UnHerd⁠69%

Trump has handed Iran victory ⁠66%

By Billy Stephens⁠0%

6/19/2026, 2:36:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Anchoring Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.3% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 965 faulty-reasoning hits from 475 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (7,614 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.20% of the article peer group.

Former US national security advisor Jake Sullivan has claimed that Donald Trump’s peace deal with Iran is an “unalloyed win” for the Islamic Republic. 
Speaking with UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers, Sullivan said the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Iran and the United States on Wednesday gave “significant advantages” to Iran and indicated that “the United States has basically lost this war.” 
The agreement signed between Trump and Iran says the Islamic Republic will never have a nuclear weapon, and commits to the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz and an end to the US blockade, as well as the creation of a $300 billion fund for Iranian reconstruction. 
However, Sullivan said that the US was now effectively paying “reparations” to Iran and has “ended up in a worse position today than we were before the war started”. 
He added: “Essentially what you’re looking at here is a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz with a massive financial windfall to Iran, and then a commitment to negotiate a set of nuclear issues that at present are completely unresolved.” 
Sullivan served as the US national security advisor from 2021 to 2025 under former president Joe Biden, and previously helped negotiate the Obama administration’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which limited the Islamic regime’s stock of nuclear material and relieved US sanctions on the country. 
Trump derided the agreement as the “worst deal in history”, and withdrew the US in 2018 during his first presidential term. 
In the UnHerd interview, Sullivan argued that the Obama deal had put Iran’s nuclear programme in a “box”, and that Trump’s withdrawal allowed Iran to “move forward again”. 
Yet with the MOU, he said, Trump has been forced to recognise “the same reality we had to acknowledge a decade ago”, namely that Iran will not accept a complete end to its nuclear enrichment programme. 
The MOU’s reference to Iran’s “nuclear needs”, Sullivan stated, was a pullback from Trump’s previous declaration that the country could not have a civilian nuclear programme. 
“We have to recognise that the US actually could have gotten all of the statements Iran made on its nuclear programme in this deal before it went to war,” he said. 
“And [the US] wouldn’t have had to pay to reopen the Strait of Hormuz because the Strait wouldn’t be closed.” 
While Sullivan celebrated the end of the war, he cautioned that Israel may attempt to “spoil” negotiations due to widespread opposition to the deal. 
Further, pointing to Trump’s deal to end the war in Gaza, where second-phase peace plans have stalled, he argued that the Iran peace deal may be left “open-ended”. 
“Maybe they reach some interim deals about specific things like down blending the stockpile, but I don’t think you’re going to see a comprehensive nuclear deal,” Sullivan said. 
“I think that will just drag indefinitely.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.2%Billy Stephens: 23.6%Unherd: 6.6%Confirmation Bias19.2%This article: 14.1%Billy Stephens: 2.4%Unherd: 0.4%Anchoring Bias14.1%This article: 11.8%Billy Stephens: 7.9%Unherd: 3.5%Availability Heuristic11.8%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.5%Billy Stephens: 8.2%Unherd: 1.4%Hindsight Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 12.8%Unherd: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Billy Stephens: 29.4%Unherd: 5.1%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 6.1%Billy Stephens: 3.8%Unherd: 0.3%Loss Aversion6.1%This article: 7.6%Billy Stephens: 1.3%Unherd: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.9%Billy Stephens: 19.0%Unherd: 3.0%Pessimism Bias25.9%This article: 29.3%Billy Stephens: 28.8%Unherd: 10.7%Negativity Bias29.3%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 2.5%Unherd: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.9%Unherd: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 6.7%Unherd: 1.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.5%Billy Stephens: 0.3%Unherd: 1.3%Recency Bias1.5%This article: 7.6%Billy Stephens: 2.6%Unherd: 0.4%Primacy Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 8.2%Unherd: 1.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.3%Billy Stephens: 14.4%Unherd: 3.2%Appeal to Authority9.3%This article: 13.5%Billy Stephens: 9.7%Unherd: 3.1%False Dilemma13.5%This article: 7.4%Billy Stephens: 6.6%Unherd: 2.0%Slippery Slope7.4%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 1.3%Unherd: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.1%Billy Stephens: 28.2%Unherd: 13.8%Hasty Generalization5.1%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 3.2%Unherd: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 17.7%Unherd: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 4.9%Unherd: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.1%Billy Stephens: 12.1%Unherd: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.1%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.5%Billy Stephens: 4.1%Unherd: 0.5%Burden of Proof6.5%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 1.9%Unherd: 0.8%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 4.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.6%Billy Stephens: 1.9%Unherd: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.6%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.0%Unherd: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 0.3%Unherd: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.1%Billy Stephens: 0.9%Unherd: 2.1%Unattributed Quote5.1%This article: 1.1%Billy Stephens: 3.8%Unherd: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.1%This article: 1.1%Billy Stephens: 26.5%Unherd: 13.9%Biased Writer Voice1.1%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 16.4%Unherd: 2.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 18.4%Unherd: 1.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 1.2%Unherd: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Billy Stephens: 1.9%Unherd: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

475 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker75%attributed speech117writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 36 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJake Sullivan • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jake Sullivan

100%flagged-word coverage
358 attributed words100% of attributed speech42% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote+6.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jake Sullivan: 6.7%6.7%Quote-first Misdirection-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Jake Sullivan: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Jake Sullivan: 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.