Why do so many Americans oppose the war against Iran?

        The biggest reason is that they do not believe Iran was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. If Iran was nowhere near a bomb, President Donald Trump's decision to use military force looks unnecessary, even reckless. But if Iran was close, as Trump claims, the debate changes dramatically.

        That is why NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's recent assessment should have been a major news story.

        During his June 24 Oval Office meeting with Trump, Rutte said: "This is, first of all, about the nuclear capability Iran was basically getting its hands on -- and that would have been a threat to the region. It would've been a threat to the whole world." The next day, Rutte was even more direct. "We know they were close," he said, while commending the United States "for making sure that the world stays safe from Iran with a nuclear capability."

        Rutte's statement does not, of course, establish as a matter of fact that Iran was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon, let alone how close. But it is unquestionably newsworthy that the secretary general of NATO assessed Iran's nuclear progress substantially the same way Trump did.

        Rutte's statement did not merely express the view that Iran should never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Nearly everyone says that. He offered an assessment of how close Iran was to acquiring nuclear capability -- and that assessment closely tracked Trump's own.

        Rutte is not a member of the Trump administration. His agreement therefore carried independent weight, even if critics believed his praise was tactical. The media need not endorse his judgment. They merely had to report it prominently and scrutinize it as they would any other significant claim. But they did not.

        The Associated Press focused heavily on Rutte's efforts to flatter and reassure Trump because he threatened to reduce America's military commitment to Europe. Reuters likewise described Rutte as using "flattery" to ease tensions over Iran and NATO. Those were legitimate news angles.

        But where was the comparable emphasis on Rutte's nuclear assessment?

        CBS reported on how Rutte praised Trump for setting back Iran's nuclear capabilities but did not highlight Rutte's far more consequential assessment that Iran was "basically getting its hands on" that capability. Similarly, a review of coverage by NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times found no prominent treatment of Rutte's explicit agreement with Trump on Iran's nuclear proximity.

        Suppose Rutte said Iran was nowhere close to obtaining nuclear capability, that Trump exaggerated the threat and that the war was unnecessary. It would have led broadcasts and been cited as independent proof that Trump misled the country.

        Imagine the headlines: "NATO Head Disputes Trump's Claim on Iran's Proximity to Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon"; "NATO Secretary General Undercuts Trump's Rationale for the Iran War"; or "NATO Leader Sides With Americans Who Question the Iran War."

        Instead, Rutte's assessment was overshadowed by stories about Trump's grievances with NATO and Rutte's conspicuous praise of the president. Was Rutte flattering Trump? Quite possibly. After all, Trump angrily criticized European allies for failing to join the military operation against Iran and raised the possibility of pulling American troops out of Europe.

        But that does not render Rutte's nuclear assessment unimportant.

        Whatever many in the media think about Trump's veracity, Rutte's comment is most certainly newsworthy and merited far more attention. Skeptical journalists could have quoted Rutte, offered evidence against his assessment and questioned whether he was merely currying favor.

        What they should not have done was treat the statement as though it barely mattered. And, days later, after Iran violated the ceasefire memorandum, Rutte again backed Trump by calling the renewed U.S. strikes "absolutely necessary."

        The war has damaged Trump's approval ratings. It has become increasingly likely that this conflict may drag on for some time, drive gas prices higher and risk more military casualties. The question remains: Is this a war worth fighting?

        Iran has shown time and again it is willing to kill its own people and allow them to suffer to allow its regime to remain in power. What would this regime do with nuclear weapons? Again, as to Iran's proximity to obtaining this nuclear capability, the NATO secretary general agrees with Trump.

        The public deserves to know about it.

        Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on X @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Editor's Note: We now have the room to run outside commentary by some of our favorite and most provocative thinkers on the Right. That only happens because of the support of our readers, who ensure that we have the resources to keep providing an independent platform and independent voices in a sea of Protection Racket Media domination.

Help us maintain that fight! Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.