WASHINGTON FREE BEACON:
.......-------------------------.......
President Donald Trump monitors Operation Epic Fury on Feb. 28, 2026. (White House)
A front-page piece from veteran New York Times White House and national security correspondent David Sanger, long the enforcer of Democratic foreign policy dogma, claims that military action against Iran is “the ultimate war of choice.” To support that claim, Sanger undercut a major report in the Times from late June (to which he “contributed reporting,” natch) that argued Operation Midnight Hammer failed to seriously set back Iran’s nuclear program. See, back then they claimed the bombing wasn’t successful, that Trump had failed to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Now, Sanger says Iran posed no imminent threat. It’s the latest example of the Times’s vast and unwieldy White House team writing contradictory attack articles. Free Beacon senior writer Ira Stoll writes:
Sanger writes that Trump “was not driven by an immediate threat. There was no race for a bomb. Iran is further from the capability to build a nuclear weapon today than it has been in several years, thanks largely to the success of the president’s previous strike on Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, in June.”
Now the Times wants to describe Trump’s previous strike as a “success.” Yet back in June 2025, the Times marshaled six of its biggest star bylines—plus “David E. Sanger contributed reporting”—for a front-page story claiming, “A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran set back the country’s nuclear program by only a few months, according to officials familiar with the findings. … The report also said that much of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material. Iran may have moved some of that to secret locations.” The Times is going to attack Trump whatever he does. In June 2025, they were saying that the Iranian nuclear program hadn’t really been obliterated. Now, they are criticizing Trump for unnecessarily attacking Iran, because after all, he had essentially obliterated the nuclear program the last time around.
Sanger also writes, “While Mr. Trump claimed Tehran was ultimately aiming to reach to the United States with its array of missiles, even his own Defense Intelligence Agency concluded last year that it would be a decade before Iran could get past the technological and production hurdles to produce a significant arsenal.” Yet Iran need not develop an intercontinental ballistic missile to hit America. It could send over a drone from Canada or Mexico or Cuba. It could launch a medium- or short-range missile from a boat or a submarine. Or it could use terrorists to deliver the blows.
Before the United States launched its preemptive attack, the New York Times was trying to panic readers about Iran’s capabilities against American targets. A Times article from February 22 was headlined, “Iran Could Direct Proxies to Attack U.S. Targets Abroad, Officials Warn.” A June 2025 article in the Times said, “Carlos Fernandez, a former senior F.B.I. agent in charge of New York’s counterterrorism division, said the agents had to take seriously the possibility of sleeper cells in the United States, especially since Iran has been accused of plotting to kill President Trump before the election and a human-rights activist in Brooklyn. Indeed, the bureau has also uncovered members of Hezbollah, who trained in Lebanon but then moved to the United States, where they were eventually arrested in Michigan and New York and charged with terrorism. ‘It’s very real,’ he said. ‘It’s a legitimate concern.’”
Stoll concludes: “The ‘choice’ made by Trump’s critics and Netanyahu’s is to leave that murderous Iranian regime in power while it gathers additional strength that it will use to kill more Americans than the many it already has. … If there’s a choice on this policy menu that was unnecessary, it was that prolonged denial, not the decision by Trump and Netanyahu, at long last, to seek a conclusive victory.”
READ MORE: ‘Unnecessary War of Choice’? Absolutely Not
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario