It is funny how the press sometimes fetishizes "red lines" and sometimes doesn't.
In 2012, during the revolt against the Assad regime in Syria during the Arab Spring, Barak Obama was asked whether it would be a "red line" if Assad used chemical weapons to put down the revolt. He responded that yes, it would be a "red line" if chemical weapons were "moved around and utilized" and that would "change my calculus." That not very specific response to a question was taken by the press as a major policy statement by the President, and that further it was treated as if he specifically promised to invade Syria if chemical weapons were used there.
When a year later, Assad used chemical weapons against rebels and Obama was under tremendous pressure to immediately order a full-scale invasion of Syria, Instead, Russia got involved and brokered a deal that resulted in destruction of some, but not all, of Assad's chemical weapons. While to normal humans, getting Assad to give up some of its chemical weapons would count as an actual accomplishment and would fit the definition as a "change in [Obama's] calculus," because it was not a full-scale invasion, the press portrayed it almost universally as a Obama breaking his promise. Never mind that he never made a specific promise to invade invade. It was treated like he did. The blood-thirsty foreign correspondents seem to believe that "consequences" can only mean killing a ton of people. Every time Assad used chemical weapons after that, it was portrayed as evidence that Obama was "weak" for not buckling under the foreign press corps' immense pressure to start a new full-scale middle eastern war.
That's how it goes down when the imputed promise is to kill a bunch of Arabs. What about Biden's much more explicit "red line" that he would cut off weapons shipments to Israel if it invaded Rafah?
Seriously, while some bloggers may point out the contradiction, the mainstream press has completely lost interest in red lines. It's really weird after watching how important any vague line was to them during the Obama years.
Don't get me wrong, I sort of understand why Biden may have let this one go. The Democratic coalition is split on the Gaza conflict and he is afraid that an open conflict with Israel will fatally damage his coalition right before a close election. When you consider all the people who Israel has killed in Rafah, that calculation is ghoulish , but I at least understand where it is coming from. (Plus I'm actually hoping that it is just a political calculation because then maybe the administration will finally do something serious with Israel after the November election, or maybe a new Harris Administration will in January--which is still awful. How many civilians will be killed and maimed between now and then? But that is better than the alternative interpretation. The alternative interpretation, that the "red line" was bullshit all along and that Biden will back whatever atrocities Israel commits in Gaza, is so much worse).
But aside from the "what is Biden really thinking" question, this "red line" post is really about the press. Why were they so universally hard on Obama for not starting a new war, and so easy on Biden for not trying harder to stop one?
