MADRID – A recent Washington Post editorial published a few days before Iran agreed to resume cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reflects a recurring narrative in Western media, but one far from providing a balanced and contextually nuanced analysis.

The Washington Post editorial titled “Iran is poking the bear again” fits within a long-standing discourse portraying Iran as an actor outside the international order, a “rogue state” whose sole behaviors are disobedience, sabotage, and threat. The piece suggests Iran is “inviting” more U.S. bombings, after its nuclear sites came under attack by American and Israeli forces back in June while it was in the middle of a diplomatic process with Washington, because it has suspended cooperation with the IAEA. 

While politically convenient for certain strategic interests, this construction oversimplifies and distorts reality, leaving out a more nuanced understanding.

The construction of the Iranian “other”: Beyond the stereotype

In dominant Western perception, Iran is the “other,” inevitably dangerous, an actor lacking legitimacy or validation for its security and development aspirations. This narrative ignores fundamental structural causes, such as the historical impact of Western interventions, the regional context of fierce rivalries, and, crucially, the unilateral actions of the United States and some allies that have shaped regional tensions.

This simplistic portrayal not only prevents a deep understanding of Iran’s motivations but also serves as an implicit justification for aggressive policies, from harsh economic sanctions to the use of military force. In many ways, the “other” is not merely a label: it is a discursive tool to obscure external responsibilities and build internal consensus around the “Iranian threat.”

The absence of serious analysis on the crisis after the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA

It is essential to remember that the current context stems directly from the U.S.’s unilateral decision to exit the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. This agreement represented a historic multilateral effort to contain nuclear proliferation and normalize relations between Iran and the West.
The editorial responds with a “blame Iran entirely” approach, ignoring the devastating impact of the U.S. withdrawal. The reimposition of severe sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and broader economy dealt a strategic blow, pushing Tehran to reconsider its cooperation and adopt assertive stances to protect its sovereignty.

From this perspective, Iran’s so-called “stubbornness” should be understood as the reaction of a state witnessing a principal interlocutor violate international agreements while applying unilateral economic and military pressure. The decline of mutual trust—unmentioned in the editorial—is the very breeding ground for the current escalation and suspicion surrounding the nuclear program.

Another particularly critical point omitted by the editorial is the paradox of U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities during ongoing negotiations. This action flagrantly contradicts the U.S. rhetoric of “willingness to engage” and reveals a diplomacy operating with simultaneous strategies of military pressure and formal dialogue.

Such double-dealing undermines trust and perpetuates a vicious cycle of mutual suspicion. Historically, U.S. diplomacy has often relied on superficial negotiations or broken promises, discouraging counterparts. A notable example was the mediation over the release of Eden Alexander, the Israeli-American soldier held by Hamas during the Gaza genocide; although concessions were agreed upon for his release, Washington failed to uphold its subsequent promises, undermining credibility and generating deep skepticism about the sincerity of its diplomatic commitments.

These practices of “pressure diplomacy and broken promises” have led Iran and other regional actors to adopt extreme caution, taking defensive or evasive positions in negotiations as a legitimate response to past experiences. Blaming Iran alone without recognizing this dynamic perpetuates a biased and ineffective view for conflict resolution.

Controlling Iranian Uranium 

The editorial uncritically endorses Western demands for full IAEA access and precise knowledge of Iran’s uranium locations. From Iran’s perspective, these demands raise justified concerns. There is fear that such information could be diverted for military purposes, particularly by Israel, a regional actor with a documented history of attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, sometimes based on intelligence provided by international agencies.

The IAEA has, at times, been viewed with suspicion in Iran for collaborating with Israel by sharing sensitive reports or locations that led to military operations. This history undermines the presumption of complete objectivity on the part of the IAEA and reinforces Iran’s cautious approach and desire to protect strategic data.

National sovereignty and security are legitimate rights of any state, particularly in a context of covert aggression. Consequently, insistence on exhaustive oversight without explicit and reciprocal guarantees is unilateral and obstructs the possibility of rebuilding trust.

The editorial also ignores that claims of U.S. airstrikes having completely or long-term destroyed Iran’s nuclear program were highly mediated and politicized. Expert and intelligence assessments later indicated that actual damage was limited and Iran could quickly resume essential capabilities—an assessment that led to the dismissal of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency chief for contradicting the official narrative.

The Iranian nuclear program must be understood primarily as an expression of strategic autonomy and national sovereignty. Beyond its civilian applications, Iran sees it as a tool to assert its right to decide on its own technological and energy development amid external pressures. Maintaining the nuclear energy cycle, including certain uranium reserves, reflects a desire to preserve independence and regional balance.

Furthermore, Iran’s limitation of inspector access following attacks on critical facilities should not be viewed merely as “subterfuge,” but as a defensive response to aggression that violated its sovereignty and threatened the security of its critical infrastructure.

Impact and contradictions of economic sanctions

The editorial acknowledges that sanctions have limited impact due to Iran’s economic cooperation with China and Russia but does not explore how these sanctions affect the civilian population or contribute to radicalizing positions rather than moderating them.

Economic sanctions, while designed as strategic pressure tools, tend to punish the most vulnerable indiscriminately and erode internal political dialogue. Ignoring this factor overlooks why Iranian resistance is not solely political but also social, rooted in the impulse to resist what is perceived as an economic and political encirclement aimed at subjugating a nation.

Given the complexity of the situation, it is clear that only through genuine diplomatic engagement—overcoming unilateralism and respecting the legitimate concerns of all parties—can a stable and lasting solution be achieved.

Iran’s nuclear program, while subject to legitimate scrutiny, must also be understood within the framework of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination. Demanding unconditional submission without tangible guarantees of non-aggression and mutual respect limits the prospects for rapprochement.

A realistic analysis must recognize that U.S. diplomacy has often been ambiguous and duplicitous, eroding trust, and that traditional pressure and multilateral sanction schemes without openness to justified concessions have proven ineffective at containing the conflict.

In attempting to present an “objective” overview, the Washington Post editorial reproduces a biased and simplistic narrative about Iran. It ignores that the current crisis results from a complex chain of decisions, errors, and unilateral actions, particularly the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and selective sanctions and military strikes.

Constructing Iran as the irrevocable enemy, while ignoring power dynamics, history, regional context, and Western actions that precipitated the crisis, lacks analytical rigor and frustrates any realistic prospects for resolution. Mutual distrust, fueled by contradictory diplomatic practices and disregard for Iranian sovereignty, cannot be overcome without a deep reevaluation of prevailing policies and narratives.

Ultimately, pursuing a policy that recognizes the legitimate interests and rights of all parties, restores channels of trust, and avoids military and economic escalation is the only way to stabilize a region that has suffered greatly and remains crucial for global security.