Nournews: The coordinated leak of a sensitive narrative from inside the White House by three major U.S. media outlets—The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and Axios—regarding the negative assessment of the highest-ranking U.S. military official on the consequences of a war with Iran is not merely a routine media event. Rather, it represents a “structural signal” within the U.S. decision-making system.
They quoted General Daniel Caine, the highest-ranking U.S. military official, as saying: “The U.S. military believes a war against Iran would be difficult and consequential.”
The simultaneity of these reports suggests that this should not be interpreted as an individual disagreement or a personal opinion. Instead, it indicates that part of the power structure is sending a message about the real costs of a military confrontation. Donald Trump’s hasty and emotional reaction further reinforces the perception that the issue concerns managing a potential rift within the U.S. ruling establishment.
In his recent post on Truth Social, Trump combined several key points: a complete denial of the reports, a direct attack on the media as “fake news,” an assertion that General Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “only knows victory,” an exaggeration of the capabilities of B-2 bombers, and an emphasis that “the final decision is mine.” This combination appears less like a firm readiness for war and more like an attempt to reclaim control of the narrative from institutions that are highlighting the costs of conflict. If the media assessment were entirely baseless, such a personal and extensive reaction would not have been necessary.
In the U.S. political system, targeted leaks usually occur when a faction within the power structure seeks to raise the political and social costs of a high-risk decision before it is made. When three credible media outlets quote the top military official saying that a war with Iran would be “difficult and far-reaching in its consequences,” the framing shifts from “the possibility of swift action” to “strategic and regional repercussions.” This shift directly constrains presidential maneuverability and signals to public opinion and Congress that a war scenario would neither be simple nor low-cost.
Meanwhile, reactions from figures close to Trump’s camp are also telling. Laura Loomer and Mark Levin angrily spoke of a “White House internal leak about Iran,” calling it a destructive act against the president. The significance of these reactions is that even within Trump’s loyal media circle, there is an acknowledgment that sensitive assessments from within the governing system have been leaked. When the notion of “leak” becomes prominent in the rhetoric of loyalists, it means the disagreement has moved from a hidden phase to a level requiring urgent management.
Another important point is Trump’s shift in tone toward the Iranian people. Steve Witkoff’s remark that the president was surprised that Iran is “not afraid” amounts to an admission of a deterrence challenge. A threat is effective only if the target believes it and takes its costs seriously. If the threat fails psychologically, the pressure tool erodes, and decision-makers feel compelled to escalate it. Trump’s tonal shift and implicit reference to harm to civilians fit within this framework—an attempt to shift pressure from the state to society.
Previously, Trump tried to distinguish between “the government” and “the people,” presenting himself as a supporter of the Iranian public. But in his recent message, by stating that if no deal is reached “the people will also suffer,” he extends the threat to society. This change is not accidental. When threats against the governing structure fail to produce the expected deterrence, pressure tools shift toward generating public fear and anxiety, assuming that a worried society will push its leadership toward concessions.
However, this approach involves a serious miscalculation. When an external threat approaches an “existential” level, historical experience shows that societal reactions do not necessarily translate into bottom-up pressure; rather, internal cohesion mechanisms often intensify.
Extending threats to the public can reduce previous constraints on responses and broaden the scope of retaliation. From this perspective, some U.S. military officials doubt the controllability of the consequences of war.
At the same time, the influence of narratives close to Benjamin Netanyahu on White House calculations is noteworthy. These narratives portray escalating pressure as a path to coercion or even collapse, without considering Iran’s logic of survival and structural responses. The result of such an approach is an escalation of threats to a level where the other side perceives them as existential, thereby maximizing its resistance capacity.
From a strategic standpoint, the main issue in launching a military strike on Iran is not U.S. hard power but the vast uncertainties of a regional war—one that could go beyond direct confrontation, spread to non-state actors, and expose U.S. and allied interests across a wide geography to danger. U.S. military officials are well aware that in such a scenario, even a tactical victory would not necessarily translate into strategic success.
Within game theory, the current situation can be seen as a moment when the credibility of threats is being tested. If a threat is not credible, the threatening actor must either escalate it or move toward negotiation. Trump’s sharp reaction and tonal shift indicate that he is trying to rebuild threat credibility; simultaneously, leaks and indirect military warnings have raised the costs of this path.
Taken together—the coordinated leaks, Trump’s hasty reaction, protests by his close media allies over the leaks, and the shift in threatening rhetoric toward the Iranian public—these developments indicate a real disagreement within the U.S. power structure over the risks and consequences of war. The key question is which logic will ultimately prevail in decision-making: the logic of rapid coercion pursued by extremist groups close to Israel, or the logic of caution in the face of a war with unpredictable scope and consequences.
NOURNEWS