Talks 'Have Not Stopped' Between United States and Iran Despite Strikes ⁠95%

By Cameron Arcand⁠75%

7/17/2026, 5:15:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Availability Heuristic, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 905 faulty-reasoning hits from 218 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,123 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.50% of the article peer group.

A U.S. official confirmed to Townhall that there are many different types of communication occurring between American and Iranian negotiators as of Friday. 
“We continue to have multiple sets of conversations that have not stopped,” the official stated. 
“The President has been clear that Iran must halt the terrorism and make a satisfactory deal or things will continue to get worse for them,” the official continued. 
Responsive strikes to Iran have continued throughout this week, as the U.S. has said that the Islamic Republic broke the memorandum of understanding by attacking cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz. 
“Iran very much continues to talk to the United States of America and express that they want to make a deal with us, because they are suffering devastating blows on behalf of our United States military,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday during a briefing, calling it a “tragic decision” for Iran that they did not comply. 
United States Central Command said that “U.S. forces, including fighter jets, aerial drones, and warships, launched precision munitions that hit dozens of Iranian military targets” on Thursday, noting that there are “more than 50,000 U.S. service members are operating across the Middle East and remain vigilant, lethal, and ready.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.9%Cameron Arcand: 3.0%Townhall: 5.2%Confirmation Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 33.0%Cameron Arcand: 2.3%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic33.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.4%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.1%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 4.0%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Cameron Arcand: 15.2%Townhall: 11.4%Framing Effect17.9%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.3%Townhall: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.6%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 1.1%Townhall: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.7%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 55.0%Cameron Arcand: 14.2%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias55.0%This article: 27.5%Cameron Arcand: 5.9%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias27.5%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.7%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.7%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 3.2%Townhall: 4.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 1.1%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.5%Cameron Arcand: 0.9%Townhall: 1.9%Halo Effect22.5%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.8%Townhall: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Cameron Arcand: 2.0%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.5%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 3.9%Townhall: 5.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.3%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.5%Cameron Arcand: 4.3%Townhall: 4.5%Appeal to Authority22.5%This article: 12.8%Cameron Arcand: 2.0%Townhall: 2.0%False Dilemma12.8%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.1%Townhall: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.5%Cameron Arcand: 3.1%Townhall: 9.2%Hasty Generalization27.5%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 1.6%Townhall: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.5%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.5%Cameron Arcand: 10.9%Townhall: 11.3%Appeal to Emotion27.5%This article: 12.8%Cameron Arcand: 3.0%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question12.8%This article: 42.2%Cameron Arcand: 3.1%Townhall: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)42.2%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 1.0%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.4%Townhall: 1.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.8%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 27.5%Cameron Arcand: 2.4%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.5%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.6%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 32.1%Cameron Arcand: 5.8%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote32.1%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 5.0%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.8%Cameron Arcand: 7.7%Townhall: 16.3%Biased Writer Voice12.8%This article: 27.5%Cameron Arcand: 3.1%Townhall: 5.7%Indoctrination27.5%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 6.2%Townhall: 14.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Arcand: 3.7%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

218 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers50%attributed speech109writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 60 words • 100.0% coverageUnited States Central Command • 49 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karoline Leavitt

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words55% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karoline Leavitt: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-64.2 ptsWriter: 64.2%Karoline Leavitt: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.7 ptsWriter: 25.7%Karoline Leavitt: 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.