Spin Class Case Study: The Underpants Gnomes Theory of Foreign Policy
What we're not talking about when we talk about bombing Iran
There’s lots of great commentary out there about the MAGA/Iran hawk civil war, how Iran hawks are using FOX News to speak directly to Trump, etc. Rather than duplicate that, I want to talk about what we’re not hearing from the Trump administration as the world waits to see if the U.S. will enter yet another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.
Journalism has a bias towards covering action and planning, not the absence of action or planning. Under most contemporary journalism standards, it’s really, really hard for journalists to cover what leaders are NOT doing. This manifests in all sorts of asymmetric coverage that gives audiences skewed understandings not just of what’s happening, but how they should understand it, what its impacts could be, and what alternatives are being ignored or discarded.
One little case study: earlier this week Ron DeSantis chartered four planes to evacuate hundreds of Florida Birthright students visiting Israel. He also chartered planes to evacuate Floridians from Israel after October 7, but used this as an opportunity to trash the Biden administration for what he said was a lack of leadership. Now, the White House hasn’t said a word about the thousands of American citizens stranded in Israel, Iran, and neighboring countries - but it will not shock you that DeSantis has nothing to say about Trump’s silence, even though it’s FAR more dangerous for Americans in the region now than it was immediately after October 7. But that discrepancy isn’t being covered, because it’s about the absence of something (criticism of Trump), not the presence of it (criticism of Biden).
But let’s talk about the bigger thing missing in Trump's messaging on Iran: what a U.S. strike on Iran could actually do.
U.S.-Iran policy has long been afflicted with what I call the Underpants Gnomes Theory of foreign policy:
The Iran hawk version of Underpants Gnomes typically goes:
Bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and foment regime change through military force.
??
Iran no longer has a nuclear weapons program, and never will again.
The problem with the Underpants Gnomes Theory of Iran is that it’s missing literally every other input beyond U.S. (and Israeli) military intervention. It says nothing about the nuclear weapons knowledge Iran has already acquired, or their ability to procure additional materiel and support from other nuclear-armed states. It says nothing about the day after a forced regime change, and who fills that power vacuum. It says nothing about the Iranian people, and how to keep a country of 91 million souls from collapsing into a failed state. It says nothing about the precedent we’ve now created, where the U.S. and its allies unilaterally and openly execute another country’s political leadership.
Underpants Gnomes-ing Iran says nothing about the huge danger U.S. forces and diplomats across the Middle East now face, or how a protracted war with Iran would impact everything from countering terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS to our long-term focus on the Indo-Pacific and the PRC. Closer to home, it says nothing about the impacts on everyday Americans as gas prices rise and global financial markets are impacted.
If Israel hadn’t attacked Iran last Friday, no one in Washington (outside of a small backroom at Ned’s) would be talking about the U.S. attacking Iran today. But, again: that is the absence of something. And so, reporters struggle to cover it.
The point here isn’t to get into a back-and-forth on the merits of Iran policy. It’s to point out all the things that we’re NOT talking about right now, as political journalists are focused on the actions and words of a small group of elite politicians, who mostly only care about how tough they sound on FOX News.
Journalists cover the statements politicians make, not the questions they refuse to answer. That’s a problem in normal situations, but especially in foreign policy Underpants Gnomes scenarios where there’s such a clear lack of connection between action and outcome, or even an agreed-upon definition of what that ideal outcome actually is.
I’m old enough to remember when we had months of national conversation about the prospect of invading Iraq in 2003. Iraq then was a failed state compared to Iran today, which, like it or not, is a significant regional power and a major client state of our biggest geopolitical rivals. Supposedly, we learned from that time. You shouldn’t be able to yada-yada your way out of the prospect of attacking Iran in 2025. But that’s exactly what Trump is doing.
Notably, the White House Press Secretary hasn’t briefed the press since Israel attacked Iran last Friday. The Pentagon Press Secretary has never briefed the press, period.1 The State Department spokesperson is giving briefings that would make North Korean state news wince. Hegseth is only out for previously-scheduled Congressional hearings and softball FOX hits. By starving the political press of opportunities to question their logic and thinking, they’re making political reporters dance for scraps of Truth Social posts and inscrutable comments.
That strategy is being aided by a political press corps that is largely using their limited time with Trump to focus on the tactics and timing of his decision-making, mostly not asking the tough follow-up questions about strategy, what-ifs, and end game. When political journalists are focused on getting the scoop that Trump has made a decision, not on what the impacts of that decision could be, they’re forgetting all the hard-learned lessons of the post-9/11 era.
To be fair, this isn’t unique to Iran policy or even the Trump administration. Israel/Gaza policy has typically been covered as a horse race of daily actions and comments across multiple administrations, with little press focus on how a pre-October 7 two-state solution could actually be brought about or how post-October 7 Palestinian governance could actually be administered. Paradoxically, step-back and big picture impact foreign policy reporting is often easier when things are calmer. Reporters and policymakers alike will tell you it’s hard to think about the day after when the bombs are still going off.
Arguably the most important lessons of the post-9/11 era were about the dangers of Phase One of military intervention in a foreign country without considering Phase 2 - how to secure the peace, how to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, how to stabilize post-conflict populations, how to keep rogue actors from benefiting from the chaos. A generation of national security leaders learned those lessons the hard way. Most of them have been put out to pasture too soon and aren’t in a position to influence whatever Trump does next.
But the most influential political reporters covering DC today also learned those lessons as stringers in Baghdad, or embedded with troops in Kandahar. They have the opportunity to raise these tough questions and highlight the absence of answers from our leaders. They can break the mold and report on what’s not happening, what’s not being discussed or considered or planned for by the Trump Administration. But will they? So far, I’m not seeing it.
Underpants Gnomes thinking only works when no one says “hey, there’s nothing in the middle there.” Unfortunately - and unsurprisingly - we’re not seeing enough political reporting pointing out what Iran hawks and the Trump administration are missing when they talk about Iran.
Though given that she’s shockingly unqualified for her job and has a history of amplifying antisemitic comments, maybe that’s for the best.