How Badly Has Trump Botched the Iran War? ⁠83%

By Mona Charen⁠46%

7/18/2026, 6:01:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Pessimism Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 46.3% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 369 faulty-reasoning hits from 216 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,877 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.30% of the article peer group.

Mona Charen and Eric Edelman examine how Trump stumbled into the Iran war without a clear plan, alienated allies, strengthened Tehran’s position, and left the United States looking weaker. 
Inside Israel’s Secret Operation to Cultivate Ahmadinejad 
US lacks scores of ambassadors in Africa 
Leave a comment 
Bulwark Book Club pick for August: Mark Twain’s Pudd’nhead Wilson. 
Join Mona Charen and Bill Kristol to discuss this classic that explores racism and slavery. 
Published in 1894, the novel tells the story of two boys – one born into slavery, the other the master’s son – who were switched at birth. 
Send your questions, comments, and thoughts on the book here. 
Watch your inbox for details on when the episode will drop. 
The Mona Charen Show is a weekly, one-on-one discussion that goes in depth on political and cultural topics. 
New shows drop Saturdays. 
Find this show wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. 
Add the show to your player of choice, here. 
Ad-free editions of The Mona Charen Show are exclusively available for Bulwark+ members. 
Access this member edition in the Bulwark App—now available on Apple and Google. 
Or set up the ad-free edition of this Bulwark show on your player of choice using your private RSS feed here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 2.1%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Mona Charen: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias3.2%This article: 3.2%Mona Charen: 0.9%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.3%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Mona Charen: 5.0%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect10.6%This article: 6.0%Mona Charen: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion6.0%This article: 6.0%Mona Charen: 0.5%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 2.9%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Mona Charen: 1.1%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias13.4%This article: 17.1%Mona Charen: 5.9%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias17.1%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 3.2%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.8%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Mona Charen: 1.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect8.3%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 8.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 1.7%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 7.1%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 4.0%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.7%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Mona Charen: 4.7%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.2%Mona Charen: 4.7%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion3.2%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.4%Mona Charen: 2.3%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.4%Mona Charen: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof13.4%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.2%Mona Charen: 1.6%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 16.7%Mona Charen: 15.3%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice16.7%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 0.8%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 4.4%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mona Charen: 1.2%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 46.3%Mona Charen: 2.5%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…46.3%

216 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers40%attributed speech130writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMona Charen • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageBulwark • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark • 13 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark • 13 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mona Charen

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words34% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+94.6 ptsWriter: 5.4%Mona Charen: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -40.8 ptsWriter: 40.8%Mona Charen: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%Mona Charen: 0.0%0.0%

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.