A war is being fought on the ground in Iran and in global energy markets – involving missiles, drones, and tankers – and another is unfolding in newsrooms, in how events are selected and narrated on front pages. The latter, it seems, has already been lost by the United States. The tone of news coverage is dominated by pessimism. While some might rejoice – the last time American media uncritically supported a war was in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, and subsequently faced historical embarrassment, with the New York Times presenting Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction claims as factual – the current situation is reversed.
Today, America and Israel appear to be accumulating only disasters, and this may not help us understand the situation. If this is a thermometer of a nation’s “morale,” a significant portion of America has already accepted defeat.
Updates on the situation in Iran are available here.
A commentary in the Wall Street Journal denounces the partisan drift of a considerable segment of American media in its coverage of the war against Iran. According to the authors, Mark Penn and Andrew Stein, the dominant narrative systematically favors negative news for the United States and Donald Trump, constructing a distorted perception of the conflict. Notably, the authors are prominent figures on the left: Penn is a pollster who worked extensively for Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Stein was a New York City Democratic Party leader.
“President Trump’s complaints about media coverage of the war in Iran are predictable—and in this case, entirely justified. ‘We are completely destroying the Iranian terrorist regime, militarily, economically, and in every other way; and yet, if you read the failing New York Times, you would wrongly believe that we are not winning,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social. Simply picking up the Sunday edition of the same New York Times, it seems as though the editors have taken those words not as a criticism, but as an order.
“‘The war is causing new shocks to a fragile global economy,’ reads a headline on the front page, with a speculative subheadline: ‘The fallout from a prolonged conflict with Iran could have ‘catastrophic’ consequences.’ Among the catastrophes cited in the article: ‘In Kenya, tea growers and traders fear their exports to Iran may rot in ports.’ Another article above the fold is a criticism of the Secretary of Defense: ‘Hegseth’s vengeful rhetoric matured from experience in Iraq.’ Inside the newspaper, there are six more pages of headlines on the war, almost all relentlessly negative. There are disparaging articles on the Secretary of State (‘For Trump and Rubio, first destroy and then negotiate’) and on the United States’ main ally in the war effort (‘The war alliance between the United States and Israel is reshaping the Middle East, but carries risks’) and (‘Netanyahu has the war he always wanted, but on Trump’s terms’). There is also economic pessimism (‘Seized tankers cost the United States tens of millions’) and (‘Surging oil prices shake Pakistan’s fragile economy’). On the U.S. Attack on Kharg Island, a major hub for Iranian oil exports, the President stated that the raid had ‘totally annihilated’ military installations on the island and that he decided to spare oil infrastructure ‘for reasons of decency.’ the United States could have hit them inflicting much greater damage. The Times headline, however, described the raid as ineffective: ‘Iran remains firm on the blockade of the Strait despite the American attack on the oil hub.’ The only positive headline on the war’s progress was: ‘To combat Iranian drones, the United States leverages knowledge gained with difficulty in Ukraine.’
As with the Times, much of the media seems determined to push a narrative according to which Trump is wrong about everything and the United States is suffering a defeat at the hands of a powerful Iranian war machine, capable of successfully adapting to new leadership. Journalists have the right and duty to report bad news and to question overly optimistic government reports. But many seem to go further, to the point of rooting for America’s defeat—against an enemy that is the leading instigator of terrorism in the world, has killed thousands of unarmed protesters, and has amassed thousands of ballistic missiles while seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, which its leaders have promised to use against the United States and Israel. Even the most elementary articles analyzing Iranian losses and the fate of its supposed leadership are largely absent. Why? ‘What seems to drive the information is partisanship and the determination of Democrats to oppose this president no matter what he does.’
The landscape described and denounced by the two Democrats does not only refer to progressive, anti-Trump media.
On the right, journalists are also at war… against the war. The most important cases are Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly. On that MAGA front, the ancient right-wing antisemitism emerges: the thesis that the powerful Israeli lobby manipulated Trump into intervening in a war that corresponds exclusively to the interests of Tel Aviv. A curious oversight of 47 years of hostility from the ayatollahs towards America, marked by genuine acts of war.
Journalists are in good company: among the pessimists, experts abound.
And among the “bad guys” who inspire Trump, in the reconstructions of US media, there is only one who can almost aspire to the malevolent role of Netanyahu: it is Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to a background report in the New York Times, the heir apparent MbS allegedly encouraged Trump to “hit Iran hard,” reviving a historical line of Saudi leadership – that summarized years ago by his father in the formula “cut off the snake’s head.” This is a position consistent with the strategic rivalry between Riyadh and Tehran, but hides a contradiction. The Gulf countries that see weakening Iran as a strategic opportunity are also those most exposed to the consequences of an escalation. After weeks of missile and drone attacks, the Gulf states have not yet responded directly militarily. The main reason is fear of the day after: an open war could turn their infrastructure – ports, energy facilities, cities – into systematic targets. Hence the Saudi ambiguity: political support for pressure on Iran, but reluctance to enter the conflict directly. A novelty could arise if Saudi Arabia, together with other Gulf Arab countries, is confirmed to participate alongside the Americans in security operations to reopen Hormuz.
Regarding the partisan bias with which most American media report on this conflict: yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations I attended a long interview with the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates. It was a lengthy attempt by the journalist to extract an accusation or at least a criticism of the military intervention by the United States and Israel from the interviewee. An attempt that failed: the latter repeatedly replied that everything that has been happening since the beginning of the conflict is consolidating the conviction that there is only one danger to security in the area and it comes from Iran, so efforts must be increased to eliminate this danger. But the interviewer seemed irritated and continued relentlessly to strive to prove his thesis.
It is right and commendable for American media to exercise critical spirit when their country embarks on a new military adventure. It would have been useful to exercise the same discernment under previous administrations. Barack Obama was much more critical of himself than journalists were: he admitted – after leaving the White House – that he had betrayed the Iranian people at the time of the “green revolution” (2009), when many took to the streets against the regime and received no support whatsoever from America, not even political or moral. The head of the National Security Council at the time, Ben Rhodes, theorized that supporting the protest movements was equivalent to providing arguments for the propaganda of the ayatollahs. Who were then able to proceed undisturbed in the fierce repression while Obama looked the other way. The nuclear agreement with Iran negotiated by Obama with the emissaries of Khamenei father was so inadequate that even Joe Biden did not try to recover it; yet today there are still those who reproach Trump for tearing it up (that agreement excluded limitations on missiles, or on support for terrorist militias, and even on the nuclear issue offered weak guarantees). Obama also admitted, ex-post, that he had compensated the ayatollahs with “sanctions refunds” which were immediately invested in new weapons to create terror in the Middle East.
18 March 2026, 18:08 – modified 18 March 2026 | 19:58
