Signal scandal: The risks of reducing US foreign policy to political messaging

The recent Signal scandal has exposed more than a breach of protocol. It has revealed a deeper problem in the way the United States justifies military action abroad. 

Senior US officials, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, reportedly used the encrypted messaging app to coordinate plans for strikes against the Houthis in Yemen. The discussion came to light after the Atlantic’s chief editor was inadvertently added to their group chat.

The use of a private messaging app to discuss such sensitive matters has raised the alarm in Washington, given the obvious national security implications. But what was even more concerning was the content of the conversations.

In one striking message, Hegseth advised Vice President JD Vance about how to frame the intervention for the public: “Nobody knows who the Houthis are - which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.” 

This wasn’t a strategic assessment. It was a messaging plan - one that sought to avoid explaining a complex foreign conflict, and instead lean on a familiar narrative.

This approach - distilling a multilayered geopolitical crisis into a blame game aimed at political rivals or foreign adversaries - is a recurring pattern in US foreign policy. Faced with a complicated situation, the impulse is to simplify: identify a clear enemy, draw a straight line of culpability, and rally public support through repetition, not reasoning.

For decades, US policymakers have relied on Iran as a kind of narrative linchpin. Iran’s role in the region is often invoked, frequently with minimal context, to explain instability or justify intervention. By pointing to Tehran as the orchestrator of unrest, the US avoids grappling with the internal dynamics of regional conflicts, or the consequences of its own policies.

Misleading narrative

This narrative is convenient, but it is also misleading. In the case of Yemen, the Houthi movement’s recent actions in the Red Sea - particularly their targeting of commercial shipping - were not simply the result of foreign sponsorship. 

They were a direct response to Israel’s decision to resume its war on Gaza and block humanitarian aid to the Palestinian enclave, violating a US-brokered ceasefire agreement with Hamas. This breach, part of a broader campaign that the International Court of Justice has acknowledged might plausibly constitute genocide, prompted the Houthis to take measures in solidarity with Palestinians. 

Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war

These developments unfolded independently of Tehran. Yet by flattening this context into a story of Iranian aggression, US officials obscure the actual triggers and motivations behind the escalation.

There is a long history of this kind of framing. In the post-9/11 lead-up to the Iraq War, tenuous links between Baghdad and al-Qaeda were used to justify an invasion. In recent years, Iran has frequently been portrayed as the singular source of instability in Lebanon, Syria and now Yemen - regardless of the distinct political, historical and social forces at play in each.

If the public isn't given the full picture, how can it make informed judgments about the policies carried out in its name?

The costs of this messaging strategy are serious. Firstly, it reinforces a cycle of confrontation. By treating Iran as a perennial antagonist, the US reduces the space for engagement, even when dialogue could yield results. 

History shows that diplomacy with Iran is both possible and productive. The 2015 nuclear agreement demonstrated that complex differences can be managed through negotiations, not just pressure.

Secondly, this narrative distorts public understanding. Hegseth’s blunt admission - that “nobody knows who the Houthis are” - underscores a larger trend: American officials too often exploit gaps in public knowledge, rather than seek to close them. 

This has a corrosive effect on democratic accountability. If the public isn’t given the full picture, how can it make informed judgments about the policies carried out in its name?

Far-reaching consequences

Finally, this messaging strategy increases the risk of grave miscalculations. When policy is shaped more by political messaging than strategic judgment, the US risks stumbling into actions with far-reaching consequences. 

Nowhere is this danger more evident than in discussions around Iran’s nuclear programme. A narrative-driven approach that frames every development through the lens of confrontation could ultimately push the US towards authorising a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

Such a move would likely trigger a broader regional conflict, eliminate remaining avenues for diplomacy, and set off a chain of events that could destabilise the Middle East for years to come. The costs of getting this wrong would be profound.

The US needs a more honest and nuanced approach to the Middle East. That starts with resisting the temptation to default to Iran as the convenient explanation for every crisis. Iran, like any regional power, has interests, allies and influence - but it is not the sole driver of instability, nor is every regional actor a proxy devoid of independent agency.

Instead of scapegoating, the US should focus on facts, pursue diplomacy where possible, and explain conflicts to the public with accuracy and depth. That includes acknowledging the complexity of actors like the Houthis, whose motivations may not align neatly with broader geopolitical narratives.

The Signal leak is a reminder of what happens when foreign policy is reduced to political messaging. It’s not just risky - it’s irresponsible. The American public deserves more than slogans. It deserves a foreign policy grounded in understanding, not oversimplification.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.