WaPo: 1 - NY Times: 0

What's going on with Iran today, and are readers of the New York Times getting the reportorial shaft? WaPo's above-the-fold lead is Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer's richly-sourced story on Iran's attempts to open direct talks with the United States on its nuclear program, a result of a "profound change in its political orthodoxy." Not only are these overtures sanctioned at the highest levels of Iran's religious and poltical hierarchy, the article makes clear, but are being sent through a variety of diplomatic channels around the world, are buttressed by similar requests to our European allies, and are privately supported by a variety of U.S. government officials, who are working overtime to convince the Bush cabinet to take this moment seriously.

Which makes the Times' silence on the subject that much more contemptible. A quick browse to today's World News/Middle East section of the Times' website yields these stories on Iran:

Iran Shuts Down Newspaper over Cartoon
Iran: Gulf States Want Talks on Nuclear Plans
Concern in Iran after a Scholar is Held 3 Weeks
Western Powers Disagree on Some Elements of Iran Proposal

A buried story about the diplomatic flurry, a quick AP piece called "Diplomats Meet in London on Iran" makes no mention of the revolution in Iran's diplomatic behavior toward the United States.

The irony of the Times' studied ignorance of the political sea-changes going on in Iran is that there is a case to be made that the invasion of Iraq has made the U.S. threat of force with respect to Iran that much more credible; that Iran is sincerely scared in a way that could only have been achieved with the Iraq invasion; and that only a muscular, "forward-leaning" America has the ability to remake global security in a manner of its choosing.

This, of course, is the public face of the neoconservative agenda, the bold-faced type in the talking points. One would think that the Times would leap on the chance to vindicate its previous reporting, and that the Bush administration would seize on Iran's behavior over the past couple of weeks as a way of buttressing its strategic authority. So why do both George W. Bush and the New York Times dismiss Iran's overtures as "posturing", or simply make no comment? As far as I can tell, the Times has published zero editorials on the subject since the letter from President Ahmadinejad to President Bush was made public, while WaPo has printed at least two op-eds urging the U.S. to drop the silent treatment, in addition to its excellent reporting on the subject.

(h/t to Vahid Brown.)