The Anti-Strategic President (w/ Hal Brands) 48%

By Eric S. Edelman23%

7/20/2026, 1:45:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Optimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 21.2% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 342 faulty-reasoning hits from 184 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.8% and a BS Rank of 48% (9,799 of 18,798 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.10% of the article peer group.

Eric welcomes back friend of the show Professor Hal Brands, the Henry A. 
Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. 
The two discuss Hal’s recent work, beginning with his column in Bloomberg dissecting the key strategic errors that Trump has made in the ongoing war with Iran. 
Hal then breaks down his recent essay with Michael Beckley in Foreign Affairs, which examines global conflict through the lens of “heartland” and “rimland” coalitions. 
Finally, they turn to Hal’s latest edited volume which brings together essays by a large group of scholars considering the many ways that AI may change the nature of international affairs, the conduct of war, and global order. 
Hal Brands’ latest in Bloomberg: 
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/trumps-iran-blunder-shows-strategy-can-defeat-firepower/ 
Hal Brands & Michael Beckley’s latest in Foreign Affairs: 
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/heartland-vs-rimland-beckley-brands 
The Geopolitics of AI: Power, Conflict, and the Future of Global Order: 
Free PDF via Johns Hopkins University Press 
Hard copy via Amazon 
Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
20.7%
Representativeness Heuristic
13.6%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
21.2%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
20.7%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
14.7%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
7.1%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
19.6%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
20.7%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
14.7%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
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
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
7.1%
Indoctrination
11.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
14.7%

184 words analyzed.

Analysis

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