Talks 'Have Not Stopped' Between United States and Iran Despite Strikes 95%

By Cameron Arcand77%

7/17/2026, 5:15:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Availability Heuristic, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 905 faulty-reasoning hits from 218 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.6% and a BS Rank of 95% (1,044 of 18,332 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.30% of the article peer group.

A U.S. official confirmed to Townhall that there are many different types of communication occurring between American and Iranian negotiators as of Friday. 
“We continue to have multiple sets of conversations that have not stopped,” the official stated. 
“The President has been clear that Iran must halt the terrorism and make a satisfactory deal or things will continue to get worse for them,” the official continued. 
Responsive strikes to Iran have continued throughout this week, as the U.S. has said that the Islamic Republic broke the memorandum of understanding by attacking cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz. 
“Iran very much continues to talk to the United States of America and express that they want to make a deal with us, because they are suffering devastating blows on behalf of our United States military,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday during a briefing, calling it a “tragic decision” for Iran that they did not comply. 
United States Central Command said that “U.S. forces, including fighter jets, aerial drones, and warships, launched precision munitions that hit dozens of Iranian military targets” on Thursday, noting that there are “more than 50,000 U.S. service members are operating across the Middle East and remain vigilant, lethal, and ready.” 
Confirmation Bias
6.9%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
33%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
17.9%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
55%
Self-Serving Bias
27.5%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
22.5%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
6.9%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
22.5%
False Dilemma
12.8%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
27.5%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
27.5%
Begging the Question
12.8%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
42.2%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
27.5%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
32.1%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
12.8%
Indoctrination
27.5%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

218 words analyzed.

Analysis

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