Raw Story93%

Trump considers cutting bait on Iran war to try to save the midterms: report 92%

By Matthew Chapman86%

7/21/2026, 5:47:42 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 51.5% saturation with 195 hits. Analysis detected 742 faulty-reasoning hits from 379 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.7% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,781 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.90% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump was considering a total end to the Iran war for the sake of bailing out Republicans in the midterm elections, The Atlantic reported on Tuesday. 
This comes as none of the typical day-to-day things a president or Congress does to oversee a war have happened since the president's ceasefire memorandum was thrown out, the report said. 
"In the 10 days since the United States resumed its air strikes against Iran, neither President Trump nor any other senior administration official has publicly addressed the campaign," said the report. 
"U.S. forces began by striking Iranian military facilities but later expanded to attacking civilian infrastructure that the administration says is being used for military purposes." 
Congress has "yet to receive classified briefings on the latest phase of the war." 
Meanwhile, Trump, who initially bragged about how well the war was going when the fighting first erupted, has tried to shift the conversation back to his election conspiracy theories . 
The president "expected a quick victory, and so the military didn’t prepare for a prolonged conflict," according to the report. 
And as the administration failed to adequately build up forces, it set off further problems for the U.S. military. 
"Although the military surged additional forces into the region, many assets  particularly Navy ships  were diverted from other war theaters rather than trained for this conflict," The Atlantic reported. 
"The Pentagon has since extended the deployments of nearly half of those ships, further taxing an already-strapped force." 
According to two sources who spoke to The Atlantic, "Trump may at some point consider," a clean break from the war to cut losses, stop gas prices from rising further, and try to prevent more damage to the GOP in the polls. 
"But for now, despite the growing costs, he is continuing the fight." 
"While sitting next to the leader of Lebanon in the Oval Office today, the president seemed to commit himself to the type of forever war he once derided: 'We’re not finished at all,' Trump told reporters. 
'We’re not leaving right now,'" said the report  and Trump further vowed "to bomb Pickaxe Mountain on the suspicion that it houses part of Iran’s nuclear program." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.1%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Matthew Chapman: 17.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect14.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.9%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 15.3%Matthew Chapman: 22.8%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias15.3%This article: 7.4%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias7.4%This article: 5.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.4%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.5%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Matthew Chapman: 6.5%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem7.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.2%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority8.2%This article: 11.1%Matthew Chapman: 3.9%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma11.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 10.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 7.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.5%Matthew Chapman: 4.0%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal9.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.4%Matthew Chapman: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 51.5%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote51.5%This article: 16.9%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection16.9%This article: 6.6%Matthew Chapman: 16.7%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice6.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

379 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.5%attributed speech343writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+91.8 ptsWriter: 8.2%Trump: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-56.9 ptsWriter: 56.9%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Trump: 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.