The Art of the Double Standard: When the 'Bombing' Narrative Shifts
The RT article quotes Abbas Araghchi stating that the U.S. “lost trust after it bombed Iran in the middle of negotiations.” This specific framing—a direct act of war during diplomacy—demands a closer look, especially given the timing of the interview (February 2026, though the article provides a future date, implying a hypothetical scenario or predictive analysis by RT). Records show no
widespread, acknowledged U.S. bombing of Iran during active negotiations, a fact that would undoubtedly lead global headlines if true. This isn't to dismiss any lower-level kinetic actions, but the term 'bombed' implies a significant military strike. First Instance: The 'Unprovoked Attack' Template The pattern of claiming 'unprovoked aggression' to justify a shift in stance is as old as diplomacy
itself. One notable instance is the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident . Despite later evidence suggesting the second alleged attack on U.S. destroyers never happened, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson used the narrative of unprovoked North Vietnamese aggression to secure congressional approval for widespread military escalation in Vietnam. This wasn't a bombing during negotiations, but a fabrication to
justify war. Repetitions: Creating a Pretext for Non-Compliance Fast forward to more recent history, and we see similar narrative construction. In 2003, the George W. Bush administration repeatedly emphasized Saddam Hussein’s alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism as an 'unprovoked threat' to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite ongoing UN inspections and diplomatic efforts. While not a 'bombing