The 2003 invasion of Iraq was sold to Americans with a simple promise: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and the United States had to stop him before he used them. The evidence was shaky. The public was convinced anyway.
A new essay by Assal Rad, titled “How the American Media Manipulated the Public to Support War in Iraq,” argues that journalists did not hold power to account during the run-up to the war. Instead, they repeated the administration’s talking points, ignored expert warnings, and let the loudest voices belong to officials pushing for war. The result was a disaster that reshaped the Middle East and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
Rad argues that the media treated the Iraq war and the genocide in Gaza in much the same way, according to the essay. In both instances, Palestinians were stripped of their humanity to further the foreign policy aims of Western governments, with scant examination of the moral and legal ramifications.
The Case for Hindsight
People frequently say that hindsight is twenty-twenty. This saying implies we can judge past events more clearly once their results become known. The essay contends that no example illustrates this idea more than the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Two decades on, a strong agreement has taken hold that the war was a grave error in foreign policy. It began with the claim of national security, sold as a just mission to remove weapons of mass destruction and free Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s rule. Today, it is regarded as a prime example of how deceit, racism, and empire were dressed up for public approval.
The U.S. media served as willing accomplices.
Who Pushed for War
Experts, scholars, and millions of protesters around the world questioned the Bush administration’s push for war in Iraq and the expanding “war on terror.” They demanded evidence for the WMD claims, called out anti-Arab and anti-Muslim fearmongering used to demonize Iraq, and highlighted the likely humanitarian and geopolitical consequences of launching a preemptive war.
The voices that were mostly drowned out came from ordinary citizens who disagreed with the war. Instead, the loudest platforms belonged to government officials and pundits who made a case for war.
In September 2002, the former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared before the U.S. Congress to warn about Saddam Hussein’s aggressive development of WMDs. He pushed for preemptive U.S. strikes against Iraq and delivered what has become his most notorious statement: “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”.
A month prior to the invasion, in February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a dramatic presentation at the United Nations, citing mobile weapons labs and concealed stockpiles of WMDs as justification for war. Even with internal disagreement within the intelligence community and a glaring absence of hard evidence, the media offered little opposition to these claims.
The Media’s Role
After the invasion was already under way in July 2003, the British prime minister, Tony Blair, continued to insist that there was “absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes.”
Later, it became clear that the claims made by Powell’s statements, along with Netanyahu’s and Blair’s, were false. Powell himself admitted years after that his own statements were incorrect. By then, however, the harm had already occurred.
Ordinary Iraqi lives were broken apart when their country was invaded, yet no weapons were ever found.
More than 4,500 American soldiers died in Iraq, along with 179 British personnel. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives, whether from direct violence or indirect causes, while millions more were driven from their homes. The conflict disrupted the region, helped set the stage for the rise of ISIS, and unleashed a wave of violence that persists today.
The Costs of War project at Brown University has estimated that up to 4.7 million people have perished in the Middle Eastern war zones since 9/11, with Iraqi casualties accounting for a large share of that total. Not a single person faced consequences. None of the Bush administration officials who pushed the war through false claims were punished. No journalists or editors who neglected their duties were reprimanded either.
What Explains the Gap
Polling from early 2003 showed that more than two-thirds of Americans falsely believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. A majority believed Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
These convictions did not arise naturally on their own. They came into existence through constant repetition, deliberate messaging, and media attention that repeated the administration’s statements instead of questioning them.
The essay makes the case that the media’s role in manufacturing consent for war goes beyond simple journalistic failure. It shows how firmly the media can be embedded within systems of power. As renowned scholars like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said have explained, Western media have long served not just to inform but to confirm the legitimacy of empire, particularly when that empire claims to operate under the banner of liberal democracy.
This phenomenon can be seen in the Iraq War, during which the U.S. media presented a story of a country acting in a kindly manner to help another.
The Absence of Accountability
The lack of accountability says something important about how healthy democracy is. There were no changes to how things run. Nobody who runs a publication lost their job. Nobody who appears on camera was punished.
Instead, it is true that several media figures who pushed for war ended up taking high-ranking positions at academic institutions, think tanks, and major news organizations.
The essay refrains from naming anyone except Netanyahu, Powell, and Blair. Yet the point remains plain: the system rewards those who serve power, even when that service rests upon falsehoods.
A Parallel to Gaza
The opening statement of the essay concerns Gaza, “The horrors that have been normalized in Gaza are the culmination of this long history of racism and injustice.”, and it is framed as a matter of fact rather than speculation.
The media’s handling of the invasion of Iraq resembles its present coverage of the genocide in Gaza, according to Rad. Palestinians have been stripped of their humanity, alongside the wider Arab and Muslim world, to suit the foreign policy goals of governments, all without raising questions about the moral or legal consequences.
The essay’s main assertion rests on a particular framing, and that framing is precisely what makes it most contested.
What Happens Next
The essay does not present answers. Instead, it provides a diagnosis: the press did not keep those in power under scrutiny during 2003, and the results were enormous.
The essay does not settle whether the same pattern is being repeated in how Gaza is now covered. It draws a direct parallel instead, with the horrors in Gaza standing as the end result of a long history of racism and injustice, just as the war in Iraq was the end result of media complicity.
The essay’s argument is strongest when it sticks to the record: Powell’s false claims, Netanyahu’s testimony, Blair’s insistence, the polling data, the Costs of War estimates. Its weakest moments come when it moves from describing what happened to prescribing what should happen next.
This piece serves as a reminder that journalism carries a civic duty to question authority rather than support it. The Iraq war was presented to Americans on the basis of a straightforward claim. The proof behind it was questionable. Yet the public accepted it regardless.
The essay does not argue that the media are broken. Its point is that the media hold great power, and that power can be employed to shape what people believe. When reporters simply echo the administration’s statements rather than question them, they wind up joining the very system they ought to be overseeing.
Comparison Table: Media Coverage of Two Conflicts
| Conflict | Key Figures | False Claims Made | Media Reaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invasion of Iraq (2003) | Colin Powell, Benjamin Netanyahu, Tony Blair | Mobile weapons labs, concealed WMD stockpiles, “no doubt” about finding WMDs | Little opposition to claims |
| Genocide in Gaza | — | — | Palestinians stripped of humanity, scant examination of moral/legal consequences |
Numbered List: Voices Overlooked During the Iraq Run-Up
- Experts demanding evidence for WMD claims
- Scholars calling out anti-Arab and anti-Muslim fearmongering
- Millions of protesters around the world questioning the war
- Ordinary citizens who disagreed with the war — their voices were mostly drowned out
- Government officials and pundits pushing for war — their voices dominated the platforms
Source material: “How the American Media Manipulated the Public to Support War in Iraq,” Literary Hub.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.