achieving regime change. 
“We need to remember that our objective in the campaign, and this is not necessarily shared with the U.S., is to destabilize, weaken [Iran] to the point of overthrowing the regime,” said Smotrich. 
Still, he said that when it comes to economic harm, U.S. 
President Donald Trump’s latest campaign with regard to the Strait of Hormuz “should be remembered by Iran.” 
Israeli leaders have, for decades, tried to goad the U.S. into declaring war on Iran, which Israel views as its largest adversary. 
The U.S. and Israel launched the current war together, with both militaries participating in surprise, unprovoked strikes on February 28. 
In remarks at the beginning of the war, both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for regime change. 
Israeli forces heavily bombed Iran in the first phase of the war, in which U.S.-Israeli strikes killed at least 1,700 civilians. 
But Israel has been noticeably absent in the latest round of strikes, even as the U.S. fights the war that Israeli leaders have lobbied for for so long. 
Since Trump unilaterally declared the ceasefire to be over, the U.S. has launched hundreds of strikes on Iran, including strikes on civilian infrastructure that potentially constitute war crimes. 
U.S. intelligence has assessed that further strikes are futile, unlikely to move Iran on major negotiation provisions like control over the Strait of Hormuz or sanctions relief. 
Still, the Trump administration pushes on, and recently submitted a request for an additional $87 billion to fight the war. 
Reports suggest that the U.S. is rapidly running through its munitions stockpiles, and some U.S. officials are even claiming that the Pentagon, which received a budget of $1 trillion this year, is running out of money  potentially in attempts to drum up support for the whopping $1.5 trillion budget request for 2027. 
Internally, the Pentagon is said to have estimated that the war has cost close to $100 billion so far. 
And, since Trump’s latest escalation, at least three U.S. soldiers have been killed, and over 100 wounded. 
In other words, the U.S. is burning through tens of billions of dollars fighting a war that the U.S. public overwhelmingly doesn’t want, but that carries benefits for Israel. 
At the same time, Congress is vehemently pushing to give Israel even more resources. 
Last week, the House rejected a measure to block $3.3 billion in military funding to Israel. 
Further, Congress is currently slated to pass a Pentagon budget bill that would inextricably tie the U.S. and Israeli technological and military industrial complexes. 
The program gives Israel unprecedented access to U.S. military and intelligence resources while the U.S. gains little in return, experts have said. 
This comes on top of the record $30 billion, at minimum, the U.S. spent supporting Israel and other Middle East conflicts during the first two years of Israel’s genocide in Gaza  funds spent even as the public has turned against the concept of sending aid to Israel, with the majority of Americans now opposing the idea, recent Data for Progress polling found. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 30.5%Sharon Zhang: 7.6%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias30.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Sharon Zhang: 4.8%Truthout: 3.4%Availability Heuristic17.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Sharon Zhang: 13.5%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect13.2%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.8%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias5.6%This article: 37.2%Sharon Zhang: 21.3%Truthout: 12.2%Negativity Bias37.2%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error4.2%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.2%Sharon Zhang: 2.7%Truthout: 1.2%Recency Bias4.2%This article: 2.4%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.4%Sharon Zhang: 5.3%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority7.4%This article: 4.4%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma4.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.8%Truthout: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.9%Sharon Zhang: 10.1%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization12.9%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.9%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.4%Sharon Zhang: 11.4%Truthout: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion24.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.7%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.2%Sharon Zhang: 2.9%Truthout: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.2%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 2.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.6%Sharon Zhang: 3.2%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 8.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading8.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.2%Sharon Zhang: 3.0%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote5.2%This article: 5.2%Sharon Zhang: 2.2%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 12.7%Sharon Zhang: 15.2%Truthout: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice12.7%This article: 9.1%Sharon Zhang: 1.9%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination9.1%This article: 9.6%Sharon Zhang: 8.6%Truthout: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.6%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

659 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.4%attributed speech610writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 60 words • 100.0% coverageSmotrich • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSmotrich • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Smotrich

0%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%Smotrich: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Smotrich: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Smotrich: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Smotrich: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Smotrich: 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.