The Art of the 'Good Start' and the Selective Outrage Machine
The Fox News report, citing an Iranian official, characterizes the recent indirect talks in Oman as having 'a good start.' This seemingly innocuous development reveals a profound and often unacknowledged double standard in how international diplomacy is framed. CASE A: Covert Diplomacy with Iran in 2024 : The recent Omani talks are reported with a tone of cautious optimism by participants, yet the
broader public discourse, particularly from hawkish media, remains relatively subdued. There's no immediate outcry of 'appeasement' or 'coddling the Iranian leadership' from the usual suspects that characterized previous rounds of engagement. The framing is functional, almost transactional. CASE B: Overt Negotiations with Iran around the JCPOA (2015) : The lead-up to and signing of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, which also involved high-level, albeit direct, negotiations, was met with vociferous opposition, particularly from the Republican party and allied media outlets. Then-President Obama's efforts were pilloried as 'the worst deal in history' ( Council on Foreign Relations, 2015 ), a 'surrender' to Iranian ambitions. The narrative was one of profound
strategic failure and moral compromise. THE FRAMING : In 2015, the narrative aggressively pushed by critics was that of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat (despite the UN's IAEA finding no evidence of a weapons program at the time of the deal), necessitating extreme caution and maximum pressure, not dialogue. Today, a 'good start' to talks is acceptable. The shift isn't about Iran's actions; it's