Entities mentioned:
- Mark Milley: Professional pride, Duty, Loyalty
- Donald Trump: Power, Control, Revenge
- Pete Hegseth: Loyalty, Ambition, Influence
- US Military: Security, Duty, Professional pride
- Iran: Self-preservation, Security, Power

Article Assessment:
Credibility Score: 55/100
Bias Rating: 60/100 (Center)
Sentiment Score: 30/100
Authoritarianism Risk: 65/100 (Authoritarian Tendencies)

Bias Analysis:
The article appears to lean slightly right, presenting the firing as a decisive action without much context. However, it doesn't overtly praise or criticize the decision, maintaining a relatively neutral tone.

Key metric: Military Readiness and Leadership Stability

As a social scientist, I analyze that this event signifies a significant disruption in the chain of command and civilian-military relations in the US. The firing of a top general over a disagreement with the President's views on Iran suggests potential politicization of military leadership. This could impact military readiness and strategic decision-making, as well as potentially erode trust between civilian leadership and military professionals. The abrupt change in high-level military personnel may lead to instability in military strategy and operations, particularly concerning Middle East policy. Furthermore, this action might be perceived as an attempt to align military leadership more closely with political objectives, potentially compromising the military's traditional role as an apolitical institution.

Entities mentioned:
- Gen. Michael 'Erik' Kurilla: Duty, Professional pride, Determination
- U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM): Security, Control, Influence
- Pete Hegseth: Loyalty, Patriotism, Recognition
- Adm. Brad Cooper: Duty, Ambition, Professional pride
- Iran: Self-preservation, Power, Defiance

Article Assessment:
Credibility Score: 75/100
Bias Rating: 65/100 (Lean Right)
Sentiment Score: 65/100
Authoritarianism Risk: 35/100 (Generally Democratic)

Bias Analysis:
The article leans slightly right, evident in its positive portrayal of military action and leadership. The use of quotes from conservative figures like Pete Hegseth and the emphasis on strike operations indicate a pro-military stance typical of right-leaning media.

Key metric: Military Readiness and Projection of Power

As a social scientist, I analyze that this article highlights the changing of guard in U.S. Central Command, emphasizing the strategic importance of the Middle East in U.S. military operations. The focus on Gen. Kurilla's career and recent operations against Iran and Houthi rebels underscores the ongoing tensions in the region and the U.S.'s readiness to engage in military action. The transition to Adm. Cooper suggests continuity in strategy and approach. This leadership change and the highlighted operations impact U.S. military readiness and power projection by demonstrating operational capabilities and commitment to regional allies, while also potentially escalating tensions with adversaries like Iran.

Entities mentioned:
- Donald Trump: Power, Influence, Legacy
- Hezbollah: Control, Power, Loyalty
- Iran: Influence, Control, Power
- Lebanese Armed Forces: Duty, Unity, Security
- United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL): Obligation, Security, Duty
- Mike Pompeo: Influence, Righteousness, Security

Article Assessment:
Credibility Score: 65/100
Bias Rating: 75/100 (Lean Right)
Sentiment Score: 35/100
Authoritarianism Risk: 65/100 (Authoritarian Tendencies)

Bias Analysis:
The article leans right due to its hawkish foreign policy stance and strong pro-Trump, anti-Iran rhetoric. It presents a one-sided view of the situation in Lebanon, focusing solely on Iranian influence without acknowledging other complex factors.

Key metric: US Global Influence Index

As a social scientist, I analyze that this article advocates for a significant shift in US foreign policy towards Lebanon, emphasizing a more assertive approach to counter Iranian influence through Hezbollah. The author, Mike Pompeo, argues for dismantling UNIFIL, strengthening the Lebanese Armed Forces, and actively disrupting Iran's weapons pipeline to Lebanon. This proposed strategy could potentially increase US influence in the region but also risks escalating tensions. The focus on military solutions over diplomatic engagement reflects a hawkish foreign policy stance, which could impact the US Global Influence Index by potentially strengthening US hard power in the Middle East while possibly diminishing soft power and diplomatic leverage in the international community.

Entities mentioned:
- Nikol Pashinyan: Unity, Security, Legacy
- Ilham Aliyev: Unity, Influence, Legacy
- Donald Trump: Influence, Legacy, Recognition
- Russia: Influence, Control, Wariness
- Iran: Security, Influence, Wariness
- Armenia: Security, Unity, Self-preservation
- Azerbaijan: Unity, Security, Influence
- United States: Influence, Power, Control
- Armenian Apostolic Church: Loyalty, Righteousness, Moral outrage

Article Assessment:
Credibility Score: 75/100
Bias Rating: 55/100 (Center)
Sentiment Score: 60/100
Authoritarianism Risk: 35/100 (Generally Democratic)

Bias Analysis:
The article presents multiple perspectives, including those of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Iran, indicating an attempt at balanced reporting. However, there's a slight emphasis on the positive aspects of US involvement, which may suggest a subtle pro-Western lean.

Key metric: US Global Influence Index

As a social scientist, I analyze that this article showcases a significant shift in regional power dynamics in the South Caucasus. The US-brokered peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan represents a strategic advancement of American influence in a traditionally Russian-dominated region. This development likely improves the US Global Influence Index by establishing a foothold through the TRIPP project. The deal challenges Russia's and Iran's regional influence, potentially altering geopolitical balances. However, it also risks domestic instability in Armenia and regional tensions with Iran. The agreement's long-term success depends on managing these challenges and maintaining the delicate balance between regional powers.