On Feb. 28, 2026, The Editorial Board of NYTimes warned that President Trump’s latest strike on Iran was reckless, unconstitutional, and strategically undefined. The board expressed concern for “the many innocent Iranians who have long suffered.”
Eleven days earlier, on Feb. 17, 2026, wrote something even more explosive:
“Israel’s far-right government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is spitting in America’s face and telling us it’s raining. It’s not raining. Bibi is playing both President Trump and American Jews for fools.”
Friedman was not questioning Israel’s right to defend itself. He was questioning whether American power was being drawn into a strategy shaped less by U.S. national interest and more by Israel’s domestic political calculus.
That distinction matters.
Iran as the Permanent External Threat
For over four decades, Iran has been under American sanctions. Since 1979, layers of financial, oil, trade, and banking restrictions have been imposed under successive administrations.
The justifications have varied:
- Nuclear development
- Missile expansion
- Regional militancy
- “Imminent threats”
Yet the pattern is consistent.
Sanctions intensify.
Hardliners consolidate.
The regime survives.
The people suffer.
The Iranian middle class has endured currency collapse, inflation spirals, medical import constraints, and chronic economic instability. Sanctions rarely topple ruling elites. They hollow out societies.
And still, the language persists:
We oppose the regime. We stand with the people.
Friedman’s Deeper Warning: The Internal Threat
In his Feb. 17 column, Friedman argued that focusing exclusively on Iran as an external threat ignores what he described as an internal threat within Israel itself under .
He wrote that Netanyahu has spent three years pursuing what critics call a “judicial coup” — an effort to weaken Israel’s Supreme Court and undermine separation of powers.
Friedman posed a simple question:
Is Iran responsible for that?
No.
Has Iran tried to purge Israel’s independent attorney general, ?
No.
But Netanyahu has.
According to Friedman, Baharav-Miara — backed by the Israeli Supreme Court — stands as one of the last institutional barriers to:
- The dismissal of Netanyahu’s corruption trial
- Politicization of civil service appointments
- A sweeping exemption from military service for ultra-Orthodox communities that sustain his governing coalition
And Friedman asks again:
Is Iran responsible for blocking an independent commission of inquiry into the intelligence failures preceding the Oct. 7 Hamas attack?
No.
But Netanyahu has resisted such scrutiny.
The implication is profound:
External threats can be used to divert attention from internal democratic erosion.
The Oct. 7 Context and Strategic Miscalculation
Friedman also argued that the devastating Oct. 7 attack occurred partly within a broader political strategy — one that attempted to demonstrate Israel could normalize relations with Arab states without resolving the Palestinian issue.
That assumption collapsed violently.
Yet even in the aftermath, Iran remains the dominant narrative focus in Washington.
The question is not whether Iran poses risks. It does.
The question is whether constant escalation with Iran serves American constitutional interests — or helps shield domestic political agendas elsewhere.
The Familiar Rhetoric of Regime Change
The United States has walked this path before.
Sanctions on were justified as pressure on dictatorship.
Intervention against was framed as humanitarian.
Isolation of was presented as moral necessity.
Each time, officials insisted:
Our quarrel is with the regime, not the people.
But history shows sanctions do not land on presidential palaces.
They land on:
- Pharmacies
- Salaries
- Savings accounts
- Food supply chains
They create slow-burn crises that outlast headlines.
Is This America’s War?
When U.S. military strikes align precisely with Israel’s confrontation with Iran, transparency becomes essential.
Is this primarily an American defensive action?
Or is it a regional war in which is the principal strategic actor and the United States the decisive force multiplier?
Friedman’s critique suggests that Washington must guard against being maneuvered — even by close allies — into conflicts that lack domestic consensus and constitutional grounding.
Congress alone has the authority to declare war.
Late-night video announcements are not substitutes for democratic deliberation.
The Sanctions Paradox
For forty years, sanctions have aimed to weaken the Iranian regime.
Yet regimes under siege often become more rigid, not less.
External pressure strengthens internal narratives of resistance.
Moderates are sidelined.
Nationalism intensifies.
Meanwhile, ordinary citizens absorb the shock.
If the editorial board expresses concern for “innocent Iranians,” then moral coherence demands acknowledging that decades of economic isolation helped shape that suffering.
The Larger Democratic Question
Friedman’s warning ultimately extends beyond Iran.
If an ally’s internal democratic institutions are under strain — if judicial independence is threatened, if accountability mechanisms are resisted — then escalating external conflict may obscure deeper instability.
Foreign policy should not become a shield for domestic political survival — whether in Washington or Jerusalem.
War must meet three tests:
- Constitutional legitimacy
- Strategic clarity
- Moral consistency
Without them, escalation becomes inertia.
The Cost That Lingers
Sanctions are quiet weapons.
They do not explode on camera.
They erode gradually.
A generation raised under permanent sanctions inherits distrust, economic fragility, and geopolitical resentment.
That legacy endures far longer than any administration.
A Necessary Honesty
If Iran’s nuclear program is the concern, diplomacy must be central.
If Israeli security is the driving priority, say so clearly.
If regime change is the aim, acknowledge the historical record of Iraq and Afghanistan.
But do not continue the ritual language:
We oppose the regime. We love the people.
Because people — in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria — are the ones who bear the accumulated cost of sanctions and war.
Friedman’s column was not anti-Israel.
It was anti-self-deception.
And perhaps that is the deeper issue.
When foreign policy becomes entangled with domestic political survival — anywhere — transparency collapses.
The American public deserves clarity before another generation inherits the consequences of a war they did not vote to begin.
Comments