Much of the civilized world has condemned Iran for expressing its intention to destroy Israel. Charles Krauthammer of the and others have pointed out that the Iranian leader is a believer in a coming apocalypse, and that Shiite Islam has its own version of a messianic return, the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

There is one mosque and shrine that is the focus of these apocalyptic beliefs and Iran Shiites believe the missing Imam will return from this spot. The Iranian leader, upon his election, immediately gave 17 million dollars to this shrine to prepare for the Imam's return. This return is to be proceeded by much death and destruction — presumably a nuclear Armageddon. The Iranian leader has stated that this will occur in two years — coincidentally, after Iran is expected to have assembled a nuclear arsenal.

Even the so—called moderate ex—leader Akbah Rafsanjani openly bragged that one nuclear bomb would destroy Israel but that Iran, because of its size, would easily survive any counterattacks. That boast comes from a moderate—now an extremist is in charge. In Krauthammer's words:

So a Holocaust—denying, virulently anti—Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near but nearer than the next American presidential election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.

How does the New York Times report on a messianic extremist who is bent on developing nuclear weapons and who has openly proclaimed his desire to destroy Israel? Does the Times show any sensitivity toward its Jewish, and non—Jewish moral, readers? Does the Times cover, as have others (including the Washington Post), the apocalyptic passions that drive the Iranian leader? The same type of passion that drives homicide bombers?

No. The New York Times disparages these fears and casts and even recharacterizes these genocidal statements as mere politicking meant to unify the Iranian masses.

Since taking office, Mr. Ahmadinejad has had numerous problems, failing to deliver on his message of economic populism and to solidify the support of the conservatives who elected him, and of the clerics who supported him.

But he has worked aggressively to roll the clock back to the early days of the revolution. He has moved to erase the changes, especially in foreign policy, which evolved over eight years of rule by President Mohammad Khatami, seeking national unity through international isolation.

It is in this context, political analysts said, that the new president's comments about Israel should be viewed. [....]

Some Iranian analysts say that by increasing the world's hostility, Mr. Ahmadinejad is hoping to reproduce that sense of internal unity.

Iranian analysts say he is also trying to satisfy, and perhaps distract, supporters who have begun to feel disappointed that he has not provided financial relief. Throughout his campaign, Mr. Ahmadinejad promised to try to redistribute the nation's vast oil wealth.

"His comments are more for domestic consumption," said Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian political analyst. "He wants to control the domestic situation through isolating Iran. Then he can suppress the voices inside the country and control the situation."

Talk about dangerous euphemisms! I suppose they might have said the same during the 1930s about Hitler. Wait a minute! As a matter of fact, they did.

There has also been no editorial on the subject by the Times denouncing Iran. That would not be nuanced. They have called for Israel (and Pakistan and India) to give up their nuclear weapons as part of a deal with Iran.

Ed Lasky  12 21 05