"Iran's Attack on Israel Reveals New and Aggressive Regional Ambitions"

Uh...not convincing.

Could absolutely be true...but, well, here's a comment I've tried to post four times under the story, and it's been rejected each time:

A more objective story might at least have mentioned the possibility that Iran's actions are a result of greater desperation.

That's it. At least once word-for-word. Given reason for rejection:  "Does not align with our community guidelines." I've posted many more critical and controversial comments at WSJ. It's an obvious point. There's nothing in it that could plausibly be construed as outside the bounds of reasonable debate. And, after I posted it, I found one other commenter making basically the same point.

   Yeah, I know it's just AI that's rejecting it. Still, somewhat irritating.

   Look, I'd rather the war be going better. I have little confidence in Trump on this score. And I'm willing to believe that the attack has made things worse. I just don't buy that claim at this point. And I really am just pointing out that a likely explanation--in fact, probably the more likely explanation--goes unmentioned.

   In fact, two different versions of a reply to the other commentor making the same argument have now been rejected...

   Funny.