A Way Out of the Iran Mess - by Aaron MacLean ⁠87%

By Aaron MacLean⁠89%

7/8/2026, 10:20:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 27.8% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 595 faulty-reasoning hits from 223 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,948 of 21,169 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.10% of the article peer group.

Where on Earth do we go from here? 
As I see it, there are four options. 
(Francisco Seco via AP Photo) 
The president has to choose between four options on the Strait of Hormuz. 
None of them are pain-free. 
07.08.26 — U.S. 
Politics 
Produced by ElevenLabs using AI narration 
As the clouds gathered in Europe in 1938, Winston Churchill summed up British policy toward Germany in a letter to an associate, writing, “We seem to be very near the bleak choice between War and Shame. 
My feeling is that we shall choose Shame, and then have War thrown in a little later on even more adverse terms than at present.” 
You could say the same thing about the Trump administration’s approach to Iran and, in particular, the need to secure the Strait of Hormuz. 
Its stubborn refusal to confront reality on this issue led directly to the deeply flawed memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed just three weeks ago—and now, to that agreement’s predictable collapse. 
Continue Reading The Free Press 
To support our journalism, and unlock all of our investigative stories and provocative commentary about the world as it actually is, subscribe below. 
Billed as $100 yearly 
Billed as $10 monthly 
Already have an account? 
To read this article, sign in or subscribe 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.8%Aaron MacLean: 6.8%The FP: 6.1%Confirmation Bias10.8%This article: 10.8%Aaron MacLean: 8.5%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 2.3%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 2.6%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 11.2%Aaron MacLean: 3.5%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.5%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Aaron MacLean: 18.7%The FP: 9.9%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 13.9%Aaron MacLean: 2.6%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion13.9%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Aaron MacLean: 5.3%The FP: 1.5%Pessimism Bias13.5%This article: 26.0%Aaron MacLean: 9.1%The FP: 11.2%Negativity Bias26.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 1.9%The FP: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.5%Aaron MacLean: 2.8%The FP: 2.0%Recency Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 1.9%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.9%Aaron MacLean: 21.0%The FP: 3.3%Appeal to Authority26.9%This article: 9.4%Aaron MacLean: 6.7%The FP: 2.6%False Dilemma9.4%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 5.5%The FP: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 1.5%The FP: 9.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.1%Aaron MacLean: 8.8%The FP: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion21.1%This article: 13.5%Aaron MacLean: 3.8%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question13.5%This article: 13.5%Aaron MacLean: 5.7%The FP: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.5%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.9%The FP: 2.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 16.1%Aaron MacLean: 4.6%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection16.1%This article: 27.8%Aaron MacLean: 15.4%The FP: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice27.8%This article: 10.3%Aaron MacLean: 1.5%The FP: 2.9%Indoctrination10.3%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 3.4%The FP: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 3.4%The FP: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 21.5%Aaron MacLean: 13.9%The FP: 4.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…21.5%

223 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers30%attributed speech156writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageElevenLabs • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWinston Churchill • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWinston Churchill • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Winston Churchill

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words91% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+59.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Winston Churchill: 59.0%59.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.7 ptsWriter: 39.7%Winston Churchill: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -30.8 ptsWriter: 30.8%Winston Churchill: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Winston Churchill: 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.