MS NOW94%

As Iranian attacks kill more U.S. troops, Trump’s claims about Iran’s capabilities unravel 77%

By Steve Benen95%

7/20/2026, 12:21:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Recency Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 40.7% saturation with 255 hits. Analysis detected 1,821 faulty-reasoning hits from 626 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.1% and a BS Rank of 77% (4,730 of 20,369 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.80% of the article peer group.

After months in which no American troops were killed as part of the war with Iran, the news took a devastating turn in recent days: U.S. 
Central Command confirmed that three American service members  two in Jordan and one in Iraq  were killed in action and one remains missing after Iranian attacks over the past few days. 
Soon after, the U.S. military responded by carrying out a new round of airstrikes to “swiftly punish” Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. 
What’s more, The New York Times reported that shortly before the latest round of U.S. fatalities, Iran carried out other strikes against U.S. forces in Jordan that injured dozens of U.S. service members  developments that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other Trump administration officials failed to disclose. 
It was against this backdrop that Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo said something on the air of surprising significance. 
Maria Bartiromo questioned how Iran could still be fighting, saying she does not understand how the country retains those capabilities when Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed the U.S. “obliterated” Iran’s military. 
“I don’t understand how it’s possible that Iran has the capabilities to fight this way and continue to try to lash out at Gulf countries and U.S. military bases,” the conservative host said Sunday morning, “because the U.S. has obliterated Iran’s military, and [Donald Trump] continues to reiterate that.” 
I won’t speculate as to Bartiromo’s motivations, but she stumbled onto an important detail. 
On the one hand, there’s the incumbent American president, who’s spent the past several weeks, if not months, assuring the world that the U.S. military, at his direction, has destroyed Iran’s military capabilities. 
Indeed, less than a month ago, at an event in Pennsylvania, the Republican said in reference to Iranian leaders, “They were the bully of the Middle East, and now we’re leaving Iran with no navy, no air force, no anti-aircraft, no missile capability.” 
A couple of days later, Trump similarly boasted that U.S. military operations have been so successful that Iran now has “no missile launchers.” 
On the other hand, Americans see U.S. troop fatalities climbing in response to Iranian attacks. 
The broader dynamic isn’t exactly complicated: Either Iran’s military is far more potent than Donald Trump seems to understand, or Trump has deliberately and wildly exaggerated the scope of the damage done by the U.S. military offensive. 
During a brief Q&A with reporters on Sunday afternoon, the president was asked about the latest fatalities. 
“Well, we feel very badly, but you know, those great people, those great patriots were out there fighting that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. 
Iran has been very, very badly damaged. 
They’ve lost everything, almost, militarily. 
They’ve got very little left. 
They’ve got some missiles. 
They’ve got some drones. 
They’ve got some manufacturing ability, not much. 
We control the strait; they don’t control anything.” 
But this only exaggerated the problem he created. 
Trump made it sound as if these U.S. service members died in order to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, but Iran wasn’t close to having a nuclear weapon before he launched the war, and according to the president’s own claims , Iran’s nuclear program was effectively destroyed last year, months before the offense he began on Feb. 
28. 
For that matter, as part of the same comments on Sunday afternoon, the president again made it sound as if Iran’s military capabilities barely exist, even as Iran’s military kills a growing number of Americans. 
Those looking for credible assessments about the state of the war should clearly avoid the White House. 
The post As Iranian attacks kill more U.S. troops, Trump’s claims about Iran’s capabilities unravel appeared first on MS NOW . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 40.7%Steve Benen: 10.6%MS NOW: 7.6%Confirmation Bias40.7%This article: 10.5%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias10.5%This article: 10.1%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.3%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias1.3%This article: 5.9%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 5.3%Steve Benen: 23.2%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect5.3%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: 0.8%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 39.3%Steve Benen: 29.4%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias39.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error2.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.8%This article: 1.3%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.5%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: 17.6%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias17.6%This article: 8.1%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Steve Benen: 7.9%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem2.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.7%Steve Benen: 6.4%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 16.1%Steve Benen: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma16.1%This article: 5.9%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope5.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.8%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.8%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: 8.9%Steve Benen: 11.4%MS NOW: 9.9%Appeal to Emotion8.9%This article: 4.0%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 1.3%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.1%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof12.1%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: 4.2%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal4.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%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: 12.8%Steve Benen: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity12.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 9.4%Steve Benen: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy9.4%This article: 6.9%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote6.9%This article: 2.9%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 24.1%Steve Benen: 22.8%MS NOW: 14.3%Biased Writer Voice24.1%This article: 2.7%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination2.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.6%

626 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers43%attributed speech357writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageCentral Command • 33 words • 100.0% coverageU.S. military • 20 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageMaria Bartiromo • 31 words • 0.0% coverageMaria Bartiromo • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
48 attributed words18% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+71.1 ptsWriter: 28.9%The New York Times: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%The New York Times: 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.