Follow us on social

Pete Hegseth Iran Bombings CNN Pentagon

Trump: Question the strikes = demeaning the troops

Admin officials say media should apologize to USAF pilots for questioning efficacy of the Iran bombing

Reporting | QiOSK

President Trump and other White House officials are suggesting that questioning the decision and efficacy of bombing Iran shows a lack of patriotism and disparages American troops.

These claims harken back to the Iraq War when supporters of the policy insisted that critics or skeptics were simply anti-American or didn’t support the troops.

In a media press conference today, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth discussed the operation’s success and fielded questions from the press, while President Trump shared his opinion on social media.

“Secretary of Defense (War!) Pete Hegseth, together with Military Representatives, will be holding a Major News Conference tomorrow morning at 8 A.M. EST at The Pentagon, in order to fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots,” posted President Donald Trump.

“After 36 hours of dangerously flying through Enemy Territory, they landed, they knew the Success was LEGENDARY, and then, two days later, they started reading Fake News by CNN and The Failing New York Times. They felt terribly!”

Hegseth repeated the shopworn trope during the presser.

“What's really happening is you're undermining the success of incredible B-2 pilots and incredible F-35 pilots and incredible refuelers and incredible air defenders who accomplished their mission, set back a nuclear program in ways that other presidents would have dreamed,” Hegseth told reporters during the news conference.

“How about we celebrate that? How about we talk about how special America is, that we — only we have these capabilities? I think it's too much to ask, unfortunately, for the fake news.”

The CNN report, based on a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, suggested the strikes did not hit all of their targets and likely only set Tehran’s nuclear program back months, rather than the originally claimed “obliteration.”

The report’s accuracy has been contested by members of Trump’s administration, including an alternative assessment, also covered by CNN, by CIA Director John Ratcliffe on Wednesday.

“Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons,” Hegseth said. “Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also challenged the DIA report and intent of the reporters, saying on Wednesday, “the leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program.”

Trump demanded an apology.

“FAKE NEWS REPORTERS FROM CNN & THE NEW YORK TIMES SHOULD BE FIRED, IMMEDIATELY!!! BAD PEOPLE WITH EVIL INTENTIONS!!!” chided Trump, adding “the Fake News should fire everyone involved in this Witch Hunt, and apologize to our great warriors, and everyone else!”

As a strategy to rebuff challenges to its claims of “mission accomplished,” the Trump administration is sprinkling in suggestions that those who don’t trust the administration’s judgment are un-American or are somehow insulting the pilots who ran the mission themselves. But this isn’t new.

“Hegemonic discourse framed troop support as support for the mission of the (Iraq) War. The rhetorical phrase ‘support the troops’ is found on a variety of publicly available White House documents regarding the Iraq War, including budget requests that encouraged Congress to approve ad-hoc funding for the war,” claims Dr. Lisa A. Leitz, professor and chair of the Department of Peace Studies at Chapman University.

She adds, “This rhetoric intensified during the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. For example, a widely distributed Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign advertisement characterized Sen. Kerry’s vote against continued war funding as a vote “against funding our soldiers.”


Top photo credit: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine (DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)
Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.