“The Media” Is Botching The Iran Story
Last night’s Vice Presidential debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance started with CBS’s Margaret Brennan asking this question:
“Earlier today, Iran launched its largest attack yet on Israel. But that attack failed thanks to joint U.S. and Israeli defensive action. President Biden has deployed more than 40,000 U.S. military personnel and assets to that region over the past year to try to prevent a regional war. Iran is weakened, but the U.S. still considers it the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it has drastically reduced the time it would take to develop a nuclear weapon. It is down now to one or two weeks time. Governor Walz, if you are the final voice in the situation room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?”
The moment I heard it I knew that I had to address it because most of the information postulated in the question is false. Let’s break it down but let’s go backwards:
“Would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?” — It’s not a preemptive strike if the two nations are at war, and one could argue they’ve been in an increasingly hot war for decades that has heated up dramatically in the last few years. This is Iran’s second strike against Israel this year and its third in recent memory. Israel routinely attacks Iranian targets both inside and outside of Iran. Israel recently bombed Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Syria. I suppose the question was whether the candidates would support a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, perhaps, but the general framing makes no sense.
“[Iran] has drastically reduced the time it would take to develop a nuclear weapon. It is down now to one or two weeks time.” This is false. Many analysts do indeed believe that in a week or two Iran could enrich Uranium to the point where it could be used in a nuclear bomb. But designing, assembling, and testing a nuclear warhead, as well as developing delivery mechanisms – is much more complex and time-consuming. It’s unclear how close Iran is to building a nuclear weapon, but it’s a lot longer than one to two weeks. It’s also worth noting that during the Obama administration Iran was enriching Uranium to less than 4% purity, in part thanks to the “Iran deal,” the JCPOA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, negotiated in 2015. Trump pulled out of that agreement and Iran is currently enriching Uranium to about 60% purity, still short of the 90% needed to make a nuclear weapon. But that last 30% is much easier to accomplish than the first 60%.
“U.S. still considers it the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” I’m going to mark that as true. The US thinks it and there’s truth to it. It dismisses Iran as a terrorist organization, however, and ignores Iran’s desires and concerns.
“Iran is weakened.” Debatable. It really depends on what we’re comparing it to. In many ways Iran may have reached peak power in the last several years. Since then it is arguably weaker. Again, to dismiss Iran is weak is an oversimplification and a mistake.
“President Biden has deployed more than 40,000 U.S. military personnel and assets to that region over the past year to try to prevent a regional war.” Technically true, but the primary driver of the risk of regional war in the last six months or so has been Israel’s aggressive actions in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, not an increase in threat levels driven by Iranian aggression.
“But that attack failed thanks to joint U.S. and Israeli defensive action.” THIS is perhaps the biggest problem with this question. It’s completely false.
As I’ve been writing and as I wrote in my snap analysis of yesterday’s ballistic missile strike, Iran is playing a game that the major players in this crisis have been playing for years. Each major power (or, more accurately, the ruling political forces of each major faction) is attempting to project power in order to deter the enemy and signal to a domestic audience that they are doing something to stop that enemy. Each time one side strikes, there is typically a corresponding strike by the opposing side of similar severity. What looks like escalation almost never is. This creates a kind of deadly balance that has defined the region for years. Since October 7 Israel has been tipping the scales by consistently escalating its attacks against Hezbollah and Iran. Hezbollah and Iran, for the most part, have met Israel’s level of aggression or even deescalated by launching less sever counterattacks. I’m sure many members of Hezbollah currently think that their now-dead leader, Hassan Nasrallah, miscalculated which is why he is now dead.
In this context it is clear that Iran’s strikes did not fail. They accomplished exactly what they were designed to. Iran successfully breached Israel’s vaunted air defense system. Dozens of ballistic missiles impacted just outside Tel Aviv, and more impacted on the edge of an Israeli air base. No, they didn’t kill a lot of people or cause widespread destruction. That was clearly not the intent. That was my initial assessment, and all the evidence that’s emerging is underscoring this point — Iran’s missiles nearly hit, but ultimately missed, anything important. That’s not a failure. It’s a warning. And if we can’t understand this obvious dynamic, we’re never going to understand this conflict, nor how to stop it.
The Problem With TV News and Social Media
Ultimately here is the problem. TV, radio, and video news tends to come from a single speaker, presenting a single point of view or framing. This was the case with CBS’s incorrect characterization of the Iran strike — one reporter’s summary. What followed in the debate is often what viewers encounter on similar platforms, politicians, pundits, experts or “talking heads” square off, sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing, and the facts are largely glossed over and buried under the opinions. Certain radio stations share this format, while stations like NPR tend to go more in-depth. Social media news tends to be sensational and one-sided. To get a fair and broad analysis, one needs to spend time doing some serious reading on a topic, and fewer and fewer Americans are doing that.
