Iran War Day 139: Iran Threatens Mideast Infrastructure Will Be ‘Crushed’ If Trump Bombs Power Plants ⁠79%

By Harrison Berger⁠73%

7/16/2026, 8:50:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.5% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 571 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (4,663 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.70% of the article peer group.

The U.S. launched airstrikes against Iran overnight, and Iran retaliated against U.S. bases in the region, as the Iran War entered its 139th day on Thursday. 
CENTCOM said it targeted “Iranian command centers, air defense sites, missile and drone capabilities, and coastal surveillance facilities.” 
Defense analysts note that many of the sites CENTCOM has claimed to target in recent days are located deep beneath mountains made of granite that may not be penetrable with U.S. missiles. 
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei condemned a reported U.S. airstrike near Shahid Baqaei Hospital, a children’s cancer treatment center in Iran. 
Baqaei said more than 200 chemotherapy patients had to be evacuated. 
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it retaliated with strikes on U.S. bases and facilities in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan. 
Following President Donald Trump’s threat Wednesday that the U.S. would bomb Iran’s “power plants and bridges” next week unless Tehran returned to the negotiating table, Iran’s central military headquarters warned that if the threat was carried out, Iran would destroy “all the infrastructure in the region.” 
Reuters reported Thursday that Iran has asked the Yemeni Houthis to shut down the Bab al-Mandab Strait if the U.S. attacks power plants in Iran. 
The New York Times reported that only 13 ships transited the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, down from previous days. 
Oil prices continued to rise, with the price of Brent Crude above $85 on Thursday morning. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.9%Harrison Berger: 6.8%The American Conservative: 8.1%Confirmation Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.4%The American Conservative: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.6%Harrison Berger: 5.5%The American Conservative: 3.8%Availability Heuristic20.6%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.1%The American Conservative: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.4%The American Conservative: 1.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Harrison Berger: 4.2%The American Conservative: 3.2%Overconfidence Bias12.6%This article: 24.5%Harrison Berger: 12.5%The American Conservative: 8.1%Framing Effect24.5%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.5%The American Conservative: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.4%The American Conservative: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.1%The American Conservative: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.4%The American Conservative: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Harrison Berger: 2.3%The American Conservative: 2.7%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 37.5%Harrison Berger: 12.2%The American Conservative: 10.6%Negativity Bias37.5%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 2.2%The American Conservative: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.5%The American Conservative: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.3%The American Conservative: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.6%The American Conservative: 2.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Harrison Berger: 1.8%The American Conservative: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.4%The American Conservative: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.1%The American Conservative: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Harrison Berger: 2.4%The American Conservative: 1.4%Recency Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.5%The American Conservative: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.2%The American Conservative: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 2.0%The American Conservative: 2.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.7%The American Conservative: 2.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.8%Harrison Berger: 7.8%The American Conservative: 4.3%Appeal to Authority19.8%This article: 9.9%Harrison Berger: 3.0%The American Conservative: 3.3%False Dilemma9.9%This article: 18.2%Harrison Berger: 2.8%The American Conservative: 2.4%Slippery Slope18.2%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.2%The American Conservative: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 7.1%The American Conservative: 10.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.1%The American Conservative: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.8%The American Conservative: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.3%Harrison Berger: 7.1%The American Conservative: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion4.3%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 2.1%The American Conservative: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.9%Harrison Berger: 3.5%The American Conservative: 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.9%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.3%The American Conservative: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.8%The American Conservative: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.1%The American Conservative: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.0%The American Conservative: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.2%The American Conservative: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 2.5%The American Conservative: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.2%The American Conservative: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.3%The American Conservative: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.1%Harrison Berger: 6.5%The American Conservative: 3.4%Unattributed Quote7.1%This article: 18.2%Harrison Berger: 4.3%The American Conservative: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection18.2%This article: 12.6%Harrison Berger: 10.8%The American Conservative: 17.3%Biased Writer Voice12.6%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.3%The American Conservative: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.2%The American Conservative: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.0%The American Conservative: 3.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.4%The American Conservative: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

253 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers64%attributed speech90writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCENTCOM • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageEsmaeil Baqaei • 22 words • 0.0% coverageEsmaeil Baqaei • 11 words • 0.0% coverageIran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) • 21 words • 0.0% coverageIran’s central military headquarters • 46 words • 100.0% coverageReuters • 25 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words28% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Iran’s central military headquarters: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.6 ptsWriter: 35.6%Iran’s central military headquarters: 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.