Truthout74%

Trump Threatens “Massive” Attack of Unprecedented Proportion on Iran 87%

By Sharon Zhang79%

7/23/2026, 1:16:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.5% saturation with 196 hits. Analysis detected 947 faulty-reasoning hits from 496 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,994 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.30% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump has threatened to conduct an attack on Iran that’s “bigger than ever,” saying that he is still considering whether or not to do so after weeks of vowing to attack Iran’s civilian infrastructure, in what experts say would be war crimes. 
“I am considering a massive attack. 
Bigger than ever before. 
I am close to making a decision. 
We are all set for it,” Trump told Axios’s Barak Ravid on Thursday. 
The president said that Iran “wants to negotiate,” but aren’t ready to make a deal because “they haven’t received enough pain yet.” 
Trump added that Israel would join if he asked, but “we don’t need anybody” to join attacks. 
The threat of a “bigger than ever” attack is chilling coming from a nuclear-armed president who, just months ago, made a genocidal threat against Iran, vowing that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” 
Trump has also been pledging to carry out attacks on key civilian sites, saying last week that the U.S. will “knock out all” of Iran’s bridges and power plants if Iran doesn’t comply with U.S. negotiations. 
He doubled down on these threats this week, saying on Wednesday that the U.S. will destroy one power plant or bridge for every time Iran “shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz.” 
The U.S. has already been bombing civilian infrastructure in Iran in its latest round of attacks. 
Data compiled by conflict monitor Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) finds that the U.S. has struck or damaged at least 21 civilian facilities across Iran in July. 
This includes attacks on bridges, railways, water facilities, food and agricultural sites, and telecommunications infrastructure. 
At least three water infrastructure sites have been struck so far, according to the ACLED data, MS NOW reports. 
One of these sites was a water desalination plant in Bonji village on Iran’s southern coast, which has disrupted the drinking water supply of thousands of people. 
Last week, local officials reported that the U.S. bombed power infrastructure in southern Iran, causing power outages. 
International law prohibits militaries from deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure, and the U.S. has been accused of committing war crimes as a result of Trump’s threats to power plants and bridges. 
The U.S. has denied these accusations, with an official saying “no we are not committing any war crimes” to MS NOW on Thursday. 
Trump also said in a post on Truth Social on Thursday that the U.S. will “hold Iran responsible” for any strikes by the Houthis amid the group’s blockade against Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea. 
“Iran’s policy is an eye for an eye. 
The president’s policy is a head for an eye. 
They are going to suffer more,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Thursday. 
Echoing Trump, Rubio said that Iran is “begging us” to strike a deal, but Iranian leaders are always seeking to change the negotiation terms or “breaking” the deal. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.9%Sharon Zhang: 7.6%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias16.9%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Sharon Zhang: 4.8%Truthout: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.3%This article: 3.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias3.8%This article: 1.8%Sharon Zhang: 13.5%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect1.8%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: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.8%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 39.5%Sharon Zhang: 21.3%Truthout: 12.2%Negativity Bias39.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.0%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: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%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: 10.1%Sharon Zhang: 2.7%Truthout: 1.2%Recency Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem6.7%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.2%Sharon Zhang: 5.3%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority3.2%This article: 3.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma3.0%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: 15.5%Sharon Zhang: 11.4%Truthout: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion15.5%This article: 4.4%Sharon Zhang: 1.7%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 6.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.9%Truthout: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.0%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: 5.4%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 2.7%Anecdotal5.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Sharon Zhang: 3.2%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%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: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.5%Sharon Zhang: 3.0%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote15.5%This article: 1.2%Sharon Zhang: 2.2%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection1.2%This article: 11.9%Sharon Zhang: 15.2%Truthout: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice11.9%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.9%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 8.6%Truthout: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Sharon Zhang: 2.6%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.8%

496 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers33%attributed speech332writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 6 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 22 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 35 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMarco Rubio • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMarco Rubio • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Marco Rubio

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words26% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-23.2 ptsWriter: 23.2%Marco Rubio: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Marco Rubio: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Marco Rubio: 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.