Trump’s War and Murky Messages From the Mainstream Media
Photograph Source: U.S. Navy Photo – Public Domain
George W. Bush lied about Iraq and non-existent weapons of mass destruction to go to war in 2003. Donald Trump lied about an “imminent threat” from Iran to go to war in 2026. There’s nothing new here in view of the disinformation that was used to justify the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars in the 19th century as well as the Vietnam War in the 20th century.
It is interesting, however, to compare the murky and jingoist reactions of the mainstream media that justify the war and predict favorable outcomes. Some questioned the 2003 attack against Iraq and the justification for it. They are curiously unquestioning today and generally supportive of the war.
The worst examples come from the New York Times. Its leading Israeli apologist, Bret Stephens, predictably believes that “Trump and Netanyahu did the world a favor” because it is “impossible to imagine anything like Mideast peace without the end of [Iran’s] regime.” Stephens credits Trump with restoring “deterrence and, in doing so, making diplomacy more effective.” He credits Trump with “going to war for the sake of advancing democratic values,” and lauds Trump and Netanyahu for doing the “free world a courageous and historic favor.”
Stephens’s position is not surprising. He has praise for Trump because Trump has given Israel everything it has demanded over the years: moving the capital to Jerusalem; recognizing the Golan Heights as part of Israel; providing U.S. embassy support to American Jews who are illegally occupying land in the West Bank; complicity in Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza: and allowing Israeli settlers and the Israeli Defense Forces to seize Arab villages on the West Bank. The list goes on and on, now topped by a joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign that will further the chaos and instability in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.
It is more surprising that Steven Erlanger, the chief diplomatic correspondent for the Times, who has reported from more than 100 countries and shared in two Pulitzer Prizes, would post so many obtuse notions as those he has been offering. Erlanger argues that Iran’s response, attacking the Gulf States, was Tehran’s “best chance to shorten the war” because it “could prompt the Arab world to pressure the U.S. and Israel to end their campaign.” Is there any reason to believe that Arab states are able to “pressure” Trump and Netanyahu?
Erlanger argues that Iran will no longer have the “energy or resources to meddle in the region,” which will “open up new opportunities for Lebanon and the Palestinians.” He even suggests that a “new and more moderate government could take office in Israel after elections this year.” It is more likely that a more right-wing government will emerge in Israel, but in any event there is no reason to believe that Israel favors stability in Lebanon (or in Syria for that matter) or sovereignty for Palestinians. Netanyahu’s policies for the past three decades have been to ensure instability in the Arab world in order to justify an inability to advance the cause of peace or to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
George Will, writing in the Washington Post, also buys into the notion that the U.S.-Israeli campaign is a “necessity for beginning to reestablish a precondition for a more peaceable world: the credibility of U.S. deterrence.” He even credits the United States with “preparing to help, from a distance, Iran’s political rebirth.” In other words, an unnecessary and illegal war against Iran is the precondition for peace in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf as well as stability in Iran.
It is more likely that the United States will suffer from the consequences of this war both at home and abroad. The fact that Trump and Netanyahu—both megalomaniacs—have joined forces is nothing short of terrifying. The most likely outcomes include more hardline governments in Iran and Israel as well as continued political disarray in the United States. As far as Iran is concerned, there is no organized opposition that is positioned to take power away from the Revolutionary Guard.
Of course, the most murky message comes from Trump himself. He told the Revolutionary Guard to “lay down your arms” and that the “proud people of Iran [must] take over your government when we are finished. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.” The Revolutionary Guard recently killed thousands of protesting Iranians. Who receives the Guards weapons? And how do the “proud people” seize the government?
The post Trump’s War and Murky Messages From the Mainstream Media appeared first on CounterPunch.org.