Trump claimed Biden’s secretary of state supported his attacks on Iran. Antony Blinken says that didn’t happen ⁠0%

By Rachel Dobkin⁠54%

3/26/2026, 4:31:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 28.1% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 992 faulty-reasoning hits from 573 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump has publicly claimed Antony Blinken supported his attacks on Iran but the former secretary of state has denied that happened. 
Blinken, who served during former President Joe Biden’s term, scrutinized comments that Trump made during a Republican fundraising dinner Wednesday night. 
“I've heard that today Blinken made a statement that he should have done it. 
Thanks a lot Blinken, I appreciate it,” Trump said. 
“But he came out with the statement that they should have done it, they made a mistake.” 
President Donald Trump claimed Antony Blinken supported his attacks on Iran, but the former secretary of state has denied that 
Blinken took to X Thursday, writing Trump “cited me as supporting his attack on Iran and expressing regret we didn’t do it during the Biden Administration. 
Except I didn’t.” 
The former secretary of state then shared a clip of him discussing the U.S.-Iran conflict dating back to the Obama years, which he suggested Trump may be referring to instead. 
Blinken served as former President Barack Obama’s deputy secretary of state from 2015 to 2017. 
“When the Obama administration came along, we looked very hard at this problem. 
And we decided that the best way to engage it was through the diplomatic agreement that we ultimately achieved,” Blinken said at an event for the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School. 
He was referring to the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal, which Iran signed in 2015 and Trump withdrew from in 2018. 
The deal restricted Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions, but Trump argued during his first term, “the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and — over time — reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.” 
‘I've heard that today Blinken made a statement that he should have done it. 
Thanks a lot Blinken, I appreciate it,’ Trump said Wednesday night 
“Of course, we looked at other ways of doing this, including, if necessary, taking military action, but we concluded at the time that if you took military action, the danger was that in the first instance, Iran might respond to that in ways that we’d have to control for,” Blinken said. 
“But also, that eventually, we might buy some time, but it would probably rebuild what it had, put it deeper underground in places that we couldn’t get to,” he added. 
The Independent has reached out to the White House for clarification on Trump's comments about Blinken. 
More than 1,900 people in Iran have been killed and nearly 1,100 in Lebanon, home to the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah, in military strikes that the U.S. and Israel started last month, according to the Associated Press. 
Thirteen U.S. service members have died. 
More than 1,900 people in Iran and 13 U.S. service members have been killed in the Iran war, which started more than three weeks ago 
In an update Wednesday, Admiral Brad Cooper, the leader of U.S. 
Central Command, said American forces have hit more than 10,000 military targets in Iran. 
“We’ve now destroyed 92 percent of the Iranian Navy’s largest vessels,” Cooper said in a video posted to social media. 
“Iran’s drone and missile launch rates are down by more than 90 percent.” 
Despite reports of the U.S. looking to enter a peace deal with Iran, the end of the war is nowhere in sight. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.9%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias7.9%This article: 5.2%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.2%This article: 2.4%Rachel Dobkin: 2.5%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic2.4%This article: 5.2%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.2%This article: 8.9%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Rachel Dobkin: 8.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.9%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.5%Rachel Dobkin: 2.7%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.5%This article: 9.1%Rachel Dobkin: 1.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias9.1%This article: 18.7%Rachel Dobkin: 9.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias18.7%This article: 1.6%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 3.7%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 4.5%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Rachel Dobkin: 1.7%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 1.9%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority11.0%This article: 3.8%Rachel Dobkin: 1.1%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 5.2%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope5.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 3.1%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.5%Rachel Dobkin: 5.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion3.5%This article: 0.5%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.1%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.5%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 28.1%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)28.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.4%Rachel Dobkin: 3.3%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote9.4%This article: 1.9%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection1.9%This article: 5.6%Rachel Dobkin: 7.9%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice5.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 3.5%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

573 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers56%attributed speech251writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 14 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAntony Blinken • 26 words • 100.0% coverageAntony Blinken • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAntony Blinken • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAntony Blinken • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 14 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAntony Blinken • 51 words • 0.0% coverageAntony Blinken • 30 words • 0.0% coverageThe Independent • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAdmiral Brad Cooper • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAdmiral Brad Cooper • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAdmiral Brad Cooper • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Antony Blinken

92%flagged-word coverage
157 attributed words49% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote+16.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Antony Blinken: 16.6%16.6%Biased Writer Voice+14.2 ptsWriter: 2.4%Antony Blinken: 16.6%16.6%Politically Left Leaning B-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Antony Blinken: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Antony Blinken: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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