Grammar as Propaganda

"Building this tower is working! Why would you stop?" Pieter Bruegel the elder, 1563, via Wikipedia.

National Review night manager Jim Geraghty doing some sweeping while the TV's on:

Notice Sanders talks about the awesome power of sanctions, and then applauds a deal that takes away sanctions on Iran. The sanctions were working. 

They're very fond of saying this, and it's an interesting case of a bit of English grammar being used to smear grease all over the window so we can't see what they're doing in there.

What does it mean to say "the sanctions were working"? The link they provide, to an article by Suzanne Maloney at Markaz, the Brookings Institution Middle East blog,  March 2014 and about how sanctions against Russia over the Crimea seizure might not "work", is pretty clear:

Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran's political elites against the country's creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions. 

That is, the international sanctions on Iran were aimed at bringing about an agreement. At the time Maloney was writing, they were working (progressive aspect on the verb, designating an ongoing and unfinished action)—they were bringing about an agreement. (Funnily enough, rightwing and pro-Likud outlets were all about claiming how the Iran sanctions were not working over the past year or so, and still are, as a quick Google search demonstrates.) Subsequently, they worked (perfective aspect on the verb, designating in this case an action that has achieved its goal): six weeks ago, the deal was completed. The purpose of the sanctions was accomplished, the awesome power of sanctions was demonstrated, their job was done.

"That oncologist talks about the awesome power of radiation, and then applauds the doctors' decision to stop it. The radiation was working!" No, you want to use these means to kill the cancer, and then stop. If you're using it to kill the patient, you're doing it wrong.

But I'm amazed by the economy with which Geraghty (and the rest of the noise machine) make the obfuscation, with a simple shift in the verb, making a statement that is in and of itself more or less true but with a completely false implication.