Entities mentioned:
- John Bolton: Power, Influence, Self-preservation
- Donald Trump: Power, Control, Revenge
- FBI: Duty, Justice, Security
- Rex Tillerson: Duty, Professional pride
- Mike Pompeo: Loyalty, Influence
- Robert C. O'Brien: Duty, Ambition
- JD Vance: Duty, Loyalty

Article Assessment:
Credibility Score: 75/100
Bias Rating: 55/100 (Center)
Sentiment Score: 30/100
Authoritarianism Risk: 40/100 (Generally Democratic)

Bias Analysis:
The article presents a relatively balanced account of the Trump-Bolton relationship, including quotes from both sides. While it leans slightly towards emphasizing Trump's criticisms of Bolton, it also provides context for their initial positive relationship.

Key metric: Political Stability Index

As a social scientist, I analyze that this article highlights the volatile nature of high-level political relationships in the U.S. government, particularly within the Trump administration. The deterioration of the relationship between Trump and Bolton, culminating in FBI raids on Bolton's properties, demonstrates the potential instability in national security leadership. This can significantly impact the Political Stability Index by showcasing how quickly alliances can shift and how internal conflicts can lead to potential security risks, especially concerning the handling of classified information. The ongoing investigation into Bolton also raises questions about the management of sensitive documents by former officials, which could have implications for national security and governmental transparency.

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.