If there were ever going to be an apology tour, this would be the moment.

For months, the dominant narrative across large segments of Western media, policy circles, and expert commentary was unambiguous: the threat from Iran was overstated, escalation warnings were alarmist, and Tehran’s capabilities were being exaggerated, particularly by Israel and those who took its assessments seriously. The assumption, often unstated but widely shared, was that Iran remained a regional actor with limited reach and manageable ambitions.

That assumption shaped what was taken seriously and what was dismissed.

Warnings about expanding missile ranges and evolving capabilities were frequently treated as speculative or politically motivated. Claims that minimized the threat were accepted with relatively little scrutiny, while concerns that pointed in the opposite direction were framed as exaggeration. The burden of proof, in practice, fell unevenly. Those warning of danger were required to clear a higher evidentiary bar than those dismissing it.

“The burden of proof, in practice, fell unevenly.”

That asymmetry was not just rhetorical. It influenced how risk was understood.

What has........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)