Is Iran Really a ‘Forever War’? 60%

By Josh Marshall74%

7/22/2026, 8:03:29 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Framing Effect, and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 490 faulty-reasoning hits from 250 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.7% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,892 of 21,769 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.20% of the article peer group.

With the United States and Iran now clearly back to “war” from “ceasefire,” we’re seeing a host of stories arguing that President Trump, despite all his promises, has found his own “forever war.” 
It's a tempting claim, especially for Trump's critics. 
But we shouldn't jump too easily into it without recognizing how profoundly different the situations are. 
For the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan were fundamentally occupations. 
In both cases, existing governments were rapidly shattered or melted away. 
The U.S. began occupations in which it stood up new, friendly governments which it hoped would eventually be able to stand on their own with the pro-U.S. friendliness intact. 
The U.S. eventually tired of the conflicts and withdrew its forces. 
Mostly. 
The present situation is entirely different. 
The Iranian government is wholly intact and continues to fight the U.S. in an asymmetric but still conventional manner. 
Early U.S. hopes that the shock of the conflict would lead the Iranian government to crumble were quickly dashed. 
The U.S. has made no effort overthrow the Iranian government by force or even to occupy any of its territory. 
Even now, with the two sides back in active conflict, there is little evidence that the new attacks have any strategic goal beyond inflicting pain to shape some future negotiation. 
Both sides appear to be inflicting damage and pain with the hope that the other side will relent, soften their negotiating position or give up, but with little evidence either will. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.2%Josh Marshall: 4.8%Talking Points Memo: 5.0%Confirmation Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.3%Talking Points Memo: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 11.6%Josh Marshall: 3.5%Talking Points Memo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic11.6%This article: 12.0%Josh Marshall: 3.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias12.0%This article: 7.6%Josh Marshall: 9.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 13.2%Josh Marshall: 9.8%Talking Points Memo: 12.6%Framing Effect13.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.4%Josh Marshall: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 11.6%Josh Marshall: 2.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Josh Marshall: 2.7%Talking Points Memo: 2.6%Pessimism Bias12.4%This article: 12.0%Josh Marshall: 9.2%Talking Points Memo: 12.7%Negativity Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error12.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.8%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.4%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.7%Talking Points Memo: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.0%Josh Marshall: 10.9%Talking Points Memo: 5.6%Hasty Generalization4.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.8%Talking Points Memo: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.0%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.0%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.8%Burden of Proof12.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.5%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 2.0%Anecdotal8.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.8%Josh Marshall: 3.7%Talking Points Memo: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.4%Josh Marshall: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.0%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 1.3%Unattributed Quote12.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 32.0%Josh Marshall: 13.8%Talking Points Memo: 14.1%Biased Writer Voice32.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 5.1%Talking Points Memo: 6.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.9%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

250 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.