MS NOW⁠95%

As Iran walks away from the negotiating table, Trump contradicts himself (again) ⁠62%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

6/1/2026, 6:43:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Quote-first Misdirection, and Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 67.2% saturation with 424 hits. Analysis detected 2,068 faulty-reasoning hits from 631 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (8,311 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.00% of the article peer group.

Those looking for coherence and consistency from Donald Trump on the war in Iran have been left wanting. 
The president has insisted, for example, that any agreement to end the conflict must include Iran turning over its highly enriched uranium. 
He has also recently said the opposite, arguing that Iran’s uranium stockpiles are really just a “public relations” issue and the goal isn’t altogether “necessary.” 
The Republican has similarly told the public that U.S. forces have destroyed the Iranian military and left the Iranian military alone. 
What’s more, his contradictory statements about reopening the Strait of Hormuz have at times been head-spinning to officials here and across the world. 
But perhaps Trump’s most important contradiction has been over the existence of the negotiations themselves. 
For months, the White House’s ostensible goal was to get Iran to the negotiating table. 
When officials from Tehran agreed, Trump stopped the talks and started a war. 
In the ensuing days, weeks and months, the American president’s position was that Iran had no choice but to accept a deal. 
Exactly one month ago, he took the opposite position and said the U.S. might be better off “not making a deal” with Iran “at all.” 
One day later, Trump denied having said what everyone had already heard him say on camera and went back to pushing Iran to work toward a deal. 
Nearly two weeks ago, the Republican boasted that a “peace” agreement had been “largely negotiated,” and the world could expect to learn more about the breakthrough deal “shortly.” 
On Monday, amid renewed violence, the talks showed new signs of breaking down. 
MS NOW reported: 
Two Iranian sources inside Tehran linked with negotiation talks between the U.S. and Iran confirmed to MS NOW that “no dialogue will take place” with the U.S. until fighting in Lebanon ends. 
The sources, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, said the Israeli actions in Lebanon amount to a violation of the ceasefire. 
As Iran backed away from the negotiating table, Trump told NBC News, “I think we’ve been talking too much, if you want to know the truth. 
I think going silent would be very good, and that could be that could be for a long time.” 
The American president with a notoriously short attention span similarly told CNBC, “I really don’t care. 
I couldn’t care less,” adding that he thought the protracted talks had become “very boring.” 
Less than an hour later, he used his social media platform to say largely the opposite, declaring that talks with Iran are continuing “at a rapid pace,” which came on the heels of a related online item in which Trump also claimed he had spoken to both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah representatives, adding that both sides had agreed to stop attacking one another, which probably came as a surprise to those actually in Lebanon. 
The New York Times recently reported, “Three months after President Trump launched war on Iran, his seemingly haphazard approach to the conflict is bewildering allies at home and abroad as he veers between diplomatic dealing, military strikes and increasingly far-fetched ideas.” 
The Times added that Trump’s “pendulum swings on Iran have often seemed driven by mood and moment rather than any discernible strategy.” 
This stood out as especially true given the latest developments, which have brought the president’s incoherence into sharp relief. 
The administration’s allies might be tempted to argue that Trump is masterfully keeping everyone off-balance as part of a carefully tailored strategy, but that isn’t just overly generous, it’s downright ridiculous. 
There is no strategy. 
There is only a hapless amateur, who appears lost without a map, unsure of his own positions, which change by the hour. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.6%Steve Benen: 10.5%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.6%This article: 1.9%Steve Benen: 23.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 50.9%Steve Benen: 29.0%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias50.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error6.0%This article: 3.5%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 21.2%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias21.2%This article: 6.8%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Steve Benen: 7.8%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem10.0%This article: 4.9%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man4.9%This article: 10.0%Steve Benen: 6.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority10.0%This article: 0.6%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.6%This article: 3.5%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope3.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.4%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization9.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.9%Steve Benen: 11.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion4.9%This article: 2.4%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question2.4%This article: 14.3%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.1%Steve Benen: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal20.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.3%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 67.2%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote67.2%This article: 27.1%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection27.1%This article: 26.1%Steve Benen: 22.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice26.1%This article: 3.5%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination3.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

631 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers32%attributed speech428writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMS NOW • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 26 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 15 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 77 words • 100.0% coverageThe New York Times • 41 words • 100.0% coverageThe New York Times • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

86%flagged-word coverage
137 attributed words67% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Quote-first Misdirection+73.7 ptsWriter: 12.4%Trump: 86.1%86.1%Unattributed Quote+14.9 ptsWriter: 60.3%Trump: 75.2%75.2%Biased Writer Voice-38.6 ptsWriter: 38.6%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Trump: 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.