US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation alongside US Vice President JD Vance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, DC, US, June 21, 2025, following US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool

Taking 66 Americans hostage at the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Killing 258 Americans in three separate Beirut bombings in 1983. Killing 19 US Air Force servicemen in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Killing 603 US service members in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. Killing three Americans in Jordan in January 2024. Attempting to assassinate US President Donald Trump, and other high-ranking officials. Damaging the US embassy branch in Tel Aviv last week.

This is just a partial list of what the Islamic Republic of Iran has done to the United States since the regime came to power 46 years ago.

Nevertheless, since Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday night, leading media outlets in the US and around the world have reported that the US had no reason to get involved, other than to help Israel.

That’s factually false — not only because of the long history of Iranian aggression listed above, but because a nuclear Iran would pose a direct future threat not just to the so-called “Little Satan” in Israel, but also to “the Middle Satan” (Europe) and “the Big Satan,” the United States.

This narrative is dangerous. When Iran retaliates against the US, any American casualties will likely be blamed on Israel by those misled by a media that is reporting inaccurately and irresponsibly.

• The New York Times headline reads, “With Decision to Bomb Iran, Trump Injects US Into Middle East Conflict.” The truth is the Iranian regime injected the US into the conflict immediately when it took power, and it had nothing to do with Israel. The sub-head is even worse, with its claim that “the US has joined Israel’s war against the country.” Why does The New York Times get to decide that only Israel can be involved in stopping a maniacal regime from getting nukes?

Trump “Injects” US into “Israel’s war,” says @nytimes.

Instead of implying that this should have been Israel’s war alone, maybe the NYTimes should have paid more attention to the war that the Islamic Republic has been waging since 1979 against what it calls the “Great Satan.” pic.twitter.com/1Qy3Pw7n07

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 22, 2025

• The Associated Press headline is no better: “US Inserts Itself Into War Between Israel and Iran.” Foundation for Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz gave another reason why this is wrong on X: “Most don’t get this: Khamenei gave his nuclear weapons scientists permission — for the first time — to creep toward a warhead DURING talks with Trump & Witkoff. That was the tripwire. Crossed. Detected. Understood. The reason Israeli strikes began.”
• Reuters described “Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military campaign against its major rival Iran [as] a major escalation of the conflict [that also] risks opening a new era of instability in the Middle East.” Keep in mind, this was in a news article, not an analysis. This is the view of journalists Phil Stewart and Steve Holland, who think the move will cause instability in the same Middle East that has been through 625 days of war on seven fronts. Perhaps stopping a nuclear-armed regime whose proxies have destabilized the region for decades might actually increase stability, Phil and Steve?
• MSNBC columnist Nayyera Haq described “the volatile leaders of Iran or Israel” in speculating what might come next. But the democratically elected leaders of Israel are not morally or politically equivalent to the oppressive clerics and unelected strongmen of Iran. As Trump himself has noted, Iran had plenty of chances to avoid war.
• BBC’s Middle East bureau chief Jo Floto wrote: “If Netanyahu’s tone was triumphant, and the smile barely suppressed, it is hardly surprising. He has spent most of his political career obsessed with the threat he believes Iran poses to Israel.” But it isn’t just Netanyahu. Stopping Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is a consensus issue in Israel, not a personal “obsession.” Calling it that implies irrationality when the threat is existential. Floto also credited Netanyahu with “changing the mind of a U.S. president who campaigned against overseas military adventures,” ignoring Trump’s repeated public declarations that he would take any necessary action to stop Iran’s nuclearization.

Isn’t @BBCNews supposed to report impartially?

So why then is its Middle East bureau chief editorializing and barely hiding his contempt for Israel’s prime minister, who he believes has been “obsessed with the threat he believes Iran poses to Israel?” pic.twitter.com/LhfHakMBFU

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 22, 2025

These examples reflect a broader pattern of dishonest reporting on the US strike on Fordow. If this trend continues, there’s a serious risk that antisemites and anti-Israel extremists in the US will respond with violence, targeting American Jews for what was a legitimate decision by the president to defend his own country.

It’s not too late for the international press to course-correct — to report accurately, and place the attacks in their proper historical context — before false narratives ignite a wave of anti-Israel or antisemitic backlash at home.

The author is the Executive Director of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.