Predicting War: The Hill's Reliable 'Sources'
Retired Army General Jack Keane, a frequent guest on cable news, recently offered his foresight to The Hill, predicting 'formidable' US military strikes against Iran should a future Trump administration pull the trigger. According to Keane, such an action would be less about invasion and more about deterrence and punishing Iran’s government for its regional influence. This particular narrative has
a long shelf life. Keane, who advised George W. Bush on the Iraq War, has advocated military action against Iran for over two decades, consistently framing the Iranian government as an aggressor requiring US intervention. This counsel rings eerily similar to the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, where Washington Post and New York Times pieces amplified claims of WMDs based on similarly
'authoritative' sources, despite a complete lack of evidence later revealed. The media's consistent platforming of figures like Keane presents a double standard. While the Iranian government faces relentless pressure and sanctions, their strategic alliances, formed in response to foreign occupation and continuous regime-change threats since the 1953 CIA coup, are invariably labeled
'destabilizing.' This framing conveniently omits the US itself maintains over 750 foreign military bases globally and deployed 30,000 troops to the Middle East in 2019 alone, often portrayed as a stabilizing presence. Readers are left to discern whether such 'predictions' are objective analysis or carefully placed signals, preparing the public for potential escalations. The recurring pattern