The New York Times, on Iran, 25 October 2026

The New York Times takes the actor out of the killing of Iran's leaders, writing of "their predecessors' deaths in a decapitation strike" when the paper itself reported the US and Israeli strikes of that period. It states in its own voice, with no source attached, that an Iranian unit "has carried out kidnappings and assassinations around the globe", and it recasts its own three-day-old reporting of specific US and Israeli strike plans as something "the Iranians appear convinced" of, while leaving out the carrier groups, Marines and rehearsed strike runs other outlets reported.

9.4

Severe

out of 10

What we found

  1. Hides who did it

    Severe

    “in a decapitation strike in the opening hours of the war on Feb. 28”

    What the words do
    The phrase gives the strike with no one carrying it out: no army, no state, no aircraft. The agent is removed from the sentence entirely.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the killing of Iran's leadership was an event of the war with no identified author.
    What is actually the case
    The New York Times reported days earlier on the US and Israeli militaries' joint strike campaign against Iran, including the February phase, so the paper had the actor and left it out here.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    US and Israeli forces killed Iran's previous leaders in a strike on their command in the opening hours of the war on 28 February.

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “a longtime ambition of Iran’s elite Unit 840 , which has carried out kidnappings and assassinations around the globe”

    What the words do
    The first half of the sentence is attributed to "U.S. officials"; this clause after the dash drops the attribution and asserts in the paper's own voice both a standing Iranian ambition to kill US officials and a record of global kidnappings and assassinations.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That it is established fact, independent of the US intelligence being reported, that this unit kidnaps and assassinates people around the world.
    What is actually the case
    The article gives no source, document or case for the claim; the only basis offered anywhere in the piece is the US intelligence assessment it is being used to corroborate.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“U.S. officials say they are focused on elements”

    Show it in the article

    “But history suggests Iran’s desires often outstrip its capabilities”

    What the words do
    The qualifier that follows doubts Iran's capability while leaving the asserted intent and the asserted record of assassinations standing as fact.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the only open question is whether Iran can pull the plots off, not whether the claim about its intent is sourced.
    What is actually the case
    The article never attributes the "longtime ambition" claim to anyone, and no Iranian response to the US intelligence appears anywhere in the piece.

    Show it in the article

  3. Drops what it reported before

    Serious

    “the Iranians appear convinced that Israel and the United States are preparing to unleash their third major attack in 16 months”

    What the words do
    The words "appear convinced" put the coming attack inside Iranian heads as a belief, rather than as something the paper has itself reported.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That a renewed US-Israeli attack is an Iranian perception or fear, set against the US intelligence about Iranian plots as its mirror image.
    What is actually the case
    Three days earlier the same paper reported that the US and Israeli militaries "have developed specific plans for renewed strikes against Iran after the American midterm elections", and other outlets reported warships and Marines being deployed and joint strike rehearsals near Iran's border.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “the potential for all sides to be seeking pretexts for action”

    What the words do
    The phrase "all sides" spreads the search for a pretext evenly across the parties.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the risk comes equally from each party and that no one party has taken concrete steps towards attack.
    What is actually the case
    The paper's own reporting names specific US and Israeli military plans and stepped-up strike exercises; what is reported on the Iranian side in this article is an intelligence assessment of plots, which S14 and S15 then cast doubt on.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The New York Times reported this week that the US and Israeli militaries have drawn up specific plans for renewed strikes on Iran after the US midterm elections, and Iranians are bracing for that third wave of attacks.

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The article never tells the reader that the US has moved two carrier strike groups into the region with a third approaching, that Marines are being deployed, that the Pentagon has given Trump target options, or that US and Israeli jets rehearsed a strike flight path near Iran's border days earlier. Without this a reader takes the "heightened tension" as a mood among all sides rather than a concrete military build-up by one of them.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  5. Writes the death out

    Minor

    “their predecessors’ deaths in a decapitation strike”

    What the words do
    The words "deaths" and "decapitation strike" turn the killing of Iran's leaders into something that simply happened to them. Nobody kills anyone in this sentence.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That Iranian leaders died in an early incident of the war, the way people die in wars generally.
    What is actually the case
    The killings came in the opening hours of an attack; the paper's own earlier article describes "the first phase of intense U.S.-Israeli strikes between February and April". The plain word for what happened is killed or assassinated.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  6. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “one senior European official said — “and it probably is,” the official added”

    What the words do
    An unnamed European official is quoted vouching for the US intelligence inside the paper's own sentence.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the US assessment has been independently endorsed.
    What is actually the case
    Every voice in the article is a US administration official, a European official or an unnamed diplomat or expert. No Iranian official, and no response from Iran's government to the plot claims, appears anywhere in the piece.

    Show it in the article

  7. Asserts a leader's inner knowledge as fact

    Minor

    “who knows how unpopular the war is even among his strongest supporters”

    What the words do
    The clause states as fact what Trump privately knows, and then builds a possible motive on top of it.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the president's private reading of his own base is established.
    What is actually the case
    The article gives no source for what Trump knows or thinks; the rest of the sentence is hedged with "may want to show".

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“may want to show that at least”

    Show it in the article

  8. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article presents the risk of war as a matter of calculations in Washington and Jerusalem and cites unnamed "diplomats", without reporting that foreign ministers of eight European and Middle Eastern states met in Istanbul days earlier and publicly urged the US and Israel not to restart strikes. A reader is left believing no government has objected on the record.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

Every underline is part of a finding. Press one to see why.

A New Level of Threat and Fear Risks Pushing the U.S. and Iran Back to Full War

Inside the Trump administration, officials are expressing fears that Iran is in the “advanced stages” of planning attacks against U.S. officials. More than 6,000 miles away, , a final push to force Iran to surrender to U.S. demands. The conflict in the Middle East has entered a new phase in which a maelstrom of factors, from the political calendars in the United States and Israel to , are creating heightened levels of tension and risk. This is how countries can escalate into full-scale war, several diplomats and outside experts noted. If the U.S. intelligence disclosed this week is right that Iran has credible plans to attack Americans at home and abroad, — one gunshot that appears aimed at a U.S. official could touch off a conflagration. So could a stray explosion near a bunker sheltering Iranian leaders , who already survived . The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Trump are facing critical elections that could dramatically affect the balance of power in their countries feeds into the complex set of calculations that all sides are making. Even if he is defeated on Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu could decide to launch one last strike that he may believe his successor would hesitate to execute. Similarly, Mr. Trump, , may want to show that at least when it comes to his powers as commander in chief, his authority is undiminished. And, as in other moments of global peril — the Cuban Missile Crisis and the decision to invade in Iraq, as examples — partial or faulty intelligence, or just a failure to understand the adversary’s true motives, can carry deadly consequences. Iraq poses another cautionary tale, when selective intelligence can be used as an actual pretext for military action. U.S. officials say they are focused on elements of the most recent intelligence suggesting that the Iranians may seek to kill U.S. ambassadors in the Middle East and American officials on U.S. soil — . . It has at times hired hapless hit men who have been arrested before they could do harm. We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in . Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Read the original article on nytimes.com (opens in a new tab)

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The New York Times

Everything we scored from The New York Times