Soccer Dad: Excusing extremism

November 4, 2005

Excusing extremism

In an editorial last week, the New York Times calls Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "A Demagogue in Iran" and criticizes him:

Such vicious blather against Israel is still prevalent, alas, across much of the Islamic world. But for some time now, it has been largely restricted to Islamic radicals and terrorists. Most Muslim leaders, even those openly hostile to Israel, have come to understand that openly calling for the obliteration of a nation is unacceptable in international discourse, not to mention dangerous, stupid and despicable. But not Mr. Ahmadinejad, the handpicked president of Iran's ruling clerics. At the United Nations last month, he spouted much the same kind of bile, establishing himself firmly as a demagogue.

The problem is that this isn't all the New York Times has been calling him. In any article I reviewed since his rise a half year ago he's regularly been referred to as a hard liner or conservative, but he's also been portrayed as being reasonable.

On the occasion of his first news conference on June 27, 2005, the Times reported in "Iran's New Leader Takes Tough Line, and Then Softens It
":

His pattern through much of the chaotic hourlong session, held in the city council chambers at the Tehran municipal building, was to first take a tough line, then quickly follow up with a modest offer of compromise.

On the nuclear issue, for example, he said Iran needed the technology and ''we will pursue it.'' But he immediately agreed to continue with negotiations, adding: ''If they have a reasonable approach, the Europeans are obligated to fulfill their promises. In that case we will reach a conclusion soon.'' He did not explain what he meant.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's seeming willingness to continue the negotiations suggests he is hewing more closely to the stance of the departing president, Mohammad Khatami, than to that of conservative members of Parliament who want to skip the talks altogether and start operations at a reactor that the United States and Europe fear could be used as part of a weapons program. Iran says the reactor, being built with Russian help, will be used for peaceful purposes.

First the reporter Michael Slackman talks about Ahmadinejad alternating his talk between tough talk and more moderate talk. This allows him to conclude that the new president is similar to the outgoing "moderate" Khatami. Never mind, of course, that his moderation doesn't sound very moderate at all. (It's up to the Europeans to be reasonable?)

The previous day, Times reporter, Nazila Fathi, wrote "Blacksmith's Son Emphasized His Modest Roots" that introduces us to Iran's new president with:

In choosing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian voters elevated a blacksmith's son who has made more of his modest background and frugal ways than his revolutionary credentials or political experience.

And except for a paragraph discussing fears that Ahmadinejad might increase religious and social repressions most of the article tries to portray his common touch.

During the campaign the Times carried an article, "Upstart in Iran Election Campaigns as Champion of Poor" on June 23, 2005 again the tone is:

But in his speeches as a candidate, Mr. Ahmadinejad, the mayor of Tehran, has attracted a following not with his talk of strict Islamic values but by presenting himself as a sort of Islamic Robin Hood, promising to strip away the power and privileges that have enriched a small segment of society and to distribute the nation's wealth to the poor.

At least an editorial a few days later "Iran's New President" raised an alarm about Ahmadinejad calling "radically conservative" (In Times Speak, "radical conservative" is the worst possible epithet.)

But that's greatly at odds with the tone of the reporting which tries to shine the soft white lights on a dangerous man. Of course many in the Middle East can count on the same treatment from American opinion makers, they know that their extremism will largely be ignored and they can say the darndest things and get them forgiven and forgotten. The response to to Ahmadinejad's behavior this past week is different because he crossed a line. Of course now he was only expressing what he always believed (something believed by his "intellectual reformist" predecessor too.) He'd just hadn't actually explicitly called for the destruction of Israel.

And of course that's the problem.

Let's go back to last week's editorial:

Most Muslim leaders, even those openly hostile to Israel, have come to understand that openly calling for the obliteration of a nation is unacceptable in international discourse ...

Yes it is, but only that is unacceptable. Euphemizing destruction of Israel, or excusing the hostility by adverstising it as "political" concern for the Palestinians is perfectly acceptable though. And many in the West will buttress that hostility by saying well until Israel is more flexible the Arab world has a point.

While the Times' recognition of Ahmadinejad's extremism is welcome, it unfortunately doesn't undo much of the encouragement the Times and other media outlets do to encourage extremists like him.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Iran, Ahmadinejad.