The Wall Street Journal is facing sharp criticism for what commentators are calling a disingenuous takedown of Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent comments about the unpopular Iran war and its impact on the midterm elections. The Federalist published a scathing rebuttal to the WSJ editorial, accusing the paper of constructing a “patently absurd” argument that ignores basic realities about geopolitical awareness.
The WSJ’s Controversial Claim
In their editorial, the Journal suggested Vance had committed a grave error by publicly acknowledging the political toxicity of the ongoing Iran conflict. They argued his social media post “signals desperation to Iran’s regime” and undermines U.S. negotiating position. But as The Federalist points out, this assumes Iranian leadership lacks access to basic news sources that have been reporting on American war fatigue for months.
‘They’re Not Stupid’
Republican strategist Steve Cortes, who campaigned with Vance, dismissed the Journal’s premise outright. “The Iranian leadership is dangerous and even evil, but they’re not stupid,” Cortes told The Federalist. He noted that Tehran’s officials have demonstrated consistent awareness of U.S. public opinion through their rhetoric and negotiating tactics long before Vance’s post.
The Unasked Questions
The Federalist article highlights what it sees as the Journal’s glaring omission: any substantive discussion of how the Trump administration entered the conflict without clear objectives or proper public justification. The piece draws parallels to Colin Powell’s warnings about going to war without national consensus, suggesting the administration repeated past mistakes by downplaying the conflict’s duration and domestic impact.
Gas Price Promises Unfulfilled
Particular ire is directed at administration figures like Marc Thiessen who repeatedly assured Americans the war would be brief and gas price spikes temporary. “This’ll be over by August,” became a recurring promise that proved false, yet the Journal’s editorial completely sidesteps this history of misjudgment that contributed to voter backlash.
Immigration Rhetoric Called Out
The Federalist also takes aim at the Journal’s treatment of immigration issues, accusing them of uncritically accepting Democratic framing of routine enforcement as extreme. The article notes the stark contrast between current media portrayals of ICE and more favorable coverage during the Obama administration, suggesting a deliberate information operation to distort public perception.
Source: thefederalist.com โ https://thefederalist.com/2026/11/05/the-wall-street-journal-pretends-to-not-understand-j-d-vance-or-iran/