What we found

1. Leaves out what changes the picture

   Serious

   “going beyond prior US strikes against Iranian assets that can be quickly rebuilt, such as missile launchers and radars”

   What the words do

   These words describe the planned escalation only by contrast with launchers and radars, and the article gives no other indication of what would be hit.

   What a reader comes away believing

   That the planned attack is a bigger version of the same thing: military hardware, more of it, harder to replace.

   What is actually the case

   CNN, the article's own source, reported that US Central Command and the Pentagon have been drawing up a wide-ranging target list that includes Iranian energy infrastructure and nuclear facilities as well as military sites. The Jerusalem Post never uses the words energy or nuclear anywhere in the piece.

   How we know

   • CNN reported“developing a wide-ranging target list, which includes Iranian energy infrastructure, military sites and nuclear facilities”US has plans for major Iran strikes if Trump chooses (opens in a new tab)
   • The Sun reported“US Central Command is said to be developing a long list of potential targets across Iran ‘s energy , military and nuclear infrastructure.”US ready to strike Iran ‘within days’ – as Trump calls on Israel to re-elect Netanyahu to ‘finish job’ (opens in a new tab)

   Show it in the article

   Written straight

   CNN reported that US Central Command and the Pentagon have drawn up a wide-ranging target list covering Iranian energy infrastructure, nuclear facilities and military sites, going well beyond the launchers and radars struck in earlier operations.

2. Leaves out what changes the picture

   Serious

   What is missing

   The article says US officials told Israel to hold off "likely until after the midterm elections" but never mentions that Netanyahu had asked Trump to approve a joint attack before Israel's 27 October election and that Trump refused, with a warning from the Israeli military's chief of staff that a strike at that moment could disrupt the vote. Without this, a reader believes the only timing question was the US midterms, and does not learn that the push for a joint strike was tied to an Israeli election two days away.

   How we know

   • Ynet News (English) reported“Netanyahu had sought Trump's approval for a joint attack before Israel's October 27 election, but the president refused”‘Within 96 hours’: US ready for major Iran strikes if Trump gives order (opens in a new tab)

   Show where it belongs

3. One side gets the space

   Minor

   “The White House declined to comment, while a senior Pentagon official told CNN that”

   What the words do

   Closes a report about a planned attack on Iran with the Pentagon's own words, after a piece sourced entirely to US officials, US intelligence assessments and a source briefed on Israel's plans.

   What a reader comes away believing

   That the account of what Iran and the Houthis intend and how they would respond is settled, because only Washington is heard on it.

   What is actually the case

   The article contains no Iranian official, no Iranian foreign ministry response and no Tehran dateline source at all; Iran appears only as the country to be struck and as a predicted retaliator.

   How we know

   • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “Tehran”.

   Show it in the article