That would be several stories in both the New York Times and the Washington Post over the last two days: Trump's policy against Iran is a great success and it is completely reasonable and justified. This reporting and columnizing has followed three tracks.
One was in a column yesterday in WaPo from Mark Thiessen of AEI, generally pro-Trump. His column was about how Trump in general doing well on foreign policy, although with no mention of the trade war. He did not spend much time on Iran, but it is a success, so obviously so it does not need much discussion. He fulfilled a campaign promise and showed he is strong, and of course it is so justified he did not waste time defending it. However, he made no comment on how Iran has responded to this supposedly gloriously successful policy, and in fact Iran has basically done nothing.
Anouher thrust in both papers have been reports of the release of the State Department's annual report on terrorism. As in past years the report again without question names Iran as the world's "leading state sponsor of terrorism," something that Trump and politicians of both parties have regularly repeated without a shred of embarrassment. Juan Cole points out several problems here. For starters, there is not a single terrorist act that happened last year (this report covers 2017) that can be blamed on Iran or any of the groups it supposedly supports. The single piece of evidence on Iran's supposed terrorist threat to the US is that in February two supposed Hezbullah "operatives" were arrested in Michigan. There is not even a claim that these "operatives" were even planning a terrorist act, much less actually carried out one. As Cole notes, Hezbullah is the dominant force in the Lebanese government, and it is well over a decade since anybody has tied that organization to an actual terrorist act. As it is, Cole notes that the report notes a 23% decline in terrorist acts from 2016 to 2017, with most of that due to a reduction of acts by ISIS in Iraq especially. Who helped shut down ISIS in Iraq? Iran-supported gropus, but the report fails to note that, just as it fails to note ongong Saudi support for terrorist actions.
The final thread showed up in a news report in the business section of the NY Times that can barely restrain itself from frothing at the mouth over how "successful" Trump's economic sanctions against Iran have been, and here we must grant that he has managed to get a lot of businesses to go along with withdrawing from Iran out of fear of retaliation from the US. Oil exports from Iran have fallen by nearly half and will fall further, but without oil and gasoline prices rising much. Success! Apparently 72 companies have decided to leave Iran, 19 have decided to stay, with 142 still undecided. Many of those 72 companies are from nations that oppose the US policy but have been unable to convince their own companies to stick with Iran. France's Total is a poster boy for this. Only China and Russia and their companies appear to be fully resisting the internationally illegal Trump policy.
Ironiccally this article even includes as part of Trump's ttriumph is that Iran is still adhering to the nuclear deal and has not moved to enriching lots of uranium again. Wow! What a triumph! Trump is successfully beating up on them and damaging their economy, but they continue not to obey the agreement. Hurray! But then it also gets quietly admitted that Iran is not doing anything else, reducing their aid for Syria, Hezbullah, and the Houthis in Yemen, not to mention shutting down their missile programs. Oh well, maybe you cannot win them all, but, wow! Trump is triumphing over the damaged Iranian economy and US car drivers are not suffering from higher gas prices! A triumph!