‘Old Grievances’; ABC, NBC Seethe Over Trump Attacking Iran ‘Without Evidence’ of Threats

Curtis Houck
March 2nd, 2026 2:48 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

On Monday morning, ABC and NBC both expressed fury at President Trump launching war against Iran — the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism — “without evidence” of a serious threat to the homeland and instead relying on “old grievances” against the Islamist regime from decades of Iran-backed deadly attacks on American soldiers.

In other words, the liberal media are still bummed their beloved Barack Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal was relegated to the dustbin of history.

ABC began spewing their drivel on Good Morning America with chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce — who was the Biden administration’s chief apple polisher — claiming “President Trump has yet to fully make the case for this war to the American people, even after American lives have been lost.”

“President Trump returning to Washington, ignoring questions from reporters after launching a new war with Iran. Instead, Trump stopping to inspect new statues of the Founding Fathers in the Rose Garden,” she complained.

Bruce further whined Trump “has yet to make a robust case for war to explain why Iran presented an imminent threat to the U.S.” and has “insist[ed], without evidence, that rebuild of their nuclear program was happening fast.”

She went onto gripe about Trump stopping into briefly greet attendees at a Friday night fundraiser, mention Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine was not in uniform overnight Friday, and tout “Democrats sounding the alarm” about this war as supposedly being illegal (click “expand”):

BRUCE: The President launched the operation from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, while nearby, Trump supporters gathered for a fundraiser. Trump dropping by to mingle with guests in this video, obtained by The Daily Mail before returning to the war room. Hours later, Trump, seen here watching the operation unfold alongside Chief of Staff Susie wiles CIA director John Ratcliffe and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, out of uniform, mapping out the strikes Trump now says the operation could last four to five weeks, but he did not seek congressional authorization for this campaign. Still, many top Republicans in Congress giving their seal of approval.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) [on NBC’s Meet the Press, 03/01/26]: The mothership of terrorism is sinking. The captain is dead

BRUCE: But other Republicans voicing concerns. Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky saying: “This is not America first. The Constitution requires a vote, and your representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.” Democrats sounding the alarm.

SENATOR ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA) [on ABC’s This Week, 03/01/26]: There was simply no basis to go in with this massive military campaign, with the goal of regime change.

BRUCE: Now, the administration is set to brief congressional leaders later today and the full congress tomorrow. But Democrats are demanding that this war be put to a vote. The House is expected to take up a war powers resolution later this week, but it is unlikely that will become law. Meanwhile, here at the White House, the President still has no plans to field questions from the press or formally address the nation to make his case for war[.]

Skipping ahead to the ABC News Special Report on a Pentagon briefing with Caine and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, there was more dismissals.

After contributor Steve Ganyard scoffed the entire confab was “short on details,” co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos dismissed the history of Iranian-backed terror as a lead-in to Bruce again reiterating her “without evidence” bit:

Chief foreign correspondent Ian Pannell touted the bluster from whatever remains of the Iranian regime as though they’re facts, triggering “concern” in the region:

It was at this time that, over on NBC, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel downplayed the rationale about the Iranian threat having lasted a whole generation as just “old grievances” from Hegseth:

Engel returned after President Trump’s remarks in the East Room at the onset of a Medal of Honor ceremony, telling senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson that Trump justified the military actions on the basis of “a theoretical threat...that if, in the future Iran were to expand its ballistic missile program, it could threaten the United States, and if Iran were able to develop a nuclear program accusing Iran of trying to reconstitute it.”

The other justification, Engel observed, was the wild oversimplification deployed a few hours prior: “So, he was talking about a theoretical future threat, and the rest was past grievances from the Iraq War.”

It’s a safe bet those who fought and bled in Iraq and/or knew someone who died there would consider what happened to be a “grievance.”

Back on ABC, Bruce and Pannell kicked more dirt the administration’s way with the former denouncing the lack of “evidence” to claim Iran has posed a threat to the United States considering what “sources” have told ABC.

As for the latter, he ripped the “no clear sense of mission objectives, how you measure success and how you get out of it and bring about peace.”

In contrast, CBS Mornings featured contributor Samantha Vinograd, who’s usually a rock-ribbed liberal partisan national security official given her time for both the Obama and Biden administrations, educated viewers on Iran’s decades of threats to Americans that span across the Atlantic to the homeland with cyber warfare a new front we can all be cognizant of:

Vinograd doubled down after both the Pentagon briefing and the President’s remarks. She also correctly explained no one should be making direct comparisons to Iraq or even Venezuela (click “expand”):

We did get some answers. We got some answers as to how this mission was executed. We got some answers on what they were targeting missile sites, the Iranian Navy, and ostensibly nuclear facilities as well. We left with a lot of questions. We have questions about why now. We did hear and we do know that Iran was rebuilding their ballistic missile capabilities, which do have the capability to strike not just in the Middle East, but also into Europe. What we don’t know is why now, whether there was some sort of intelligence or other indication that Iran was preparing to use those ballistic missiles against U.S. facilities or individuals in the region, and we’re walking away with a big question, a big question about how long this military conflict is going to go on. Right now, Iran is striking back with their ballistic missiles. They could turn to cyber capabilities or trying to leverage their proxies, not just the region but around the world. And what metrics for success are going to look like? I do think there was a degree of messaging here not just to the American people, but also to remnants of the Iranian regime that the administration is prepared to continue this operation for a long time and because of that any remnants of the regime should consider laying down their arms, working with the United States and more. I also think there was some conditioning for the American people that we are going to suffer more casualties and more fatalities. And I do think that the secretary of war and that the commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were trying to condition the American people, that there is going to be more loss in — in the days and weeks ahead.

(....)

Every war, every military operation, every country is different, so I don’t compare Venezuela to Iran to Iraq or elsewhere. What I am saying is that the President’s model has been and ostensibly in Cuba, this could be the same as well, not to wholly replace a government, but to try to work with individuals that were previously in power to maintain some level of stability while figuring out a plan for what comes next.

(....)

I do want to reassure our viewers that the U.S. government has been working for 47 years to defend the homeland from Iranian-backed threats. They are not starting from scratch. At the same time, the Iranian regime has effectively planted, recruited, and paid individuals here in the homeland to conduct acts of physical violence, against government officials, against entities and individuals affiliated with the state of Israel, the Jewish community, Iranian dissidents, and more, and outstanding question is whether they will turn to that, activating those proxies or surrogates or they’ll turn to another tactic, which they have heavily relied on recently, which is cyber operations against networks, against individuals, to embarrass them, to sway public perception.

(....)

They’ve meddled in our elections before. They have used influence operations before to try and shift public perceptions and sow discord, and, of course, have been involved in election interference as I mentioned. But we should also be aware of their capability to launch disruptive cyber attacks. And that’s why the U.S. government posture has been about partnerships. Partnerships with foreign intelligence service to try to make sure we don’t miss a threat, partnerships with businesses to build resilience to cyber intrusions, and partnerships with the public. All of our viewers need to know that they need to be on the look out right now, not just for physical threats, but — for effort by Iranian-backed proxies and individuals to try and infiltrate their cyber space.

To see the relevant ABC transcripts from March 2, click here, here, and here. To see the relevant NBC transcripts from March 2, click here and here. To see the relevant CBS transcripts from March 2, click here and here.

Donor Privacy Policy