How Badly Has Trump Botched the Iran War? 82%

By Mona Charen46%

7/19/2026, 1:01:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Pessimism Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 46.3% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 369 faulty-reasoning hits from 216 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.2% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,354 of 17,854 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.20% of the article peer group.

Mona Charen and Eric Edelman examine how Trump stumbled into the Iran war without a clear plan, alienated allies, strengthened Tehran’s position, and left the United States looking weaker. 
Inside Israel’s Secret Operation to Cultivate Ahmadinejad 
US lacks scores of ambassadors in Africa 
Leave a comment 
Bulwark Book Club pick for August: Mark Twain’s Pudd’nhead Wilson. 
Join Mona Charen and Bill Kristol to discuss this classic that explores racism and slavery. 
Published in 1894, the novel tells the story of two boys  one born into slavery, the other the master’s son  who were switched at birth. 
Send your questions, comments, and thoughts on the book here. 
Watch your inbox for details on when the episode will drop. 
The Mona Charen Show is a weekly, one-on-one discussion that goes in depth on political and cultural topics. 
New shows drop Saturdays. 
Find this show wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. 
Add the show to your player of choice, here. 
Ad-free editions of The Mona Charen Show are exclusively available for Bulwark+ members. 
Access this member edition in the Bulwark App—now available on Apple and Google. 
Or set up the ad-free edition of this Bulwark show on your player of choice using your private RSS feed here. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
3.2%
Availability Heuristic
3.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
10.6%
Loss Aversion
6%
Status Quo Bias
6%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
13.4%
Negativity Bias
17.1%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
8.3%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
3.2%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
3.2%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
3.2%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
13.4%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
13.4%
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
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
3.2%
Biased Writer Voice
16.7%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
46.3%

216 words analyzed.

Analysis

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