TEHRAN – The Washington Post’s November 15 editorial on the U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear sites claims to explain “America’s missing Iran strategy.” Yet what it truly reveals is the unsettling mindset that continues to drive U.S. policy in the region.

From the opening lines, the Post acknowledges that the bombings of Iranian territory were never solely about Iran. The paper notes that the attacks “sent a useful deterrence message to adversaries.” Washington’s strike on Iranian soil is openly justified as a warning to global rivals such as Russia and China. Iran is not treated as a sovereign state with its own rights and concerns, but as a geopolitical stage upon which the United States performs its demonstrations of power. 

Equally troubling is the tone of the piece. The Washington Post expresses unqualified support for U.S. and Israeli military action, describing the bombings as justified and even necessary, yet never pauses to consider the legal or moral implications of attacking another sovereign country. There is no reflection on international law, no acknowledgement of the human or political consequences, and not even a minimal attempt to justify the aggression that claimed the lives of at least 1,100 individuals from an ethical standpoint. Instead, Iran is depicted as the “belligerent” actor, while the states carrying out the airstrikes are framed as guardians of stability. This would question the independency of American media, even its most prestigious outlets, as they appear to be mere amplifiers of Washington’s security narrative.

The editorial further employs selective facts in a way that distorts the larger picture. It highlights Iran’s limited cooperation with the IAEA and the deepening of ties between Tehran and Beijing. But it omits the context that IAEA access was disrupted only after foreign military attacks, and that cooperation with China is neither illegal nor unusual for a country under intense Western sanctions. It also blames economic hardship in Iran on internal failings alone, without noting that sanctions imposed by the United States have deliberately targeted every segment of Iran’s economy. Perhaps the most unsettling of all is the editorial’s assertion that “there have been no negotiations with the U.S. since it bombed Iran,” completely ignoring the fact that U.S. stopped the diplomatic process by “bombing” Iran. Tehran participated in five rounds of indirect nuclear talks with the U.S. in April and June. These Omani-mediated discussions were slated to continue with a sixth session in Muscat before Israel and the U.S. launched the 12-day war that President Trump boasted of being “very much in charge of.”

The proposed solution of the editorial is also a farcical claim: maintain overwhelming military pressure, intensify sanctions, and then pursue negotiations from a position of strength. This is not diplomacy in any meaningful sense of the word. This is coercion, the same “Peace through Strength” doctrine that Donald Trump’s administration has embraced. It is a process in which one side is expected to come to the table weakened, economically strangled, and fearful, and then sign a document already written in Washington. 

Iran has repeatedly declared its readiness for genuine dialogue. But genuine dialogue cannot occur under bombardment, economic siege, or threats of future attacks. Iranian officials have repeatedly asserted that Iran is ready to negotiate if there are reasonable demands being made from the other parties. Ultimately, so long as diplomacy is defined by coercion rather than mutual respect, no negotiation can be considered as genuine. 

Equally overlooked is a fundamental fact: Iran has never pursued a nuclear weapon. This reality has been affirmed even by the IAEA. Yet the allegation continues to be recycled, including in the Washington Post editorial, as a convenient pretext for pressure and escalation. 

In the end, the Post claims the U.S. lacks a coherent strategy toward Iran, suggesting that the “credible threat of force” must remain central to its policy. Perhaps the problem is not merely strategy but honesty. If the U.S. is truly seeking stability, then basing diplomacy on intimidation will only deepen mistrust. A policy built on selective narratives, unexamined aggression, and demands for unilateral concessions cannot produce peace—only more confrontation.