The Dispatch33%
Our Best Stuff From a Big Week in the Middle East 67%
By Rachael Larimore85%
7/25/2026, 12:00:00 PM
Keywords: Middle East, Iran War
BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 38.5% saturation with 287 hits. Analysis detected 1,462 faulty-reasoning hits from 746 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.8% and a BS Rank of 67% (7,226 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.00% of the article peer group.
Hello and happy Saturday.
The situation in the Middle East added a few layers of complexity this week.
As the U.S. and Iran traded strikes, the Yemen-based Houthis said they would impose a naval blockade of Saudi ports.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration announced Wednesday it had signed a deal with Saudi Arabia to help it build a civilian nuclear program.
That’s a lot to unpack—especially considering that after the nuclear deal was signed, President Donald Trump said Thursday it was contingent on Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with Israel.
Saudi Arabia has long insisted it would not do so without a pathway to Palestinian statehood.
That puts the deal in doubt, which, given the reviews of the agreement provided by Kevin D.
Williamson and Nick Catoggio, might not be the worst thing.
Pointing to reporting from the New York Times that the Saudis insisted on terms that limit international inspectors and that the deal could eventually allow the Saudis to enrich uranium, Nick ran through the various reasons Trump might have sought such a deal—the Saudis have been benefactors to various Trump family businesses, he sees them as friends, or maybe oil was involved.
He concludes:
Wherever you land in all of this, it goes without saying that a U.S. government led by Trump can’t be counted on to stop the Saudis from converting their nuclear energy program into a nuclear weapons program, no matter what sort of formal “black box” guarantees might be built into the relationship.
Relying on postliberal America for oversight of Riyadh is like relying on one mafia family to police another with which it’s in business.
Kevin, who agrees with Nick that the Saudis are ultimately seeking a nuclear weapon, reminded readers that the Saudis had awfully close ties to the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks—15 of the hijackers were subjects, Saudi charities and elites supported al-Qaeda financially, etc.—and noted that the Trump administration has sought to stymie litigation brought by families of 9/11 victims against the Saudi government.
He writes, “The administration’s credibility here … is not exactly bombproof.
And we know that Trump can be bought, or at least rented, by any tinpot Arab potentate with capital sufficient to purchase an airplane.”
As of Friday, the U.S. had carried out strikes on targets across Iran for 13 straight nights, with Iran targeting U.S. military installations and civilian infrastructure in the Gulf States.
Trump has threatened to strike Iranian bridges and power plants in response.
Reuel Marc Gerecht suspects that Trump really wants a nonmilitary solution to the problem, but says that “his ‘art-of-the-deal’ style isn’t helping.
The president’s gyrations, the continuing disconnects between word and deed, make him look increasingly unserious.”
And he suggests that the president is running out of time:
We are probably at Trump’s last chance to show that he still deserves the Islamic Republic’s initial fear of him.
If he doesn’t now begin the battle of Hormuz or at least amp up economic warfare through an oil-proof, indefinite blockade, which will certainly guarantee that Iran keeps shooting at Arab Gulf-state energy infrastructure, then it’s not likely he will gird his loins for a more dangerous military campaign after the November elections, as some hope.
But Mike Coté, a writer and historian who hosts the Rational Policy podcast, argues that there might be another option: stop shooting.
He notes that the endless cycle of “negotiation, ceasefire, fighting, and escalation” has done nothing to temper the conflict and that both diplomacy and combat have their own risks.
His solution?
“Embrace ambiguity and step back.”
Basically, end the strikes, leave the blockade in place, and ramp up sanctions.
He writes:
This approach avoids many of the traps that could present themselves—and very much already have—in the dealmaking and enforcement process, as well as a potential return to all-out war.
Instead of trying to come to an understanding with a counterparty that is uninterested in implementing or following any agreement, America should bank its tangible military victories, continue to apply maximum economic pressure, and maintain its freedom of action to strike kinetically once again if the opportunity arises.
Thank you for reading and have a good weekend.
One note: There will be no Dispatch Weekly next Saturday as the Ohio bureau is relocating to South Carolina for a little R&R.
If you have any recommendations for the Charleston area, I’d love to hear them.
Speakers
3speakers36%attributed speech478writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
97%flagged-word coverageMike Coté
128 attributed words48% of attributed speech61% writer coverage
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.