Iran shrugs as Trump continuously flip-flops between threats and extending peace talk deadlines 64%

By Andrew Feinberg0%

5/18/2026, 9:40:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 72.5% saturation with 685 hits. Analysis detected 3,557 faulty-reasoning hits from 945 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.7% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,504 of 20,472 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.30% of the article peer group.

Nearly three months after President Donald Trump took a hammer to Americans’ disposable income by launching an air war against Iran, it appears the Middle East nation has figured out the best way to handle the threats and intermittent bouts of bluster from Trump’s social-media-based diplomacy: Ignore it. 
Trump was set to convene top advisers in the White House Situation Room Tuesday to discuss options for a return to the bombing campaign he has spent months claiming as a “total victory” over Tehran before he announced Monday on Truth Social that he’d be postponing renewed attacks at the request of Qatari, Saudi and Emirati leaders, who he claimed are involved in “serious negotiations” towards “a deal which will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as all Countries in the Middle East, and beyond.” 
“Based on my respect for the above mentioned Leaders, I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, and The United States Military, that we will NOT be doing the scheduled attack of Iran tomorrow, but have further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached,” he said. 
Trump’s latest eleventh-hour reversal comes a day after he told Axios that he believes Iranian leaders still want to come to some manner of agreement and warned that Tehran is “going to get hit much harder” if they don’t capitulate to his demands. 
The president also cautioned that “there won’t be anything left of them” if they fail to rush through a deal to end the war, writing on Truth Social that “the clock is ticking” for Iran. 
At the same time, the president remains fixated on demonizing news reporting on how the “total victory” he has been boasting of since mid-March isn’t nearly as “total” as he has claimed. 
In the midst of a days-long stream of Truth Social posts about upcoming House and Senate primaries interspersed with AI-generated slop content showing him with captured aliens, among other things, Trump lashed out at the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and CNN for reporting about the war’s depletion of American munitions stockpiles that defense experts say will take years to rebuild as well as how Iran’s own capabilities remain largely intact despite Trump’s insistence that their forces have been “decimated.” 
Meanwhile, Tehran is carrying on with its efforts to inflict as much economic pain on the global economy as possible without regard for anything Trump tells journalists or thumbs into his social media account. 
Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz leading to a spike in gas prices across the globe. 
On Monday, Iranian officials created an X account for what the regime is calling the “Persian Gulf Strait Authority”  as prosaic and anodyne-sounding an organization as, say, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 
A post announcing the establishment of the new agency described it as the “legal entity and representative authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran for managing the passage and transit through the Strait of Hormuz.” 
It appeared to be a giant middle finger raised defiantly in Trump’s direction ahead of his reported war council session and came on the same day that Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei warned that his country is “fully prepared for every scenario" and “will not be subdued by contradictory behavior and threats” from the U.S. side of the conflict. 
“In the event of any reckless action we will respond with full strength, and I assure you that our armed forces will definitely have new 'surprises' for the enemy,” he said. 
There was a time when Trump’s Twitter tantrums could be said to have garnered at least some results. 
His threats of “fire and fury” against North Korea and talk of a “nuclear button” arguably brought about a lull in Pyongyang’s provocations against South Korea and Japan during his first term, even as a pair of summits with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un failed to bring about anything remotely resembling progress towards the longstanding goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. 
Not anymore. 
By now, Iranian leaders can see Trump’s appetite for more war falling just as fast as his approval rating  or as fast as gas prices continue to rise while they choke off the world’s access to a fifth of its oil supply by seizing control of the Strait. 
They know that Trump hasn’t had the fortitude to order American naval forces to reopen what is supposed to be an international waterway and clear any mines Tehran has laid. 
And because he’s alienated most of America’s allies  including those who could assist in mine-clearing or escorting civilian ships  they know they effectively control the strait and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. 
They can also read the same newspapers and polls that Trump and his aides can. 
They see the American public is widely set against the war and disapproves of Trump’s handling of the entire matter. 
And because they have managed to keep much of their own capabilities in reserve by hiding missile infrastructure and other military materiel deep underground, they can keep up a defense that will make Trump’s continued boasts of “total victory” look ever more ridiculous, even in the face of what could be a punishing renewed air campaign. 
So long as they can hold the strait, to borrow a phrase from Trump, they “hold all the cards.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%Andrew Feinberg: 2.9%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Andrew Feinberg: 3.1%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic15.9%This article: 10.7%Andrew Feinberg: 1.5%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic10.7%This article: 6.5%Andrew Feinberg: 1.0%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 2.8%The Independent: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Andrew Feinberg: 10.3%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.0%This article: 5.2%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect5.2%This article: 5.9%Andrew Feinberg: 1.5%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias5.9%This article: 3.3%Andrew Feinberg: 2.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 62.2%Andrew Feinberg: 16.4%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias62.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.9%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Andrew Feinberg: 1.3%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error15.2%This article: 6.3%Andrew Feinberg: 0.6%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.7%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.4%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 1.6%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.8%Andrew Feinberg: 2.3%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias14.8%This article: 1.9%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Andrew Feinberg: 2.4%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem11.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 4.5%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.2%Andrew Feinberg: 1.4%The Independent: 1.5%False Dilemma5.2%This article: 6.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope6.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.0%Andrew Feinberg: 6.7%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization11.0%This article: 8.7%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring8.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.6%Andrew Feinberg: 3.8%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion9.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.5%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 24.9%Andrew Feinberg: 2.0%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)24.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.9%Andrew Feinberg: 2.2%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 22.1%Andrew Feinberg: 2.1%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.4%Andrew Feinberg: 3.3%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote15.4%This article: 8.5%Andrew Feinberg: 1.8%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.5%This article: 72.5%Andrew Feinberg: 19.6%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice72.5%This article: 5.1%Andrew Feinberg: 1.1%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination5.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 4.2%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Andrew Feinberg: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Feinberg: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

945 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.3%attributed speech914writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 90 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 80 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 82 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 60 words • 100.0% coverageEsmaeil Baqaei • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 61 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Esmaeil Baqaei

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+87.4 ptsWriter: 12.6%Esmaeil Baqaei: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-74.9 ptsWriter: 74.9%Esmaeil Baqaei: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%Esmaeil Baqaei: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Esmaeil Baqaei: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Esmaeil Baqaei: 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.