The art of the almost deal 79%

By Melissa Weiss97%

8/7/2026, 3:12:04 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Pessimism Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 56% saturation with 260 hits. Analysis detected 1,356 faulty-reasoning hits from 464 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.4% and a BS Rank of 79% (6,429 of 29,706 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.40% of the article peer group.

A meme circulated on social media earlier this week depicting a cartoon version of President Donald Trump addressing different stages of negotiations with Iran. 
In it, the president cycles between “We’re going to bomb their power plants,” “They called us begging for a deal,” “They’re giving us everything we want” and “They’re scum, you can’t negotiate with these people.” 
It’s perhaps the most accurate commentary on the situation that has unfolded since early July, as the U.S. and Iran have continued to exchange fire, with Iran striking Arab states around the region. 
Every few days, the stage resets. 
The endless loop of diplomacy and military strikes has thrown the countries into a situation that is equal parts “Groundhog Day” and “The Apprentice”  military strikes on loop, with a major breakthrough soon to come. 
Indeed, Trump suggested on Tuesday that a lot of progress had been made in negotiations that would see the Strait of Hormuz reopened and signaled a deal on the strategic waterway could be announced as soon as this week. 
His rhetoric echoes comments he has made in recent weeks teasing a diplomatic breakthrough that is right around the corner, while the consistent reality is that diplomacy has been cyclical, devoid of significant progress and increasingly beneficial to Tehran, which has learned that it only needs to wait out the situation  at least until the midterms, if not until 2029. 
It also raises questions about the limits of American deterrence —especially when taken alongside recent reports of dwindling American weapons stockpiles. 
Trump understands optics (and markets) perhaps better than any other world leader, hence his constant claims that a major diplomatic breakthrough could be days away  whereas Iran, unburdened by looming midterms and the realities that come with living in a democracy, can afford to wait it out as Washington runs through the endless narrative loop. 
Almost as cyclical as Trump’s pronouncements are Iran’s near-immediate denials of the president’s claims: the regular insistence that a deal is far off and unlikely to happen without significant American and Israeli concessions. 
Such a move would not be the kind of diplomatic victory to be celebrated  unless you’re Iran  which will likely now extract greater authority and stand to benefit from control of the Strait of Hormuz. 
A return to the status quo  largely unfettered transit through the strait  appears unlikely, as even Trump praises ongoing talks between Oman and Iran. 
It’s this low-level exchange of fire that keeps the pot from bubbling over and full-scale war from again breaking out. 
But as the cycle refreshes itself, the U.S. is increasingly drawn into a longer war that is more persistence than persuasion  a game for which Tehran holds the cheat codes. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.1%Melissa Weiss: 11.4%Jewish Insider: 3.9%Confirmation Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 1.2%Availability Heuristic4.5%This article: 1.3%Melissa Weiss: 2.5%Jewish Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic1.3%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Melissa Weiss: 7.8%Jewish Insider: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias4.3%This article: 9.1%Melissa Weiss: 18.9%Jewish Insider: 4.4%Framing Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.6%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.2%Status Quo Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.4%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.6%Optimism Bias8.4%This article: 27.8%Melissa Weiss: 20.4%Jewish Insider: 1.9%Pessimism Bias27.8%This article: 22.0%Melissa Weiss: 3.9%Jewish Insider: 7.8%Negativity Bias22.0%This article: 12.1%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias12.1%This article: 33.2%Melissa Weiss: 10.6%Jewish Insider: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error33.2%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 4.0%Jewish Insider: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 4.0%Jewish Insider: 0.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.7%Recency Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 2.5%Jewish Insider: 3.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 2.5%Jewish Insider: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.6%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.7%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 13.1%Melissa Weiss: 6.6%Jewish Insider: 1.4%False Dilemma13.1%This article: 14.4%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.5%Slippery Slope14.4%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.1%Melissa Weiss: 7.0%Jewish Insider: 5.3%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 2.2%Jewish Insider: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.3%Melissa Weiss: 2.9%Jewish Insider: 0.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.3%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 21.1%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.4%Burden of Proof21.1%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.5%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 1.2%Anecdotal7.5%This article: 8.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman8.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 2.5%Jewish Insider: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.5%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection7.5%This article: 56.0%Melissa Weiss: 18.0%Jewish Insider: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice56.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 6.6%Jewish Insider: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Weiss: 0.0%Jewish Insider: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

464 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.4%attributed speech425writer words
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words100% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-61.2 ptsWriter: 61.2%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Donald Trump: 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.