So apparently the Israelis have had to walk back their claims about the "existential threat" from Iran's "nuclear weapons program"and admit that it isn't as "imminent" as they have been claiming it was for the last 20 years...and David Ignatius of the Washington Post is quick to protect their retreating flanks by spinning this as a case of Iran "blinking" in the nuclear standoff rather than just admitting that the Israelis were just wrong and lying all along.
The fact that Iran has all along said that it intended to make fuel plates, and that no one else claims Iran has even shown an interest in nuclear weapons in the first place, does not make any sort of impression on Ignatius. I mean, why bother with the factual information when the goal is to spin the issue as if Israel was right all along about the Iranian "nuclear threat" anyway?
Apparently David Ignatius is in the business of post-facto justification of what turn out to be false claims about exaggerated Iranian "threats", and his trick is to say that the claims about the threats were right all along, but the reason why these threats never came to fruition is that Iran somehow backed down from them. That, ladies and gents, is what a propagandist does, not a reporter. It is called spin.
On a related note: I guess Netanyahu's embarrassing performance before the UN with his silly cartoon bomb has caused a set-back to the Israeli campaign of scaremongering so they're changing the time frame for the alleged Iranian nukes. Though, Netanyahu himself shows no sign of ending the gaffes. Today, he claimed that an Israeli attack on Iran would help the Arabs. You know, because Netanyahu is all about helping the Arabs.