In the months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, much of the American media moved in unsettling unison. The dominant narrative, asserted by officials, amplified by commentators, and too often transmitted without sufficient scrutiny, was that war was necessary, imminent, and justified. Only a handful of journalists, most notably the Washington bureau of Knight Ridder, persistently questioned the intelligence, the assumptions, and the rush toward conflict. History would later vindicate their skepticism.

Two decades later, a different but faintly familiar moment may be unfolding.

Today, a formidable U.S. military presence is assembling across the broader Middle East, near Iran. Aircraft carriers, long-range bombers, missile defense systems, and surveillance assets are being repositioned in what officials describe as deterrence, preparation, or contingency planning. Diplomacy continues, but so does military signaling. The possibility, however uncertain, of a U.S. strike on Iranian targets is no longer speculative. It is openly discussed in strategic and policy circles.

And yet, this development has not captured the American public’s attention. It appears in the news, but mostly as background. It does not dominate front pages or headlines. It has not triggered sustained televised debate. Nor has it produced the investigative urgency one might expect when the world’s most powerful military edges closer to confrontation with a major regional power.

The contrast with 2002–03 is striking, not because the media are cheerleading for war today, but because war itself seems normalized.

Then, the media’s failure lay in excessive alignment with official claims. Now, the risk may be different: diffusion of attention. In an era saturated by overlapping crises, Ukraine, Gaza, domestic polarization, economic uncertainty, and large-scale military escalation can become just another headline competing for oxygen. The danger is not propaganda but habituation. War, when treated as routine, escapes scrutiny.

Another factor may be shaping coverage: hesitation born of political fear. The relationship between the press and Donald Trump has long been adversarial and fraught with consequences. Trump has repeatedly attacked major media organizations, labeled critical reporting “fake news,” and encouraged public distrust of journalists. In such an environment, editorial decisions are not made in a vacuum. Newsrooms must weigh not only evidence and........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)