Vox53%

Iran is showing it can still fight back 57%

By Caitlin Dewey83%

7/21/2026, 9:15:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.5% saturation with 190 hits. Analysis detected 978 faulty-reasoning hits from 567 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.6% and a BS Rank of 57% (8,617 of 19,901 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.70% of the article peer group.

This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. 
Subscribe here. 
President Donald Trump seemed visibly irked when asked about his plans for Iran on Tuesday. 
“You don’t know anything,” he snapped at a reporter who said Iran showed no signs of de-escalating. 
You have to forgive the man his vexation  he is in something of a bind. 
The war in Iran, never popular to begin with, has only become more of a lemon since a tenuous ceasefire collapsed earlier this month. 
In the two weeks since, Iran has bombarded targets across the Middle East with missiles and drone strikes. 
The onslaught badly damaged US bases and, just last week, claimed three American soldiers’ lives. 
Now Iran and its allies, metaphorically drunk on their recent successes (...alcohol is technically illegal in Iran!), appear to be revving for a new round of attacks. 
Iran launched strikes on Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain this week, reportedly targeting both US bases and civilian infrastructure. 
And on Monday, Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militia also threatened to shut down a second key waterway that could further strain global oil markets. 
The world is running out of soldiers 
The latest US casualties are a grim reminder that  for all the talk of drones and precision missiles  wars are still fought by actual, human people. 
But major military powers are running short on soldiers: The US, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan have all recently struggled to recruit troops. 
And the forces driving that shortage aren’t easily reversed. 
For starters, falling birth rates and aging populations have left many countries with fewer military-age adults. 
Being the right age is also only half of the equation. 
In the US, factors including weight, drug use and physical or mental health conditions would disqualify an estimated three-quarters of young Americans from military service. 
Then there’s the military’s image problem: Polls show that young people around the world are becoming less willing to fight for their respective countries. 
And young Americans, in particular, have more negative views of both the military and the war in Iran than do their parents or grandparents. 
There is another way to fill the ranks, of course…but it isn’t popular. 
The US ended its draft in 1973, and most Western militaries have similarly transitioned to all-volunteer forces. 
If the US did ever need to restart its draft, both the politics and the logistics could prove formidable. 
One link for later 
 Treat yourself to a froyo. 
The go-to dessert of my misspent 20s is apparently very much back in vogue. 
But this time, it’s less about the zany flavors and maximalist toppings and more about wellness buzzwords like…protein and probiotics. 
Hmmmm. 
Before you go… 
* Did you know…that carrots don’t actually improve your vision? 
The myth originated as part of a World War II propaganda campaign to conceal Britain’s development of radar technology. 
* Today’s trivia: How many countries are in North America? 
Don’t look it up  just guess! 
(Our daily trivia generally comes from Vox’s daily crossword, but today’s tidbit comes from my colleague Sean Rameswaram.) 
* Yesterday’s trivia: Yesterday I asked you to name the Mesoamerican civilization that spoke Nahuatl. 
That would be the Aztecs  though 1.5 million people in central Mexico still speak the language now. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
20.3%
Representativeness Heuristic
7.4%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
3.4%
Framing Effect
4.9%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
5.8%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
9.3%
Negativity Bias
33.5%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
4.8%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
7.4%
Primacy Effect
1.8%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
3%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
8.5%
False Dilemma
2.3%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
1.2%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
12.3%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
3.4%
Tu Quoque
2.8%
Burden of Proof
4.6%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
2.5%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
4.9%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
1.9%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
3%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
22%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
1.4%

567 words analyzed.

Analysis

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