Following the U.S. President Donald Trump’s order to launch attacks on Iran to prevent the Islamic Republic’s reckless development of nuclear weapons, its proliferation of ballistic missiles and its use of proxy terror groups to attack U.S. allies and international trade, legacy media outlets exploded with harsh “legal” criticism, falsely implying that Trump’s actions violate American democracy itself.
NPR noted that the Iran “strikes were launched without approval from Congress” and that “the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war.” CNN warned that Trump’s action risks unconstitutional escalation and sets a dangerous precedent. What these and other media neglected to explain was that former Presidents Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama all mounted military interventions without approvals … and in fact, 43 of 46 presidents have employed military force without congressional declarations.
The omission of this perspective provides additional evidence of mainstream media’s attempts to discredit opposition to Islamist imperialism, and especially, Trump’s (and Israel’s) efforts to do so. Instead of praise for the administration’s bold, thorough and precise surgical dismantling of Iran’s global terror organization and its murderous oppression of 90 million Iranians, the media harshly condemn him for similar actions undertaken by former President Barack Obama, which they lauded.
In fact, the “requirement” for a congressional declaration or approval of war is far from absolute, legally or historically. What constitutes “war” is not always clear-cut, nor is the latitude given to our commander-in-chief in matters of military intervention, according to the Constitution. While an argument could legitimately be raised for Congress to provide greater clarity on these issues, the rush to condemn Trump in this case is clearly motivated by a political, and not a legal, objective.
Rather, the “news” coverage of the successful U.S.-Israel attacks on arch-enemy Iran falls cleanly into line with media efforts to consistently oppose nearly all of Trump’s foreign-policy initiatives, as well as Israel’s war against Palestinian terrorists. It seems there’s never a blow struck against global jihad that legacy media don’t denounce.
A declaration of war isn’t required for the president to undertake military action. In fact, since World War II, no president has secured a formal declaration of war, yet many have initiated major military actions. For instance, in 2011, Obama authorized U.S. military intervention in Libya to assist rebel forces trying to overthrow its dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. In his first term, Trump struck Syrian airbases, ordered the 2020 killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani, and bombed Yemen. Former President Joe Biden also authorized airstrikes on Syria and Yemen. All of these military actions were taken without declarations of war.
Mainstream media outlets condemn Trump, but praised Obama. Indeed, after the president initiated military action against Iran, legacy media headlines questioned the legality of his actions. The New York Times, for example, issued the headline, “Trump’s Unilateral Iran Strike Sparks Constitutional War Powers Dispute,” accusing the president of starting a war without authorization. Similarly, a CNN headline read, “Are Trump’s strikes against Iran legal? Experts are skeptical,” while a headline in The Guardian proclaimed, “U.S. lawmakers condemn Trump over Iran strikes: ‘acts of war unauthorized by Congress.’”
In contrast, when Obama intervened in Libya, mainstream media sang his praises. Roger Cohen in the Times tweeted “Bravo Obama” and described his actions as “smart policy in Libya.” At CNN, authors David Gergen and Michael Zuckerman also lauded Obama, writing, “Obama’s gamble on Libya (derided by critics quoting the characterization of ‘leading from behind’) certainly seems to be paying off as well,” while a report by NPR described the intervention as delivering a rare foreign-policy win for Obama after months of criticism. Legacy media’s praise of Obama and vilification of Trump, both of whom launched military actions without a declaration of war, suggests an inherent bias.
Targeted actions are the president’s prerogative. The U.S. strikes on Iran align with longstanding presidential practice, in which chief executives have initiated military actions without prior congressional authorization when national security interests are at stake. Trump asserts, reasonably, that Iran presents a clear, imminent threat to national security interests, since the Islamic Republic is on the cusp of being able to create a nuclear weapon. Indeed, the Institute for Science and International Security noted in a Feb. 20 analysis that Iran’s pre-war uranium stocks alone allowed weapons-grade uranium for one device in a few days. Yet, mainstream media give Trump little to no credit for decisively addressing Iran’s imminent threat to U.S. national security.
By contrast, Obama justified his decision to intervene in Libya in 2011 on humanitarian grounds, citing the need to prevent an imminent massacre of civilians by Gaddafi’s forces. In other words, he didn’t act to preserve national security interests. Yet mainstream media heaped praise on him rather than accuse him of overstepping his constitutional authority. Again, it represents a double standard.
Mainstream media show consistent opposition to U.S. and Israeli anti-jihad efforts. In The New York Times, CNN, NPR and the Associated Press, among others, we see consistently biased coverage of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. They depict the Jewish state not as a democracy waging a defensive war to eliminate the existential threat that Hamas poses, but as a ruthless aggressor bent on quashing any Palestinian hopes of self-determination. This depiction explains the outright lies against Israel that have characterized war reporting in Gaza—false accusations of genocide, war crimes and starvation tactics.
By condemning efforts by Trump and Israel to rid the world of Islamic jihadism, mainstream media demonstrate a bias that undermines American interests. Legacy media outlets project such unvarnished disdain toward Trump, as well as the Jewish state, that they refuse to support any action on behalf of either, even when such actions serve American interests, as they do now.
Originally published by Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME).
