America’s Iran Problem Isn’t Going Away, with Mike Doran ⁠81%

By Aaron MacLean⁠89%

7/14/2026, 9:01:03 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 83.3% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 183 faulty-reasoning hits from 66 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,071 of 21,160 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.80% of the article peer group.

Mike Doran, senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute, returns to School of War to examine why the war with Iran continues despite devastating military setbacks for Tehran. 
Is President Trump’s Iran strategy truly different from President Obama’s, or are the similarities overstated? 
What d… 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.7%Aaron MacLean: 6.8%The FP: 6.1%Confirmation Bias22.7%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 8.5%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 3.5%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 0.5%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 83.3%Aaron MacLean: 18.7%The FP: 9.9%Framing Effect83.3%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 2.6%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%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: 13.6%Aaron MacLean: 5.3%The FP: 1.5%Pessimism Bias13.6%This article: 60.6%Aaron MacLean: 9.1%The FP: 11.2%Negativity Bias60.6%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: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 2.8%The FP: 2.0%Recency Bias0.0%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: 60.6%Aaron MacLean: 21.0%The FP: 3.3%Appeal to Authority60.6%This article: 22.7%Aaron MacLean: 6.7%The FP: 2.6%False Dilemma22.7%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: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 8.8%The FP: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 3.8%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 5.7%The FP: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%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: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 4.6%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.6%Aaron MacLean: 15.4%The FP: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice13.6%This article: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 1.5%The FP: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%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: 0.0%Aaron MacLean: 13.9%The FP: 4.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

66 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker61%attributed speech26writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMike Doran • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Doran

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.6 ptsWriter: 34.6%Mike Doran: 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.