Taking 66 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 (most held for almost 15 months), killing 258 Americans in three separate Beirut bombings in 1983, killing 19 US Air Force servicemen in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 603 service members in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, killing three Americans in Jordan in January 2024, attempting to assassinate US President Donald Trump last year, and damaging the US embassy branch in Tel Aviv last week. Almost 900 Americans killed over more than 40 years.
That is just a partial list of what the Islamic Republic of Iran has done to the United States since the current regime took power 46 years ago.
Nevertheless, after Trump sent bombers to strike Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday night, the top media outlets in the US and around the world reported that the US had no reason to get involved other than to help Israel.
This is factually incorrect – because of the long history of Iranian aggression listed above and because a nuclear Iran would pose a direct future threat: not just to what it has called the “Little Satan” Israel but also to the “Middle Satan” Europe and the “Great Satan” America.
This narrative is very dangerous because any future Iranian retaliation against the US in which an American is harmed would likely be blamed on Israel by those misled by the media, which reported incorrectly and irresponsibly.
Irresponsible reporting: Shifting blame on Israel for US actions, Iranian retaliation
The New York Times headline was “With Decision to Bomb Iran, Trump Injects US Into Middle East Conflict.” The truth is that the Iranian regime injected the US into the conflict immediately when it took power, and it had nothing to do with Israel. The sub-headline was even worse, with its claim that “the US has joined Israel’s war against the country.” Why does the Times get to decide that only Israel can be involved in stopping a maniacal regime from getting nukes?
THE ASSOCIATED Press headline was no better: “US Inserts Itself into War between Israel and Iran.” Foundation for Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz gave another good reason on X why this is wrong: “Most don’t get this: Khamenei gave his nuclear weapons scientists permission – for the first time – to creep toward a warhead DURING talks with Trump & [Middle East envoy Steve] Witkoff. That was the tripwire. Crossed. Detected. Understood. The reason Israeli strikes began.”
Reuters wrote that “Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military campaign against its major rival Iran is a major escalation of the conflict and risks opening a new era of instability in the Middle East.” This was labeled a news article, not an analysis or op-ed, so writers Phil Stewart and Steve Holland had no right to judge that the move would cause instability in the Middle East, which has been through 629 days of war on seven fronts. Perhaps stopping the nuclearization of a country whose proxies have caused so many conflicts will actually increase stability, Phil and Steve?
MSNBC columnist Nayyera Haq referred to “the volatile leaders of Iran or Israel” in questioning what would happen next in the war. But the democratically elected leaders of Israel are not morally or politically equivalent to the oppressive clerics and unelected strongmen of Iran. As Trump has noted, he gave Iran plenty of chances to avoid war.
BBC’s Middle East bureau chief Jo Floto wrote: “If Netanyahu’s tone was triumphant, and the smile barely suppressed, it is hardly surprising. He has spent most of his political career obsessed with the threat he believes Iran poses to Israel.” But it is not only Netanyahu who cares about stopping Iran’s race to the bomb. Continuing the Jewish state’s existence is a consensus issue in Israel, not a personal or irrational “obsession.”
Floto also credited Netanyahu with “changing the mind of a US president who campaigned against overseas military adventures.” But Trump also vowed throughout the race that he would do whatever was necessary to stop Iran’s nuclearization.
THESE EXAMPLES underscored a broader pattern in dishonest reporting about the American strike on Fordow. If this trend is not changed immediately, there is a serious risk that antisemites and anti-Israel extremists in America could respond with violence, taking revenge against any Jew they see and blaming them for what was a legitimate decision by the president to defend his own country.
There are also sleeper cells sent by Iran to North, Central, and South America that are ready to be activated.
Now that the Iran portion of the current war appears to be over, the fight over the narrative is being waged. And the coverage of the ceasefire does not bode well.
National Public Radio equated Iran’s murdering Israeli civilians in their bomb shelters after the ceasefire took effect with Israel’s strike on the Iranian Basij paramilitary militia that tortures regime opponents. For NPR, both sides had simply “exchanged attacks up to the final moments.”
The BBC’s initial headline was “Israel defense minister accuses Iran of violating ceasefire and orders ‘powerful strikes’ on Tehran.” This was odd because the BBC has reporters in Israel who can go to Beersheba to see where the missile struck a building. They didn’t need to report it as a mere accusation and then move on to speculate about Israel’s response.
But the most disturbing account of the ceasefire came from The Telegraph’s global health security editor Paul Nuki, who had the audacity to write that Beersheba has a “heavy military presence.” When the media watchdog HonestReporting wrote on X/Twitter that Nuki had tacitly justified the targeting of a civilian city of 210,000 people, he responded, “You ought to pop down there, mate.”
No, Paul, it is not okay to downplay the dangers of what you write. You know Iran didn’t aim at a military base. The fact that they murdered a soldier in his mother’s bomb shelter was just pure luck.
It is not too late for the international media to change their ways, report accurately, and put all the war’s fronts in the proper historical context. I hope they will before false narratives continue to ignite a wave of anti-Israel and antisemitic backlash in America and around the world.
The writer is the executive director of the pro-Israel media watchdog HonestReporting. He served as chief political correspondent and analyst of The Jerusalem Post for 24 years.