Manufacturing Consent: How the Reaction to Trump’s Strike on Soleimani Was Mismanaged
Breaking news: Senator Bernie Sanders sides with Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran, both want to take U.S. troops out of the Middle East. This is the connotation CNN constructed with its poorly framed question during last week’s primary election debate when the moderator asked Sanders about U.S. military presence in the Middle East. CNN hosted a debate shortly after the White House ordered the killing of Iran’s top military general, Qasem Soleimani, which brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war and dealt a potential final blow to the JCPOA after Iran responded by reneging on more of the deal’s commitments. When Wolf Blitzer asked Sanders about troops in the Middle East, he said that “Khamenei has again called for all U.S. troops to be pulled out of the Middle East,’’ adding that this is “something [Sanders] called for, as well.” By comparing presidential candidate Sanders and the leader of a foreign adversary, Blitzer played directly into the hands of Trump — who routinely accuses Democrats of sympathizing with Iran for their opposition to his aggression campaign.
Unfortunately, many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have also fallen victim to this diversion tactic. In the immediate aftermath of the strike, most candidates looked to protect themselves from Trump’s accusations by prefacing their opposition with denunciations of Soleimani’s character, thereby qualifying the White House line of defense. If the goal is to prevent war, however, it is vital to prevent the hawks in Washington from setting the narrative (as they did in the lead-up to the Iraq war). It is crucial for the candidates, as well as the media, to focus on what matters: namely, how illegal and reckless actions by the Trump administration could provoke yet another disastrous war in the Middle East.
When President Trump escalated tensions in early January, the presidential campaigns scrambled to find a proper response, fully understanding that war would overshadow the entire 2020 election. While the risk of all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran seems to have subsided somewhat since then, tensions are still simmering, and Trump’s approach of maximum pressure risks blowing up at any moment. As Iran expert Ali Vaez put it:
A quick glance at the immediate reactions from the Democratic candidates tells us a lot about how much they are willing to challenge the commander-in-chief and the premise that his administration has employed to justify bringing America to the brink of conflict. It also provides us with an insight into how they might conduct foreign policy, particularly in relation to Iran. What the majority of the statements reveal is an unfortunate mix of disparaging comments on Soleimani and soft denunciations of Trump’s actions.
Front-runner Joe Biden began his statement with a disclaimer that Soleimani “deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes against American troops.” While he also acknowledged that the strike could risk dangerous retaliation and escalation, Biden failed to provide a decisive repudiation. Rather, he only mustered the courage to ask Trump for “an explanation of the strategy and plan.” Biden’s weak statement reveals that, in large part, he is averse to dishing out real criticism, instead offering platitudes and language that could be twisted in any direction if conflict were to break out. So much for “beating him like a drum” when it matters most. Pete Buttigieg also provided more questions than condemnations on the matter. Besides evoking his military credentials multiple times and urging for consultation with Congress before “engaging in military action that could destabilize an entire region,’’ he too missed the mark with his statement. If there is one thing that we have learned over the last three years it’s that President Trump only cares about two questions: how will this make me look, and can I get away with it?. Any request by Democrats for Trump to conduct careful consideration before taking an action is a fallacy and a mistake. Fellow moderate Amy Klobuchar similarly questioned the “timing, manner and potential consequences” without a mention of the legal and practical implications of the strike.
For her part, Elizabeth Warren, — one of the two main progressive candidates — began her initial response on Twitter by demonizing Soleimani. While first claiming that he is responsible for the deaths of “hundreds of Americans”,Warren changed her tone only after receiving backlash from the left, prompting her to respond more firmly by calling it an assassination. Only Bernie Sanders immediately called the strike an assassination and seemed unafraid to provide unabashed condemnation.
Major news publications in America have also devoted a lot of attention to Soleimani’s misdeeds, as evidenced by numerous articles and op-eds, including in the New York Times and the Washington Post.
In the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, the media helped to sell America on what became the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern history, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands across the Middle East and greatly destabilizing the region. During its initial course, much of the institutionalized media and politicians — including notably, Joe Biden — provided cover for the government’s malpractice, particularly the WMD debacle. This favorable coverage effectively helped Bush with his 2004 re-election campaign. Today, ahead of a contentious presidential election, the media needs to truly be held accountable for its coverage of the president’s foreign policy actions, especially those that could lead the country into war. The first line of defense — and attack — against misinformation and misinterpretation of the unfolding events should be the Democratic candidates who claim to be committed to preventing Trump’s war. Hopefully then, if the media acts responsibly, and the candidates respond wisely, the headlines next year might read a little different.
