Burnham approves use of U.K. bases for some U.S. strikes on Iran 34%

By Alex Wickham62%

7/22/2026, 12:43:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Status Quo Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.4% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 431 faulty-reasoning hits from 425 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.7% and a BS Rank of 34% (14,627 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.80% of the article peer group.

New Prime Minister Andy Burnham has approved the use of British military bases by the U.S. for what the U.K. calls defensive strikes against Iran, in a continuation of his predecessor Keir Starmer’s policy even as U.S. 
President Donald Trump ramps up his war. 
Starmer led a meeting of senior ministers and officials on Friday to discuss British policy following the resumption of U.S. operations earlier this month, according to people familiar with the matter. 
Ministers at that meeting decided to continue the existing policy that bases at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, England, could be used by U.S. planes flying missions aimed at countering the Iranian missile threat and sites used to target the Strait of Hormuz, the people said. 
Burnham, who became prime minister on Monday, was informed of the discussion and agreed with the decision taken, they added. 
They spoke on condition of anonymity discussing security matters. 
He will continue the previous government’s policy when it comes to approving U.K. bases for what are called defensive U.S. strikes, the people said. 
It means British bases are likely to be used for some of the current round of American operations. 
The decision emerged after the 10th day of renewed U.S. action. 
U.S. 
Central Command said it targeted Iranian military command centers, launch sites and air defenses overnight. 
Still, the decisions taken by Starmer proved politically difficult as he came under pressure from the British left to prevent the bases from being used, and from Trump to expand the U.K.’s role supporting the war. 
Trump’s remarks threatening to attack Iranian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants have also concerned U.K. officials, who worry about the legal implications of any such strikes. 
Burnham is likely to face criticism from the left-leaning Green Party and the Liberal Democrats, who both oppose the use of the bases because, in their view, it makes the U.K. complicit in war crimes. 
The new premier’s decision may help explain Trump’s relatively warm comments about him entering 10 Downing Street. 
Burnham spoke to Trump by phone after becoming premier Monday. 
“The prime minister outlined the U.K.’s commitment to securing the movement of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a readout from his office. 
Trump posted favorably on Truth Social about the call. 
“We discussed North Sea Oil, Trade, the Military Alliance, Demining of the Hormuz Strait, and many other topics. 
The call was interesting, and went very well,” he wrote. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 4.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.2%Alex Wickham: 1.4%The Japan Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Alex Wickham: 14.9%The Japan Times: 14.4%Framing Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 14.4%Alex Wickham: 4.8%The Japan Times: 1.3%Status Quo Bias14.4%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Alex Wickham: 0.8%The Japan Times: 4.7%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 15.1%Alex Wickham: 5.0%The Japan Times: 3.3%Pessimism Bias15.1%This article: 18.4%Alex Wickham: 6.7%The Japan Times: 11.6%Negativity Bias18.4%This article: 2.4%Alex Wickham: 0.8%The Japan Times: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Alex Wickham: 2.7%The Japan Times: 1.0%In-Group Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.6%Alex Wickham: 1.4%The Japan Times: 2.2%Recency Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.9%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 5.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.2%Alex Wickham: 5.6%The Japan Times: 1.7%False Dilemma8.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 2.7%The Japan Times: 4.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.6%Alex Wickham: 3.5%The Japan Times: 4.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.2%Alex Wickham: 2.7%The Japan Times: 3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.2%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Alex Wickham: 6.0%The Japan Times: 4.6%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 1.4%The Japan Times: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.6%Alex Wickham: 1.1%The Japan Times: 9.0%Biased Writer Voice1.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Wickham: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

425 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.7%attributed speech388writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

76%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words100% of attributed speech61% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%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.