Trump Says He’s Holding Off on Attack That Would Have Inflicted ‘Military Terror’ on Iran 80%

By Dave DeCamp86%

8/2/2026, 5:27:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 70% saturation with 266 hits. Analysis detected 1,744 faulty-reasoning hits from 380 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.3% and a BS Rank of 80% (5,447 of 27,226 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.00% of the article peer group.

President Trump said on Saturday night that he decided to hold off on launching major strikes on Iran that he said would have inflicted “military terror” on the country, which came after media reports said he was ready to significantly escalate the war. 
“The USA is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II. 
Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack in that the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to,” the president wrote on Truth Social. 
“This would include the Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran’s nuclear threat. 
Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL,” he added. 
So far, there have been no comments from high-level Iranian officials, but anonymous sources speaking to Iranian media denied Trump’s claim that Tehran had requested that the US hold off or that a deal had been reached to open the Strait of Hormuz. 
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has reached no agreement on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and the reports published in this regard are false,” an Iranian military source told Iran’s Fars news agency. 
“As long as the hostile actions and acts of malice by the United States continue, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed.” 
While Trump held off on escalating the war, US Central Command continues to enforce a blockade of Iranian ports. 
The Iranian military source said that transit through the Strait of Hormuz “will only be possible through the designated route, in coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy and after obtaining permission to transit the Strait of Hormuz.” 
Multiple times throughout the war, President Trump has threatened major escalations that would involve massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure, but then backed down and claimed some sort of deal had been reached, only for Iranian officials to deny his claims. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 40.3%Dave DeCamp: 7.5%News From Antiwar.com: 7.5%Confirmation Bias40.3%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.4%News From Antiwar.com: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%Dave DeCamp: 3.3%News From Antiwar.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic22.6%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.3%News From Antiwar.com: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.2%News From Antiwar.com: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%Dave DeCamp: 3.4%News From Antiwar.com: 3.4%Overconfidence Bias18.2%This article: 17.1%Dave DeCamp: 17.3%News From Antiwar.com: 17.3%Framing Effect17.1%This article: 10.3%Dave DeCamp: 0.4%News From Antiwar.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion10.3%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.5%News From Antiwar.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.3%Dave DeCamp: 1.0%News From Antiwar.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias10.3%This article: 5.8%Dave DeCamp: 2.1%News From Antiwar.com: 2.1%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 70.0%Dave DeCamp: 17.4%News From Antiwar.com: 17.4%Negativity Bias70.0%This article: 19.7%Dave DeCamp: 2.2%News From Antiwar.com: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias19.7%This article: 5.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.4%News From Antiwar.com: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.8%News From Antiwar.com: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 1.0%News From Antiwar.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.8%News From Antiwar.com: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%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: 15.8%Dave DeCamp: 3.2%News From Antiwar.com: 3.2%Recency Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.3%News From Antiwar.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 2.0%News From Antiwar.com: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.5%News From Antiwar.com: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.9%Dave DeCamp: 3.7%News From Antiwar.com: 3.7%Appeal to Authority18.9%This article: 5.3%Dave DeCamp: 1.8%News From Antiwar.com: 1.8%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.4%News From Antiwar.com: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.2%News From Antiwar.com: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.8%Dave DeCamp: 5.9%News From Antiwar.com: 5.9%Hasty Generalization10.8%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.1%News From Antiwar.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.2%News From Antiwar.com: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.8%Dave DeCamp: 10.2%News From Antiwar.com: 10.2%Appeal to Emotion11.8%This article: 19.7%Dave DeCamp: 1.1%News From Antiwar.com: 1.1%Begging the Question19.7%This article: 11.3%Dave DeCamp: 4.7%News From Antiwar.com: 4.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.0%News From Antiwar.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.3%Dave DeCamp: 1.6%News From Antiwar.com: 1.6%Burden of Proof11.3%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: 22.1%Dave DeCamp: 2.0%News From Antiwar.com: 2.0%Anecdotal22.1%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 0.2%News From Antiwar.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 27.6%Dave DeCamp: 1.8%News From Antiwar.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.6%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: 0.3%News From Antiwar.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 30.3%Dave DeCamp: 3.8%News From Antiwar.com: 3.8%Unattributed Quote30.3%This article: 3.9%Dave DeCamp: 1.9%News From Antiwar.com: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 31.1%Dave DeCamp: 11.7%News From Antiwar.com: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice31.1%This article: 19.7%Dave DeCamp: 0.9%News From Antiwar.com: 0.9%Indoctrination19.7%This article: 0.0%Dave DeCamp: 5.5%News From Antiwar.com: 5.5%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: 0.3%News From Antiwar.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

380 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.