US strikes IRGC forces behind attack that killed US troops in Jordan 72%

By Brady Knox49%

7/19/2026, 12:58:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 21.1% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 1,310 faulty-reasoning hits from 517 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.3% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,229 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.50% of the article peer group.

The United States launched a large wave of attacks against Iran after two U.S. soldiers were killed in Jordan , including strikes targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps units that launched the deadly attack. 
The bombardment marked the eighth consecutive night of heavy U.S. strikes against Iran, which began after Iran launched new attacks against merchant shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, pushing President Donald Trump to declare the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding “over.” 
The strikes concluded at 11:30 p.m. 
ET, according to U.S. 
Central Command, and targeted Iranian “military coastal surveillance and air defense facilities, maritime capabilities, and missile and drone storage sites to continue degrading Iranian military capabilities.” 
“American military assets also targeted Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces that launched attacks against U.S. service members in Jordan on July 17,” CENTCOM wrote , referring to the attacks which killed the two U.S. servicemen and injured several more. 
It included declassified footage of the strikes themselves, which included hits against construction equipment and a radar facility. 
Iran used some of its most advanced ballistic missiles in Friday’s attack on Jordan, a country more unprepared than its Gulf counterparts, as it had been much less targeted earlier in the war. 
The two U.S. soldiers were the eighth and ninth killed by direct Iranian fire in Operation Epic Fury, and the first deaths since the opening days of the war. 
Iranian authorities claimed that among the targets of Saturday’s strikes by the U.S. was the construction site of a nuclear power plant in Darkhovin, located in Khuzestan province in the southwest, which they said was hit by “several projectiles.” 
“The terrorist and criminal US regime, whose nature is nothing but bullying and lawlessness, carried out an aggressive and barbaric act in violation of international law,” the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran said in a statement. 
Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf attempted to rally the Iranian people on Sunday as the strikes intensified, saying national unity was above all else in importance. 
“Insisting on sacred unity is not just a moral or social recommendation, it is rather a necessary condition for victory in the field of struggle against the enemy,” he said in a post on X. 
“We should consider obedience to this religious and national command of the supreme leader of the revolution as an important part of our historical role in this national resistance and in the administration of the country,” Ghalibaf added. 
TEHRAN BILLBOARD SHOWS A DEAD TRUMP AND REFERENCES TO DESTROYED MINAB ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 
The U.S. was bracing for Iran’s inevitable retaliation Sunday morning, which authorities seem to believe will target Jordan’s coastal Aqaba city on its Red Sea coast. 
The U.S. 
Embassy in Jordan urged its citizens to avoid the airport or seaport in the city over “a specific and credible threat.” 
Israel’s military spokesman warned that it had detected a missile launch towards the city and warned its residents that debris could hit Israel. 
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan all activated their air defenses on Sunday to defend against Iranian attacks. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.1%Brady Knox: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias15.1%This article: 7.7%Brady Knox: 2.9%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias7.7%This article: 7.5%Brady Knox: 3.4%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic7.5%This article: 9.5%Brady Knox: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.5%This article: 6.4%Brady Knox: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias6.4%This article: 5.0%Brady Knox: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias5.0%This article: 17.8%Brady Knox: 8.5%Washington Examiner: 8.6%Framing Effect17.8%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.4%Brady Knox: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Brady Knox: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Optimism Bias6.8%This article: 9.5%Brady Knox: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias9.5%This article: 9.5%Brady Knox: 12.1%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Brady Knox: 2.1%Washington Examiner: 2.2%In-Group Bias13.7%This article: 12.0%Brady Knox: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Brady Knox: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias6.6%This article: 5.6%Brady Knox: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Brady Knox: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem7.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.1%Brady Knox: 4.9%Washington Examiner: 4.0%Appeal to Authority9.1%This article: 6.8%Brady Knox: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma6.8%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.4%Brady Knox: 6.7%Washington Examiner: 8.9%Hasty Generalization6.4%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Brady Knox: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 4.4%Brady Knox: 6.2%Washington Examiner: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 6.8%Brady Knox: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Begging the Question6.8%This article: 14.3%Brady Knox: 5.2%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.3%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 2.8%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.3%Brady Knox: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote20.3%This article: 5.0%Brady Knox: 2.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.0%This article: 7.0%Brady Knox: 6.4%Washington Examiner: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 21.1%Brady Knox: 3.4%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination21.1%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 4.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Knox: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

517 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers55%attributed speech233writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageCentral Command • 26 words • 100.0% coverageCENTCOM wrote • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageIranian authorities • 39 words • 100.0% coverageAtomic Energy Agency of Iran • 36 words • 100.0% coverageMohammad Bagher Ghalibaf • 27 words • 100.0% coverageMohammad Bagher Ghalibaf • 35 words • 100.0% coverageMohammad Bagher Ghalibaf • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageEmbassy in Jordan • 21 words • 0.0% coverageIsrael’s military spokesman • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words13% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Atomic Energy Agency of Iran: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Atomic Energy Agency of Iran: 100.0%100.0%

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.