Iran War Day 147: Trump Says Seized Iranian Funds to Be Used for Hormuz Damages ⁠71%

By Harrison Berger⁠73%

7/24/2026, 3:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 33.3% saturation with 134 hits. Analysis detected 623 faulty-reasoning hits from 402 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (6,387 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.80% of the article peer group.

American decisionmakers weighed new financial and military options to change the course of the war as the U.S. and Iran continued to trade strikes Friday. 
The New York Times reported Friday, citing four anonymous sources, that President Donald Trump met with cabinet officials to consider whether to escalate the Iran War. 
Trump said Thursday that he would use confiscated Iranian funds to cover for any damages sustained to vessels attacked by the IRGC in the Strait of Hormuz. 
“These damages may be very substantial but, nevertheless, this is the fair and equitable thing to do,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 
Iran’s Foreign Abbas Araghchi on Thursday evening condemned the move, writing on X that “seizing another nation’s assets to pay for unrelated future claims is an incendiary precedent” and warning that “once governments normalize confiscation, no one’s assets are safe.” 
Kpler shipping tracker reported that Strait of Hormuz traffic Thursday “fell to six confirmed crossings, down 60 per cent from the previous day, with all but one vessel using the Iranian Unilateral Scheme.” 
Bab el-Mandeb traffic, however, increased to 49 confirmed crossings on the same day. 
Following the Houthis’ declaration of a “maritime embargo” against Saudi Arabia, the Financial Times reported Friday that several shipping insurers have told brokers that they will not sell cargo insurance to Saudi-linked ships in the Red Sea. 
Ships linked to Israel, the U.S., and the U.K. currently must pay higher premiums for insurance for their cargo traveling through the Red Sea. 
A broker who spoke with FT warns Saudi Arabia “may be moving into the same bracket.” 
The office of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he and Trump will meet at the White House on Tuesday. 
It will be Netanyahu’s seventh visit to the White House since Trump took office for a second term. 
Reuters, citing Pakistani sources, reported that China initiated a push that is now being led by Pakistan for new talks to end the war. 
The Wall Street Journal , citing anonymous sources, reported Friday that Bahrain and Kuwait secretly sent jets to bomb Iran earlier this month, with the UAE providing targeting for the airstrikes. 
The price of oil remained elevated, with Brent Crude at over $96.40 per barrel on Friday. 
AAA reported the national average price of a gallon of regular gas at $4.10. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.2%Harrison Berger: 6.8%The American Conservative: 8.1%Confirmation Bias3.2%This article: 4.0%Harrison Berger: 0.4%The American Conservative: 0.6%Anchoring Bias4.0%This article: 13.7%Harrison Berger: 5.5%The American Conservative: 3.8%Availability Heuristic13.7%This article: 8.2%Harrison Berger: 1.1%The American Conservative: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic8.2%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.4%The American Conservative: 1.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 4.2%The American Conservative: 3.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Harrison Berger: 12.5%The American Conservative: 8.1%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 5.5%Harrison Berger: 0.5%The American Conservative: 0.4%Loss Aversion5.5%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: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 2.3%The American Conservative: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.7%Harrison Berger: 12.2%The American Conservative: 10.6%Negativity Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 2.2%The American Conservative: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Harrison Berger: 1.5%The American Conservative: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error6.0%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: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 1.8%The American Conservative: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 2.4%The American Conservative: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%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: 7.7%Harrison Berger: 2.0%The American Conservative: 2.8%Ad Hominem7.7%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 0.7%The American Conservative: 2.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 7.8%The American Conservative: 4.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 3.0%The American Conservative: 3.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 10.0%Harrison Berger: 2.8%The American Conservative: 2.4%Slippery Slope10.0%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: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 7.1%The American Conservative: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 5.5%Harrison Berger: 2.1%The American Conservative: 1.6%Begging the Question5.5%This article: 0.0%Harrison Berger: 3.5%The American Conservative: 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%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: 10.0%Harrison Berger: 2.5%The American Conservative: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%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: 33.3%Harrison Berger: 6.5%The American Conservative: 3.4%Unattributed Quote33.3%This article: 5.5%Harrison Berger: 4.3%The American Conservative: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.5%This article: 18.2%Harrison Berger: 10.8%The American Conservative: 17.3%Biased Writer Voice18.2%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%

402 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers28%attributed speech290writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageAbbas Araghchi • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageFinancial Times • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageIsrael’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAAA • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Abbas Araghchi

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words36% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+88.6 ptsWriter: 11.4%Abbas Araghchi: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-33.4 ptsWriter: 33.4%Abbas Araghchi: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Abbas Araghchi: 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.