US Starts Bombing Iran After Trump’s Threats 82%

By Dave DeCamp86%

7/29/2026, 5:51:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.3% saturation with 129 hits. Analysis detected 933 faulty-reasoning hits from 400 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.9% and a BS Rank of 82% (5,108 of 27,321 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.30% of the article peer group.

Updated on July 29, 2026 at 8:38 pm EST 
US Central Command announced on Wednesday night that it began launching airstrikes against Iran, hours after President Trump threatened a response to an Iranian missile attack on a US base in Jordan. 
CENTCOM described the attacks as a “powerful response” to the attack in Jordan, though the extent of the US strikes remains unclear at this point. 
Trump has reportedly been mulling a significant escalation compared to the airstrikes the US was launching against Iran earlier this month. 
On Wednesday morning, Trump told Fox News reporter Trey Yingst that the US was going to “beat the f-cking sh-t” out of Iran in response to the Jordan attack. 
“We’re going to beat the f-cking sh-t out of them,” the president said, according to Yingst. 
“We’ll be hitting them hard. 
They’re going to get a beating.” 
Trump described the strikes as a “surprise attack” and said that US troops had just “minutes” to intercept the missiles. 
During heavy US airstrikes on Iran earlier this month, Iran was pounding US bases in Jordan in response, and at least three US troops were killed, and more than 100 were wounded in the attacks. 
The attack came after several days of a lull in US airstrikes against Iran, though the US military has still been enforcing a blockade against Iranian ports, and the Iranian military warned on Monday that it would consider the continued blockade an “expansion of war in the region” and vowed a response. 
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the strikes on the US base in Jordan were a response to “aggressive actions by the child-killing American army.” 
“Until threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran continue and the illegal and mischievous actions of American forces against our interests are ongoing, resistance will continue as well,” the IRGC said. 
“Threats by American officials and illegal interventions against our interests must stop.” 
The Iranian attack came after Trump met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House to discuss the Iran war, and the two leaders described the talks as very positive. 
“It was a meeting with full cooperation, with mutual support, with understanding on the joint goal that Iran won’t have nuclear weapons, and also other goals,” Netanyahu said. 
“It was one of the best conversations I’ve had with our friend, US President Trump.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.8%Dave DeCamp: 8.2%News From Antiwar.com: 8.2%Confirmation Bias15.8%This article: 5.3%Dave DeCamp: 1.2%News From Antiwar.com: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.3%This article: 5.0%Dave DeCamp: 3.4%News From Antiwar.com: 3.4%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.2%News From Antiwar.com: 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.3%News From Antiwar.com: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 3.0%News From Antiwar.com: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Dave DeCamp: 17.5%News From Antiwar.com: 17.5%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.4%News From Antiwar.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 13.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.5%News From Antiwar.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.9%News From Antiwar.com: 0.9%Optimism Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 2.1%News From Antiwar.com: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.3%Dave DeCamp: 17.5%News From Antiwar.com: 17.5%Negativity Bias32.3%This article: 10.8%Dave DeCamp: 2.1%News From Antiwar.com: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.3%News From Antiwar.com: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Dave DeCamp: 1.6%News From Antiwar.com: 1.6%In-Group Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.8%News From Antiwar.com: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.9%News From Antiwar.com: 0.9%Halo Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.8%Dave DeCamp: 2.9%News From Antiwar.com: 2.9%Recency Bias12.8%This article: 3.8%Dave DeCamp: 0.3%News From Antiwar.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.7%News From Antiwar.com: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.4%News From Antiwar.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 3.9%News From Antiwar.com: 3.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.6%News From Antiwar.com: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.3%News From Antiwar.com: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.1%News From Antiwar.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%Dave DeCamp: 6.1%News From Antiwar.com: 6.1%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.1%News From Antiwar.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.1%News From Antiwar.com: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.5%Dave DeCamp: 9.9%News From Antiwar.com: 9.9%Appeal to Emotion20.5%This article: 10.8%Dave DeCamp: 0.9%News From Antiwar.com: 0.9%Begging the Question10.8%This article: 30.5%Dave DeCamp: 4.1%News From Antiwar.com: 4.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)30.5%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.4%News From Antiwar.com: 1.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.9%News From Antiwar.com: 1.9%Anecdotal9.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.2%News From Antiwar.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.6%News From Antiwar.com: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.1%News From Antiwar.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.1%News From Antiwar.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.2%News From Antiwar.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.8%Dave DeCamp: 3.9%News From Antiwar.com: 3.9%Unattributed Quote13.8%This article: 11.3%Dave DeCamp: 1.8%News From Antiwar.com: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection11.3%This article: 8.0%Dave DeCamp: 11.1%News From Antiwar.com: 11.1%Biased Writer Voice8.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.8%News From Antiwar.com: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 7.8%News From Antiwar.com: 7.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.4%News From Antiwar.com: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.2%News From Antiwar.com: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

400 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers35%attributed speech261writer words
Selected voice

Trey Yingst

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words19% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+48.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Trey Yingst: 59.3%59.3%Biased Writer Voice-12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Trey Yingst: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Trey Yingst: 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.