"Why the White House is not on the war path over Iran"

Five words that signify bias:

1. saber-rattling
2. literally (bulldozed into the ground)
3. bellicose
4. "spiral out of control"
5. plunge

In the article "Why the White House is not on the war path over Iran" by Mark Mardell generally recounts Mardell's attempt to learn more about the US government's attitude towards Iran now that it has been revealed that they have a nuclear energy program.  He describe's Israel's threat to attack Iran over this program as "saber-rattling" which suggests that the threat is just a threat and nothing more.  Mardell conveys the sense that this new nuclear program in Iran is for energy, stating that the buildings and research centers used for Iran's old nuclear weapons program have been "literally bulldozed into the ground" - the word "literally" is used to actually describe what happened and also emphasize how over the nuclear weapons program in Iran seems to be.  Mardell says that the White House couldn't hardly be less bellicose - or war-like - concerning Iran as he's been told that any military response would only provide a situation that could "spiral out of control" and help "plunge" western economies into another recession.  The choice of colorful words with their specific negative connotations, in context with the question of how likely a military response from the US is, further illustrate the writer's conclusion that Iran's nuclear program is not a threat and that any larger situation arising from this as being unlikely.