Iran war live: US launches new attacks; Houthis attack 2 Saudi oil tankers 100%

By Lyndal Rowlands86% Zaid Sabah87% Adam Hancock97%

7/23/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Loss Aversion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 60.8% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 605 faulty-reasoning hits from 130 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 100% (50 of 20,315 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.80% of the article peer group.

The US bombs Iran for the 12th consecutive night as Iranian media report explosions in the cities of Bushehr, Ahvaz and Sirik. 
Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abbas Araghchi, says Tehran’s defence doctrine is an “eye for an eye”, after US President Donald Trump warned that American forces would bomb an Iranian bridge or power plant every time Iranian forces hit a ship in the Strait of Hormuz. 
Yemen’s Houthi group says it has carried out missile and drone strikes on two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, after declaring a maritime embargo on the kingdom. 
The US and Saudi Arabia reach a landmark nuclear cooperation agreement that could let Riyadh develop civilian uranium enrichment capabilities. 
Confirmation Bias
22.3%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
16.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
60.8%
Loss Aversion
35.4%
Status Quo Bias
15.4%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
49.2%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
26.9%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
15.4%
False Dilemma
35.4%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
35.4%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
39.2%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
35.4%
Quote-first Misdirection
35.4%
Biased Writer Voice
26.9%
Indoctrination
15.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

130 words analyzed.

Analysis

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