With the War in Iran, the Press Is Not the Story

By Becket Adams

Sunday, April 12, 2026

 

There are many things for which the news media deserve criticism.

 

Their response to President Trump’s handling of his surprise war in Iran is not, for the most part, one of them.

 

The United States is engaged in a shooting war with a mad theocracy that is, importantly, a proxy for our more dangerous adversaries, China and Russia. If ever there was a time for a steady hand at the tiller, this is it. Unfortunately, we don’t have a steady hand. We have an American president behaving cryptically, playing the role of both hawk and dove, while neglecting to keep the public well-informed or even reassured.

 

It’s all the familiar chest-thumping and semi-coherent bluster we’ve come to expect of Trump, now with the added bonus of a ticking body count.

 

Thus, in a story that includes the most powerful man on earth, a barbaric regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and threats of generational destruction, the least important character is the news media. Moreover, the press’s reaction — a mixture of confusion, repulsion, and genuine fear — is, this time, fully reasonable. The media are not the problem, though certain conservative critics insist they are.

 

Have those critics actually listened to the president these past few weeks?

 

Many of us have grown so used to Trump’s extreme rhetorical style that it has become background noise. However, after the deaths of 13 American servicemen, with no congressional authorization and no clear end goal in this war, this is a situation where we can’t simply ignore or wave away his behavior with a flip “That’s the art of the deal!”

 

“A whole civilization will die tonight,” the leader of the Western Hemisphere promised on April 7. “Never to be brought back again.”

 

He added, “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?”

 

Who knows, indeed.

 

Elsewhere, he said of the Iranian regime, “We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks — we’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age where they belong.”

 

What, exactly, does this mean?

 

Then there is this: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

 

If the president wishes to sow confusion among our enemies, he has the CIA. If he wishes to strike fear in their hearts, he can do so without sacrificing the stature of his office or the gravity of presidential threats. And if he wishes to project ruthless bravado without regard for diplomatic niceties, that is what surrogates are for.

 

What, then, is he doing?

 

I dare you: Examine his public statements and tell me you see a coherent plan, one that answers not only your questions but those of our allies. Look closely. Does this man’s statements fill you with confidence? For many of us, they do not. It looks instead like a man teetering frantically between talk of peace and threats, promising terrible outcomes that no American has had time to consider, let alone endorse.

 

This is no way for free men to live.

 

We deserve some explanation of what victory looks like and some explanation of our goals and how to achieve them. The oft-repeated guidance to “trust the process” is not good enough on an ordinary day; it is certainly not good enough in time of war.

 

What we’ve seen thus far from this White House is not a process, much less a plan.

 

“A whole civilization will die tonight”? Trump could mean anything or nothing. Is he threatening genocide? War crimes? Nuclear war? Or is he just bluffing, transparently? These are not hysterical questions. They are reasonable ones, and reporters are right to ask them.

 

It is normal and human to want to know if the president really plans to raze an enemy country. Journalists want to know. I want to know. You should want to know. It is not hyperventilating to try to understand what the leader of the free world is threatening in our name. It is not overreacting to wonder whether his talk of civilizational extermination implies nuclear war. Does he mean it? Is it one of his famous negotiating tactics?

 

Who knows? Are we having fun yet?

 

To train fire, then, on the media’s reaction is missing the larger story. It’s also the right-wing version of the press’s old “Republicans pounce” trope: The real scandal is subordinated to the response. The difference is that, in this case, the disordering of priorities is far more serious an error. We are talking about the president of the United States and war with a would-be nuclear power. If anything is beside the point right now, it is the press’s response.

 

There is plenty to criticize in the media. The press is a target-rich environment, full of some of the worst people in any industry, including some who are very clearly rooting for an Iranian victory.

 

Yet when reporters ask, in tones of mounting shock, what the president is talking about while he behaves in a seemingly erratic manner while trying to wage a war, that is not unchecked hysteria. The journalists have a point: What is going on with President Trump?