Springtime For Hitler

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world. The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Iran's "World Without Zionism" conference

"Let me first say good morning to the viewers all over the states and let me tell them we have spring weather in Iran. I hope it will be spring all over the world."
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Diane Sawyer

Last week, Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer interviewed notorious Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, the subject of profound international consternation over his uranium-enrichment efforts, did his best to allay the world's fears regarding his motivations. "We are opposed to any kind of conflict," he proclaimed, "and, as we have said repeatedly, we think that world problems can be solved through dialogue, the use of logic, and a sense of friendship." He then confirmed that he was "often in tears" over the suffering of innocent Iraqis, Palestinians, and even Americans. His public-relations effort paid off: Sawyer subsequently described him as "dramatically sympathetic."

Sawyer's experience parallels that of former CBS correspondent Mike Wallace, who, after interviewing Ahmadinejad last year, enthused, "He's an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He's obviously smart as hell. . . . I expected more of a firebrand. . . . He comes across as more rational than I had expected."

Well, it sounds like everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. Since Mahmoud can trim his beard, appear lucid, and speak for an hour without calling for the annihilation of Israel, then obviously he poses no threat to world peace. Sawyer and Wallace apparently believe that, since they trust Ahmadinejad, everyone else should too. After all, he comes across as "sympathetic" and "rational." So what if he denies the Holocaust and calls Israel a "disgraceful blot" that needs to be "wiped off the map"?

The media has clearly adopted an ideology which inhibits its capacity for sound judgment. In 1887, Lord Acton wrote that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Yet by the late 20th century, cultural emphasis had shifted from the dangers posed by power itself to the dangers posed by inequalities in the distribution of power. This shift replaced the traditional understanding that power inherently corrupts with a belief that power corrupts only in the hands of dominant political classes. Since the U.S. supposedly dominates the world, the revised paradigm prompts journalists to treat noble American intentions with skepticism while assuming the best about dubious foreign ambitions. At its worst, it inspires commentators to denounce the slightest American excess while justifying the most appalling abuses committed by opponents of the United States.

Iran has as much of a right to develop nuclear power - and nuclear weapons - as any nation does. But Iran's president does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, because, his Rasputin-like ability to transfix America's talking heads aside, he has left no doubt of which to offer him the benefit. He stands convicted by his own bellicose rhetoric, and no amount of postmodern political economy can exonerate him. His objectives do not merely herald a shift in the balance of power, they threaten a dangerous accumulation of power. If reporters genuinely feel torn between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush, then they should trust the man whom power has not had the opportunity to corrupt - in other words, neither of them.

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.