The one-sided "experts" and anonymous sources of the @NYTimes ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Monday, February 23, 2026

The one-sided "experts" and anonymous sources of the @NYTimes

Iran Could Direct Proxies to Attack U.S. Targets Abroad, Officials Warn
Security officials are monitoring increasingly worrisome signs as President Trump considers another military campaign against Iran.

U.S. and other Western security officials say they are monitoring increasingly worrisome signs that Iran could direct proxies to conduct retaliatory terrorist attacks against American targets in Europe and the Middle East if President Trump orders large-scale strikes against Iran.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential intelligence assessments, say they have not yet detected any specific plots in the works. But they say heightened “chatter” — spy jargon for electronic intercepts of terrorists’ communications — indicates some level of attack planning and coordination.

Threats abound. There is concern among intelligence and counterterrorism officials that Tehran could enlist the Houthis in Yemen to resume attacks on Western shipping in the Red Sea. There is also concern in Europe that Hezbollah sleeper cells or even Al Qaeda or its affiliates could be ordered to attack American bases or embassies. One senior U.S. official said that government analysts were tracking “a lot” of activity and planning but that it was unclear what could trigger an attack.

“Iran can work through proxies to conduct terrorist attacks that will raise costs for any U.S. military campaign,” said Colin P. Clarke, the executive director of the Soufan Center, an intelligence and consulting firm in New York.

What, specifically, are the threats?

The anonymous sources, while described as senior officials, offer no concrete intelligence beyond "heightened chatter" - a term that routinely appears in counterterrorism reporting during any period of tensions. Terrorist networks discuss targets constantly; spikes in intercepts are expected whenever headlines feature American military posturing, inflammatory statements, or regional crises. Yet the article presents this as a novel, worrisome development tied specifically to potential strikes, without historical calibration or acknowledgment that such "chatter" is a background constant rather than a unique harbinger of Iran-directed retaliation.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with this specific article. It is appropriately restrained, it frames the potential repercussions as things that "could happen."

But as always, the question isn't what is being reported, but what isn't.

There were similar articles and expert warnings last June when the US was weighing whether to support Israel's attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure.

Like this:

“It is never too late not to start a war,” said Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, a think tank that advocates a restrained foreign policy. Ms. Kelanic acknowledged that Israel’s strike had given Iran an incentive to potentially develop a nuclear weapon. But she added that the incentive would “multiply dramatically if the United States joins the war.” “Once you get involved, man, it’s really hard to step back,” she said. “You are just going to go all in.”

Or this:

“Subcontracting the Fordo job would put the United States in Iran’s sights,” Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, and Steven N. Simon, a veteran of the National Security Council, wrote in Foreign Affairs on Wednesday. “Iran would almost certainly retaliate by killing American civilians. That, in turn, would compel the United States to reciprocate.”

“Soon enough,” they continued, “the only targets left for Washington to hit would be the Iranian regime’s leaders, and the United States would again go into the regime-change business — a business in which exceedingly few Americans want to be involved any longer.”

Has the NYT ever looked back on the track record of their experts to see if their predictions were accurate? Because in my experience, they rarely are.

Beyond that - do they ever quote experts who hold that there are greater benefits to military action than costs? Strikingly missing from all these articles is even the hint that attacking Iran would help its protesters. Or that it could weaken the Russia/China/North Korea axis. Or that it could hurt worldwide terrorist networks? Or hurt the Houthis in their reign of terror in Yemen? Or damage the the Shiite militias in Iraq? Or weaken Hezbollah, allowing Lebanon to rule its own country again?

And what, exactly, is the downside of wanting regime change? It is often not successful, to be sure, but if the Iranian people want to topple the regime - which they do - evening the playing field by attacking the IRGC ability to murder civilians would and should be a welcome development among those who claim to care about human rights. It wouldn't be the US installing a new regime, it would be the Iranian people.

Isn't that a good thing?

One may be tempted to think that the US military knows what it is doing a lot better than "experts" who do not have access to its capabilities and intelligence, as seen by the Maduro capture. To make sure you don't think so, the NYT has two nearly identical headlines three weeks apart to disavow you of thinking of that analogy.

I do not think the Trump administration has successfully described its strategy on Iran, and that is a problem. It is their job to tell the American people what its policy is, at least to the extent that it does not compromise strategy.

But any objective media source should look at both sides of the story as well, and it should evaluate its use of "experts" and anonymous sources and framing to ensure that its coverage is fair. When article after article only describes risks, without mentioning benefits or even how the US could counter the risks, moves from journalism to advocacy.

It might not violate the NYT's own journalistic standards. Each individual article in isolation is defensible. But it sure violates any trust that readers have that they are being told the entire story.