Brookings33%

Blowback: How the Iran war may change the world 72%

6/24/2026, 3:15:56 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 44.7% saturation with 84 hits. Analysis detected 408 faulty-reasoning hits from 188 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.2% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,241 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.50% of the article peer group.

More than 100 days have passed since the United States and Israel launched ambitious joint military operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran. 
The initial strikes killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had served as the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader for nearly 37 years, along with dozens of senior military and political officials. 
But the decapitation of Iran’s leadership did not collapse its regime, which has remained firmly in control and began retaliating almost immediately. 
Tehran’s missile and drone counterstrikes targeted Israel and the Gulf states, U.S. military bases, and maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, blocking the strategic chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas supplies typically pass. 
However and whenever the conflict ends, the Iran war will have major implications for the evolving international security and economic order. 
For that reason, consistent with the Brookings Institution’s mission to advance global security and prosperity, we’ve challenged researchers and experts from across the organization to analyze the long-term implications of the war and provide policy recommendations for decisionmakers in Washington and around the world. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Brookings: 4.3%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Brookings: 2.5%Availability Heuristic21.3%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Brookings: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias11.2%This article: 4.8%Brookings: 4.9%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 3.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Brookings: 1.8%Pessimism Bias16.0%This article: 33.0%Brookings: 5.2%Negativity Bias33.0%This article: 23.4%Brookings: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias23.4%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.4%Brookings: 3.6%Appeal to Authority23.4%This article: 11.2%Brookings: 1.8%False Dilemma11.2%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 5.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 2.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.7%Brookings: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.7%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.8%Brookings: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice4.8%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 2.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 44.7%Brookings: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…44.7%

188 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker23%attributed speech144writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBrookings Institution • 44 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brookings Institution

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words100% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +72.2 ptsWriter: 27.8%Brookings Institution: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Brookings Institution: 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.