Araghchi threatens to ‘school’ Israel if US unsuccessful in ‘muzzling its pets in Tel Aviv’ . 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged language to provoke strong feelings rather than inform rationally.

The article prominently quotes Araghchi’s language: “muzzling its pets in Tel Aviv,” “If they ignore their master, Iran will school them,” and “Any threat against our People and Leadership will receive Immediate Powerful Response.” These phrases are highly emotive and dehumanizing, designed to insult and threaten rather than convey neutral information. The article reproduces them without any explicit note that this is inflammatory rhetoric or without contrasting with more neutral diplomatic language.

3 suggestions

Explicitly label the quoted language as inflammatory or rhetorical, e.g., “using inflammatory language, Araghchi said…”

Paraphrase the most dehumanizing parts in more neutral terms while still indicating tone, e.g., instead of repeating “muzzling its pets,” write: “He accused the US of treating Israel as a subordinate and said Washington had pledged to restrain it.”

Add brief context that such rhetoric is part of ongoing hostile discourse between the governments, helping readers understand it as political posturing rather than factual description.

Ad hominem attacks

Attacking an opponent’s character or status instead of addressing their actions or arguments.

Araghchi’s phrase “muzzling its pets in Tel Aviv” is an ad hominem insult directed at Israel, portraying it as an animal controlled by the US rather than engaging with Israel’s stated security concerns or policies. The article quotes this directly without clarifying that it is an insult rather than a substantive critique.

3 suggestions

Clarify that this is an insult, not a factual characterization, e.g., “Araghchi resorted to insults, referring to Israel as ‘pets in Tel Aviv’.”

Balance the coverage by including any substantive arguments or policy positions from the Iranian side, if available, rather than only the personal attacks.

Provide a neutral description of the relationship being criticized, e.g., “He criticized what he described as close US-Israel coordination on regional security.”

Biased language

Use of loaded or value-laden terms that implicitly favor one side.

The article refers to “Iran and Iran's proxy terror groups” as a factual descriptor. While many governments and organizations do label some of these groups as terrorist, the phrase “proxy terror groups” is a politically charged formulation that embeds a judgment in the narrative rather than attributing it to a source. In contrast, Israel’s operations are described with official operation names (“Operation Roaring Lion”) without similarly loaded qualifiers.

3 suggestions

Attribute the characterization to specific sources, e.g., “Iran and groups designated as terrorist organizations by the US and EU” instead of “Iran's proxy terror groups.”

Use more neutral phrasing such as “Iran and allied armed groups” when not directly quoting an official designation.

Apply consistent standards to all actors, e.g., describe both sides’ armed actions in similarly neutral terms and reserve labels like “terrorist” for clearly attributed designations.

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant context that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article states that “Israel has no plans to strike Khamenei, as doing so would significantly damage the MoU and ongoing US-Iran negotiations” without citing a source or explaining how this conclusion was reached. It also mentions the “Islamabad MoU” and “Operation Epic Fury” and “Operation Roaring Lion” but provides no background on these operations, their scale, or the broader conflict context. There is no mention of how each side interprets or disputes the MoU terms, or any third-party analysis.

3 suggestions

Attribute the claim about Israel having no plans to strike Khamenei to a specific source (e.g., named officials, intelligence assessments, or prior reporting) or clearly mark it as analysis: “Analysts say Israel is unlikely to strike…”

Add brief background on the MoU (who signed it, when, and its main purpose) and on the named operations (what they are, when they began, and their stated objectives).

Include, if available, any public reactions or differing interpretations of the MoU from independent experts or international organizations to give readers a fuller picture.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting assertions as fact without evidence or clear sourcing.

The sentence “Israel has no plans to strike Khamenei, as doing so would significantly damage the MoU and ongoing US-Iran negotiations” is presented as a factual statement without attribution. Similarly, the article states that “The first term of the 14-point MoU detailed that… all allies of the US and Iran must terminate all military operations…” but does not provide a source or link to the text of the MoU, which is described as “public for all to see.”

3 suggestions

Add explicit sourcing for the claim about Israel’s intentions, e.g., “According to Israeli officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, Israel has no plans…” or “Analysts believe…”

Cite or link to the actual MoU text or an official summary, or clearly state: “According to Araghchi’s interpretation, the first term…” if the description is based on his statement.

Use more cautious language where evidence is not directly available, e.g., “It is widely believed that…” or “Observers say…” and then attribute those beliefs to specific experts or institutions.

Selective use of sources / Unbalanced reporting

Relying on a narrow set of voices or perspectives, which can skew the narrative.

The article primarily presents statements from Araghchi and Katz, with a brief mention of Trump’s supposed commitment, but does not include any direct US response, independent expert commentary, or reactions from neutral parties. The Iranian side is represented mainly through provocative rhetoric; the Israeli side is represented through a strong threat (“marked for death”) but then immediately reassured as not planning such an attack, which softens its perceived extremity. The US side is only referenced via Araghchi’s claim about Trump’s commitment, without US confirmation or denial.

3 suggestions

Include a response or comment from US officials (or note that they declined to comment) regarding the alleged commitment to “muzzle” Israel under the MoU.

Add reactions or analysis from independent regional experts or international organizations to contextualize both Araghchi’s and Katz’s statements.

Clarify that Katz’s “marked for death” remark was made in a closed briefing and indicate whether Israeli officials later clarified or walked back the statement, if such information exists.

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that influences interpretation without changing the underlying facts.

The article frames Katz’s statement by immediately following it with: “Israel has no plans to strike Khamenei, as doing so would significantly damage the MoU and ongoing US-Iran negotiations.” This framing mitigates the severity of the “marked for death” remark and may lead readers to view it as less serious or purely rhetorical, even though it is a grave statement. In contrast, Araghchi’s threats are not similarly softened by contextualizing analysis.

3 suggestions

Separate factual reporting of Katz’s statement from interpretive commentary, and clearly label any mitigating analysis as such (e.g., “Analysts say…”).

Apply similar contextual framing to both sides’ threats, e.g., note that Araghchi’s language may be aimed at domestic or regional audiences and may not necessarily indicate imminent action.

Present both sides’ threatening rhetoric in parallel structure, followed by a neutral analysis section that evaluates the likelihood of escalation.