BS Summary: This video contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Availability Heuristic, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 19.4% saturation with 173 hits. Analysis detected 1,629 faulty-reasoning hits from 890 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.2% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,688 of 21,737 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 64.60% of the video peer group.
Welcome back.
A potential sticking point threatening to derail a US deal with Iran.
It involves Israel's military presence in Lebanon.
Iran is signaling there is no final agreement without Israeli withdrawal.
Iranian foreign minister saying until then the war has not fully ended.
Israel rejecting that demand outright, insisting its forces will stay as long as the threat from Hezbollah remains.
For more on this, we are joined by retired force general Jeff Keen.
He's the chairman at the Institute for War, excuse me, the Institute for the Study of War.
He's also a Fox News senior strategic analyst general.
As always, great to see you.
>> Yeah, delighted to be here, Bill.
>> So, um, Vice President JD Vance has been going around different media tours recently talking about what is and isn't in this deal.
He says part of the agreement is that nuclear inspectors will be able to go back into Iran and verify that they aren't restarting their program.
Take a listen.
Will nuclear inspectors be allowed back in?
>> Yes, absolutely.
That's in fact one of the core parts of the agreement is that the IAEA and the United States are going to help Iran destroy the highlyenriched stockpile and that's something that's spelled out very clearly in theou.
>> Is there a date?
Has a date been set on when inspectors will be allowed into Iran?
>> Well, that's one of the things we're going to talk about on Friday.
General, you heard him say that they're going to help the IAEA and the US destroy the enriched uranium.
In your opinion, do you think it's realistic that Iran is ever going to let the US get in there and and either take that uranium out or destroy it?
Or is that wishful thinking?
>> Well, we don't know for sure.
I mean, obviously that's our intent and we got the right intent here.
Listen, and we have got to be part of the inspection team.
the Iran has so manipulated the IAEA through the years that I don't have a lot of faith in them to be frank and and what it's got to be it it's got to be anywhere anytime inspections.
the inspection protocol was about in the past is Iran defined where to inspect, when to inspect, and how long to inspect.
And then when we had information through intelligence sources that we fed to the IAEA and told them look it there's a secret site over here that we you should have access to because we believe something is being developed there in terms of enrichment or there's advanced centures there or whatever it was.
And in in all those cases that intelligence was likely very good and guess what Iran said no deal you that's not part of the protocol.
So, we have to be on the ground.
It has to be driven by our and the MSAD's intelligence apparatus.
And we go any place we want, when we want, for as long as we want, as we want.
And if we can't do that, we don't have verification.
And we have to have verification. This idea that somehow we may be dealing with a different regime and its behavior is something we're going to be able to adjust to and accommodate is an absolute absurdity.
This is a diabolical tyrannical regime and and they they are clearly feel the pressure on them from the United States military operations.
Just last week, two bombing camp uh campaigns to get them to this deal.
And obviously the economic warfare that the blockade and what Secretary Besson is doing which is extraordinary.
They feel all of that pressure.
But believe me the nature of the regime has not changed.
And we have got to be cleareyed in dealing with these guys.
What they say and what they do are two different things.
They cannot be trusted.
We have to enforce compliance.
To your point about all that pressure, obviously hindsight is 2020, but do you think President Trump should have ever entered into that ceasefire back in April or should he have just kept his pedal to the metal, wiped out all their military targets to to keep up maximum pressure with this with the with these negotiations?
>> Yeah, I definitely feel that is what we should have done.
We had two weeks to go, 25% of the targets.
We really had significant pressure. We could have finished the offensive operation, accomplish the assigned mission and then began the defensive operation to open the Straits of Amuse.
And I think people at the time were very concerned about the straits, a single drone is going to stop the operation being successful.
That is completely unfounded.
I think now that they've seen us work through a lane there and have a lot of success with it and defeat everything that's come at them.
I mean, we haven't seen a fast boat in like four weeks because we defeated all the fast boats that came at at it.
And same thing with the drones.
We could have done that operation.
And I think in hindsight,
people will recognize that's what we should have done and just continued the military operation, but that's not where
Speakers
2speakers69%attributed speech276writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
94%flagged-word coverageJeff Keen
588 attributed words96% of attributed speech32% writer coverage
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.