Israel Shared ‘Intelligence’ Suggesting Iran Was ‘Considering’ Killing Trump: Report 65%

By Kathryn Wilkens41%

7/10/2026, 12:29:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Recency Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.8% saturation with 156 hits. Analysis detected 1,299 faulty-reasoning hits from 448 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.3% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,510 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.50% of the article peer group.

Israel shared “intelligence” with the U.S., suggesting Iran was “considering” a new plan to kill President Donald Trump , according to a Thursday exclusive from The Wall Street Journal . 
CNN’s Erin Burnett welcomed the Journal’s Anat Peled on Thursday’s edition of OutFront, where Peled said, “Israel recently shared this fresh intelligence. 
It says that it indicates that there was a plan that Iran was contemplating to kill Trump, and this would help to explain some of his behavior.” 
Peled’s remarks referred to Trump’s statements aboard Air Force One on Wednesday. 
He told journalists of Iran, “I’m number one on their list, before you. 
But if I go, you go, right?” 
Additionally, on Wednesday, the president revealed that he would return from the NATO summit aboard the existing Air Force One rather than the $400 million Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar. 
Trump said the new plane was instead flying to military bases in Europe so U.S. troops could see it because it is “truly magnificent,” yet per Burnett on Thursday, “four U.S. officials” now say the swap was due to “security concerns.” 
According to Peled, her reporting also proves that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been speaking “very frequently during the war” with “late-night phone calls,” but their “relationship recently soured.” 
During Saturday’s funeral for slain Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , attendees held signs that read, “We will kill Trump.” 
According to an April piece from The New York Times , “In the Situation Room on Feb. 
11, Mr. 
Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic.” 
During that same meeting, Israel shared Mossad intelligence with the U.S indicating that “an intense bombing campaign could foster the conditions for the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime.” 
“This was obviously a concern to [Trump]. 
He has been a target of Iran in the past,” Peled continued of the alleged new Trump plot, referencing past promises by the country to kill the president over the assassination of Qassem Soleimani . 
Burnett went on to ask for more details of the possible plot, such as how far along the plan was, to which Peled responded, “We don’t have those details right now. 
We just know that these two countries,” Israel and the U.S., “their military cooperation, intelligence cooperation has really reached unprecedented levels in this war. 
It’s gotten much closer.” 
Watch the clip above via CNN. 
The post Israel Shared ‘Intelligence’ Suggesting Iran Was ‘Considering’ Killing Trump: Report first appeared on Mediaite . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.1%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias21.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.9%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.6%Mediaite: 3.7%Availability Heuristic19.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.0%Mediaite: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.8%Mediaite: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias13.4%This article: 15.4%Kathryn Wilkens: 8.9%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.0%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.8%Kathryn Wilkens: 12.0%Mediaite: 14.6%Negativity Bias34.8%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.3%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.7%Mediaite: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.9%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.1%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 23.7%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.7%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias23.7%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.5%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.1%Mediaite: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 5.3%Mediaite: 3.6%Appeal to Authority19.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 9.6%Mediaite: 7.5%Hasty Generalization15.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.9%Kathryn Wilkens: 5.6%Mediaite: 6.7%Appeal to Emotion6.9%This article: 1.6%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.2%Mediaite: 1.6%Begging the Question1.6%This article: 20.3%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.4%Mediaite: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.3%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.5%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.8%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof12.5%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.7%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division4.7%This article: 4.7%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.0%Mediaite: 2.8%Anecdotal4.7%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.4%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.0%Mediaite: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.4%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 31.3%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.1%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote31.3%This article: 21.4%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.5%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection21.4%This article: 2.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.6%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.7%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.9%Mediaite: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 1.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.3%

448 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.9%attributed speech426writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageCNN’s Erin Burnett • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNN’s Erin Burnett

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+82.6 ptsWriter: 17.4%CNN’s Erin Burnett: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+72.3 ptsWriter: 27.7%CNN’s Erin Burnett: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%CNN’s Erin Burnett: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.4 ptsWriter: 1.4%CNN’s Erin Burnett: 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.