Two weeks into Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. military campaign against Iran, a peculiar situation has emerged: journalists are being allowed into Pentagon briefing rooms, but not in the way press freedom advocates might expect.
The Defence Department has barred photographers from the last two Pentagon briefings on the Iran conflict after images of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth deemed "unflattering" were published. The Pentagon's official explanation blamed space constraints, but sources familiar with the decision told the Washington Post otherwise. In an era when the government routinely restricts battlefield information to strategically released videos and tweets, it seems almost quaint that a military official would be concerned about photography. Yet here we are.
The broader problem, however, runs deeper than vanity. According to CNN's analysis of the Pentagon's conduct, military beat reporters say they are not receiving the level of detail once standard in wartime briefings. "In ordinary war times," one unnamed Pentagon correspondent said, "we would be getting briefings once or twice a day going into minute details about how the war was evolving." Instead, military operations are announced via social media, with no mechanism for journalists to follow up with clarifying questions.
The strategic choice of who gets to speak
There is a deeper institutional question at work here. Defence Secretary Hegseth has shown a pattern of controlling which outlets receive access. When NBC tried to ask a question at one briefing, Hegseth openly criticised the network. On Wednesday of the previous week, he called on just one traditional news outlet: the BBC. The Washington Post, the New York Times and Associated Press all found themselves effectively sidelined, unable to press the Defence Secretary on details that a functioning press corps considers essential.
Contrast this with statements the Defence Secretary has made publicly. Hegseth said Iran's supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is "wounded and likely disfigured" during a Pentagon briefing that was at times combative and defensive in tone. "His father dead, he's scared. He's injured, he's on the run, he lacks legitimacy," Hegseth added. These are serious military and intelligence claims. A competent press corps deserves the chance to ask: On what basis? What is the evidence? What are the implications if this assessment is wrong?
Instead, such statements land in a controlled environment where follow-up is discouraged.
Shifting timelines and the rhetoric of certainty
One pattern stands out when reviewing Hegseth's public comments: the timeline for the conflict keeps shifting. Early assessments suggested three to five weeks. Later, Hegseth suggested it could extend to eight weeks. Most recently, he has deferred all judgement to President Trump, saying the pace and duration are Trump's to decide.
This is not necessarily dishonesty; military operations are inherently unpredictable. But it does raise a legitimate question about institutional accountability. If Defence officials initially projected three weeks and the conflict extends to three months, voters deserve to know whether that reflected a miscalculation, changed circumstances, or simply an overconfident initial assessment.
The rhetoric surrounding the campaign has also shifted markedly. Hegseth told reporters: "We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies." Legal experts, including scholars at New York University and Human Rights Watch, have flagged this language as potentially violating international humanitarian law, which explicitly prohibits threats of "no quarter." Hegseth has not walked back these remarks or offered clarification.
The oil market miscalculation
Perhaps the most telling sign that this conflict was poorly planned lies in what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz. If the United States assumed, before attacking Iran, that the major oil producer would be reluctant to close the Strait of Hormuz for fear of blocking its own oil exports, it miscalculated. Traffic through the strait, through which a fifth of the world's oil output normally flows, has been severely curtailed since the start of the latest Middle East conflict two weeks ago.
Yet Iran itself has continued exporting at near pre-war volumes. Iran itself is shipping oil through the strait in almost the same volumes as before the war, earning the much-needed cash to sustain its economy and war effort. This suggests that the conflict's planners may have overestimated Iran's economic vulnerability and underestimated its willingness to disrupt global markets as leverage.
The economic impact has been immediate. Oil prices soared above $100 per barrel from a pre-war price of about $65. A barrel of Brent crude, the international benchmark, was up 2.5 percent at $105.70 on Monday. That is more than 40 percent higher than before the war began on February 28.
What transparency would require
Strip away the talking points and what remains is a straightforward question: Why should citizens accept wartime restrictions on press access that exceed what was standard practice in previous conflicts? The Pentagon's stated rationale about floor space is not credible. The control of which outlets receive questions is inconsistent with the values of a representative democracy.
This does not mean Defence officials must answer every question or reveal every operational detail. Military secrecy has legitimate purposes. But there is a difference between necessary secrecy and control of messaging, and between controlling operations and controlling the narrative around them.
A robust press corps, allowed to ask follow-up questions and challenge inconsistencies, serves everyone's interests. It would force clarity about military objectives, timelines and contingencies. It would create accountability if those objectives prove unrealistic. And it would provide the public with the information they need to form judgments about whether this campaign is justified and whether it is being prosecuted competently.
Two weeks in, we do not yet have that accounting. Whether that is by design or accident, it deserves scrutiny.