Seems to me the article is skeptical that Netanyahu's claim is correct

The article appears to me to be reporting something factual, something that actually happened, something which is recorded on tape, something important that a leader of an important country did in fact say. I do not see the  editorial slant that you do. I do not see any claim or implication that Netanyahu’s assertion is either true or false. As I have already indicated, I believe that Netanyahu’s bragging that he is ultimately responsible for the U.S. taking an action which most U.S. political leaders, as well as the majority of U.S. citizens, plus most of our European allies, believe to have been a grievous mistake, is news.  Or at least should be. It reports what he actually said and adds just a bit of context. It does not suggest that he has or believes he has magical powers. That would be Trump. 

 Further, in an atmosphere where the news has since the election been ranting 24/7 about another country affecting our elections, maybe to the point of choosing our President, the fact that a leader of a different significant country claims to have directed an important foreign policy decision which only the winner of that election, Trump, would have taken, is worth reporting. Israel, whose population and leadership includes a great many people of Russian decent and heritage, are getting along just fine.  

 Israel is too important a consideration in U.S foreign policy and too important to U.S. internal politics for the two most influential newspapers in this country to fail to report that the leader of Israel claims he had the power, and that he did in fact exercise that power, to break an extremely important agreement between the U.S. and Iran. That is news that should be reported. That is true I believe even if you believe, and even if it is true, that Netanyahu is just blowing smoke to hype his own standing. Not reporting it is most assuredly an editorial decision and one I disagree with. My opinion is influenced by the belief that Israel and its American supporters who insist on American support for anything Israel does, those whose Jewish heritage make them ardent supporters of virtually anything Israel does, actually do have a lot of influence in U.S. politics and the resultant choices made by our government. 

And my searches show there was a lot of coverage in the U.S. media at the time Netanyahu made the speech that he claims--in the newly uncovered video--convinced Trump.

Every one of your links are almost three months old. They were all written before the decision to void the agreement was announced. Coverage of a speech given almost three months ago by Netanyahu does not, IMO, justify ignoring something significant he said on the subject a couple weeks ago but just  now revealed . 

And this article is along the lines of "oh look here's Bibi bullshitting to Likud about his magical influence again."

I do not see that editorial opinion expressed in the article. But even if it is a fact that Netanyahu was blowing smoke when he made the claim, [maybe it was  Sheldon Adelson who actually exercised the power] that smoke is significant and newsworthy. One way to spin the article differently than you do and beyond what it actually says, and to do so more accurately IMO, is to say that Netanyahu is on record claiming to actually have the power that Mearsheimer and Walt claimed for the Israeli lobby. Their claim made the news and inspired a lot of passionate debate because it is an important subject for those who think that the U.S government should put U.S. interests first.  

You say after quoting my initial comment, "... and you're suggesting I'm the one being snarky or facetious by being reactive to that."  How could I have been suggesting that you are "the one" being snarky?  I of course read that as you accusing me of being snarky and/or facetious and you being offended by it or at least throwing out an insupportable put down. If we agree that "snark" is mocking irreverence then I  agree that my reference to Israel as having a special relationship to the U.S. is in fact snark but I would go on to say that it is a pretty mild example of snark with mountains of evidence to back up its intent which is to point out the obvious fact that Israel has a "special relationship" with the United States. The snark in my comment was referencing a term used often to describe our relationship with England.  I could not possibly have been suggesting that "you" were being snarky because I did not mention you at all and you had not yet registered a reply to what I had posted and commented on.  So, I can only conclude that it is my less than reverent  mention of Israel in context of American foreign relations that is snark that is offensive to you, that it pisses you off, and you object to me expressing it here at dag.

 Maybe/probably, my sin by your lights was compounded by my suggesting that the NYT and WAPO made a politically motivated editorial decision to not mention, that is to not inform the American public of the news, that the Leader of Israel claims to have, not just with his public statements but also during his several private meetings, exercised his unique power to convince Trump to make a decision that went against the advice of his top 'American' advisers, most of his Cabinet, many elected Republicans, almost every elected Democrat, all of our European allies and friends, and a strong majority of the American people, plus every other clear thinking, well informed, non-politically-twisted person on planet earth . That sort of perverse influence by any other foreign leader on any other subject is certainly and correctly considered to be news and that statement is certainly not just my opinion.

 Sorry but tough luck if either  of my suppositions is the case. Of course, as always, I invite you to explain to me or correct me if I am wrong, or if I have mistakenly misrepresented your position.  That could turn into something like having a conversation about politics and the news of the day.