I got this excellent criticism from a thoughtful reader, and I think he’s right:

Mr. Ledeen: A severe case of over-reading on your part: 1. The editorial is entitled “Tougher on Iran”. 2. Right after the sentence you cite, the editorial says: “In response, the Bush administration is considering categorizing the Guard as a “specially designated global terrorist” organization under a post-Sept. 11 executive order aimed at blocking terrorists’ access to their assets. The measure is reportedly part of a package the administration is considering to increase pressure on Iran at a time when it is defying U.N. orders to freeze its nuclear program and is showing no hint of flexibility in talks with the United States and the European Union.” Once put into context – i.e., that the Bush Administration itself is categorizing the “Guard” as a bad actor, as part of its effort to put pressure in Iran, the sentence does not fit with your interpretation. 3. The article then says: “This seems to be the least the United States should be doing, given the soaring number of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq. What’s puzzling are the murmurs of disapproval from European diplomats and others who say they favor using diplomacy and economic pressure, rather than military action, to rein in Iran. So far, the diplomacy and sanctions haven’t been working: Iran has been unresponsive to extensive European deal-making efforts and hasn’t taken up a year-old U.S. offer of across-the-board negotiations in exchange for stopping its uranium enrichment. The sanctions have been too weak to cause the regime serious discomfort, and tougher measures are being blocked in the U.N. Security Council by China and Russia.” (Emphasis added.) 4. Finally, the editorial states: “Others suggest that the administration’s labeling of a principal arm of the Iranian regime as a terrorist group would contradict its recent embrace of bilateral talks with Tehran about Iraq. Yet that contradiction, if it exists, seems puny compared with that of a regime that participates in those discussions while escalating its surrogate war against American troops. If Iran chooses to fight as well as talk, the United States should not shrink from fighting back with all the economic weapons it can muster.” I don’t see how your interpretation fits at all with the column. There’s not a hint of wanting to make “nice” with the regime itself.

Sorry, WaPo, I owe you a beer.