We all knew this was coming..
Credibility score: 41/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "We all knew this was coming.." and rated it 41/100 for credibility (a BS score of 59/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-02. Its weakest claim — "Speaker presents only two extreme outcomes for Iran, ignoring other possibilities." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false dilemma. 7 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 7 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 6 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Speaker frames Iran's actions as a 'foolish violation' of the deal. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
Calling it 'foolish' is a judgment, not a neutral description of the violation itself. It's setting the tone right away. 🙄
Why this score: The term 'foolish violation' injects opinion and emotional coloring into what could be a factual statement about a breach. It primes the audience to view the action negatively before any details are presented, using loaded language to guide perception.
Original quote: “Do you remember what I said about the Iran the Iran deal? Obviously, this is a very foolish violation.”
Claiming a drone 'solidly hit' but the ship was fine. Confidence vs. actual impact 🤡 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:37
Said it 'solidly hit' but then immediately followed with 'ship was able to proceed.' So, how 'solid' was it, really? 🤔
Why this score: The speaker uses strong language ('solidly hit') to describe the impact, but the immediate follow-up ('ship was able to proceed on its way') downplays the actual damage, creating a mismatch between the initial confident assertion and the outcome. It's like saying you 'crushed' a workout, then admitting you only did one push-up. 🤷♀️
Original quote: “One of the drones solidly hit the upper deck of a large and very expensive cargo carrying ship. Damage was done, but the ship was able to proceed on its way.”
Teasing consequences for Iran's ceasefire violation with a 'you'll find out' cliffhanger. Classic hype-building. 🍿 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:52
The 'you'll find out' is pure suspense, building anticipation for a response without actually giving any info. It's the 'tune in next week' of geopolitics. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker uses a rhetorical question and a vague promise ('You'll find out') to create suspense and an emotional hook, rather than providing immediate information. This technique is designed to keep the audience engaged and waiting for a resolution, playing on curiosity and the desire for justice or consequence. It's a classic cliffhanger, but for international relations. 🎭
Original quote: “That Iran violated the ceasefire. Will they face any consequences? You'll find out.”
Repeatedly dodging questions about US response with 'you'll find out.' The ultimate non-answer. 🤦♀️ — Volume Game (45/100)
At 1:51
The 'you'll find out' is doing some heavy lifting here, acting as both a promise and a complete evasion. It's a verbal shrug. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker repeatedly uses the phrase 'you'll find out' in response to direct questions about the US response. This is a classic 'volume game' where a seemingly confident statement is used to avoid providing any actual information or commitment, effectively saying a lot without saying anything at all. It's like a politician's favorite trick. 🎩
Original quote: “Well, the US I mean, you'll find out. Respond. What is your message to? Will I respond? You're going to find out.”
Accusing Iran of 'playing games' with potential tolls, framing it as a violation. Loaded language much? 😒 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:09
Calling Iran's actions 'playing games' is loaded language, implying malicious intent rather than just reporting on a potential policy. It's a judgment, not a fact. 🚩
Why this score: The phrase 'playing games' is emotionally charged and implies a deceptive or unserious approach by Iran. This is loaded language, as it frames Iran's potential actions (charging tolls) in a negative, accusatory light, rather than presenting them neutrally as a policy consideration or a point of contention. It's designed to elicit a specific emotional response from the audience. 😠
Original quote: “as the Iranians still try to play games with potentially charging tolls in that re that area which would be against theou.”
Citing an 'unnamed senior US defense official' for ongoing airstrikes. Anonymous authority doing the heavy lifting. 🕵️ — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 2:14
Attributing information to a 'senior US defense official' without naming them. It's the 'sources say' of live reporting. 🤫
Why this score: The speaker cites a 'senior US defense official' as the source for the claim that airstrikes are ongoing. While this lends an air of authority, the lack of a specific name or verifiable source makes it an instance of anonymous authority, where the credibility rests solely on the speaker's assertion of having spoken to such an individual. It's a common journalistic practice, but it still means we're taking their word for it. 🤷♀️
Original quote: “Um Will, I just spoke to a senior US defense official and those air strikes are ongoing as we speak.”
Speaker presents only two extreme outcomes for Iran, ignoring other possibilities. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 2:30
It's either total dismantling or totalitarian oppression? Bro, that's a false dilemma so wide you could drive a truck through it 🚚💨
Why this score: The speaker frames the situation in Iran as having only two possible outcomes: either the IRGC is completely destroyed, or the people face totalitarian religious oppression. This ignores any potential for reform, negotiated settlements, or other political transitions that don't involve such extreme binaries. It's a classic false dilemma to push a specific agenda.
Original quote: “Why is supporting a peace in Iran? The only peace in Iran is when the IRGC are dismantled and dead. There is either a totalitarian religious oppression of the people that is being subsidized by China and Russia for cheap oil. There is no universe where the IRGC maintains its control. and you don't…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →