The Anti-Strategic President (w/ Hal Brands) ⁠49%

By Eric S. Edelman⁠25%

7/20/2026, 1:45:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Optimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 21.2% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 342 faulty-reasoning hits from 184 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (10,858 of 21,203 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.20% of the article peer group.

Eric welcomes back friend of the show Professor Hal Brands, the Henry A. 
Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. 
The two discuss Hal’s recent work, beginning with his column in Bloomberg dissecting the key strategic errors that Trump has made in the ongoing war with Iran. 
Hal then breaks down his recent essay with Michael Beckley in Foreign Affairs, which examines global conflict through the lens of “heartland” and “rimland” coalitions. 
Finally, they turn to Hal’s latest edited volume which brings together essays by a large group of scholars considering the many ways that AI may change the nature of international affairs, the conduct of war, and global order. 
Hal Brands’ latest in Bloomberg: 
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/trumps-iran-blunder-shows-strategy-can-defeat-firepower/ 
Hal Brands & Michael Beckley’s latest in Foreign Affairs: 
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/heartland-vs-rimland-beckley-brands 
The Geopolitics of AI: Power, Conflict, and the Future of Global Order: 
Free PDF via Johns Hopkins University Press 
Hard copy via Amazon 
Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 2.7%The Bulwark: 5.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.7%Eric S. Edelman: 2.7%The Bulwark: 3.0%Availability Heuristic20.7%This article: 13.6%Eric S. Edelman: 1.8%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic13.6%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Eric S. Edelman: 13.7%The Bulwark: 7.0%Framing Effect21.2%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 20.7%Eric S. Edelman: 2.7%The Bulwark: 1.6%Optimism Bias20.7%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.6%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Eric S. Edelman: 16.5%The Bulwark: 11.5%Negativity Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 3.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Eric S. Edelman: 0.9%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 2.2%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 1.9%The Bulwark: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 4.5%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.6%Eric S. Edelman: 3.7%The Bulwark: 3.5%Appeal to Authority19.6%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.7%Eric S. Edelman: 2.7%The Bulwark: 8.4%Hasty Generalization20.7%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 1.4%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 14.7%Eric S. Edelman: 3.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question14.7%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.9%The Bulwark: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.1%Eric S. Edelman: 14.6%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice7.1%This article: 11.4%Eric S. Edelman: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination11.4%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 4.3%The Bulwark: 5.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric S. Edelman: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Eric S. Edelman: 4.0%The Bulwark: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.7%

184 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers67%attributed speech60writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageHal Brands • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageHal Brands • 25 words • 0.0% coverageHal Brands • 38 words • 0.0% coverageHal Brands • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageHal Brands • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohns Hopkins University Press • 7 words • 100.0% coverageAmazon • 4 words • 100.0% coverageShield of the Republic • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words17% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Shield of the Republic: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.7 ptsWriter: 21.7%Shield of the Republic: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Shield of the Republic: 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.