U.S. can't retreat from Iran without any wins 90%

By S. E. Cupp100%

7/23/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Pessimism Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36% saturation with 253 hits. Analysis detected 1,464 faulty-reasoning hits from 703 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83% and a BS Rank of 90% (2,209 of 20,557 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.30% of the article peer group.

While President Donald Trump threatens to destroy “ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT” in Iran for every shot they take at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, Americans back home are hoping and praying this folly of a war wraps up yesterday. 
Strikes over the weekend brought the death toll for U.S. troops to 18, with 100 more injured. 
The Strait of Hormuz is essentially closed again, with Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen threatening to block other oil routes. 
Gas prices are up 16 cents from the average a week ago, 88 cents higher than last year and $1.04 higher than the week before the war, per Politico . 
And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth admitted in a hearing Tuesday that the conflict had already cost U.S. taxpayers $37.5 billion  as he asked for $67 billion more. 
All of this while no one  not Hegseth, not Trump, not Secretary of State Marco Rubio or Vice President JD Vance  can tell voters how or when we plan to exit this war having achieved anything of long-term significance. 
It’s the very definition of a quagmire. 
In-depth political coverage, sports analysis, entertainment reviews and cultural commentary. 
Meanwhile, Iran and its dangerous proxies are clearly playing the long game, hoping that upcoming American midterm elections force the U.S. to exit the war we started without accomplishing a single one of our stated objectives  a very real possibility. 
Trump is posturing, as he’s wont to do, insisting he’s not influenced by the calendar. 
“I don’t view it as ‘Gee, we’re having an election in a period of time,’  he said Tuesday. 
“No, the election  I can’t think about that having to do with this. 
I think people are very impressed.” 
Not so, as a majority of Americans now say the war in Iran was the wrong decision, while a belief that the war is worth the economic cost among Trump’s MAGA base has dropped to just over a third  a 13 point drop in two months. 
Voters, Republican lawmakers up for reelection and the Iranian regime  all united in their hope that Trump can be pushed to the exits by the election politics of an unpopular war. 
But for once, I hope Trump isn’t bluffing. 
We shouldn’t have entered this war, and we most definitely shouldn’t have entered it without a clear strategy. 
But here we are, and it’s now our job to leave it responsibly. 
What does that mean? 
Unfortunately, it means admitting we likely can’t make good on a number of the grandiose promises Trump made to justify the war in the first place. 
It seems we’ve given up on the idea of regime change and liberating the Iranian people, to name two. 
But we can and should pursue other objectives that would leave the U.S., our allies and the region better off. 
First and foremost, we must leave with verifiable restraints on and multilateral monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program. 
If it’s unrealistic or costly to retrieve Iran’s buried uranium cache, we must secure a non-conditional non-proliferation agreement  with teeth. 
We must leave having guaranteed unfettered access to shipping routes, from the Strait of Hormuz to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. 
Our European, Asian and Gulf allies must be integrated into a joint coalition to protect international shipping lanes from repeated extortion attempts. 
And we must leave our regional allies, like Kuwait, protected from retaliatory strikes through binding nonaggression commitments and a long-term offshore carrier strike group presence to prevent a security vacuum. 
This is a far cry from what Trump promised with his ill-advised and ill-prepared blunder of a war  and in the case of Hormuz, it’s merely restoring access we already had before the war. 
But it’s the least we should accept in our retreat. 
As much as we want to get out now, we owe it to our allies, our Gulf partners, our troops  and the Iranian people  to leave this mess of our own making with something to show for it. 
S.E. 
Cupp is the host of “S.E. 
Cupp Unfiltered” on CNN. 
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com . 
More about how to submit here . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.1%S. E. Cupp: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Confirmation Bias2.1%This article: 4.3%S. E. Cupp: 2.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias4.3%This article: 5.3%S. E. Cupp: 3.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 6.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%S. E. Cupp: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion5.7%This article: 1.4%S. E. Cupp: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.1%S. E. Cupp: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias1.1%This article: 13.1%S. E. Cupp: 4.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias13.1%This article: 36.0%S. E. Cupp: 30.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 8.7%Negativity Bias36.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%S. E. Cupp: 3.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%S. E. Cupp: 5.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%S. E. Cupp: 4.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%S. E. Cupp: 5.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem7.1%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.3%S. E. Cupp: 4.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Appeal to Authority8.3%This article: 6.8%S. E. Cupp: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%False Dilemma6.8%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.0%S. E. Cupp: 20.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.9%Hasty Generalization22.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 11.2%S. E. Cupp: 6.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon11.2%This article: 7.3%S. E. Cupp: 9.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 3.6%S. E. Cupp: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 5.8%S. E. Cupp: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.6%S. E. Cupp: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Composition/Division4.6%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%S. E. Cupp: 3.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.0%S. E. Cupp: 2.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Unattributed Quote6.0%This article: 6.0%S. E. Cupp: 4.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection6.0%This article: 11.5%S. E. Cupp: 11.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 11.4%S. E. Cupp: 22.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Indoctrination11.4%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%S. E. Cupp: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%S. E. Cupp: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.4%

703 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.5%attributed speech664writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 19 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 14 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

0%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.2 ptsWriter: 12.2%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%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.