Derision in the AP

WTF kind of headline is this?

Iran Rejects Derision of Leader’s Remarks

“Derision“?

“Contemptuous or jeering laughter; ridicule. 2. A state of being derided: The proposal was held in derision by members of the board.

“An object of ridicule; a laughingstock.”

The United Nations is being contemptuous or ridiculing Iran? This is derision?

The members of the Security Council condemn the remarks about Israel attributed to H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The members of the Security Council support the Secretary-General’s statement of 27 October noting that, under the United Nations Charter, all Members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.

I think this is the derision that the headline should be referring to:

“The statement by the president of the U.N. Security Council was proposed by the Zionist regime to close the eyes to its crimes and to change the facts, therefore it is not acceptable,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry said.

“Iran is loyal to its commitments based on the U.N. charter and it has never used or threatened to use force against any country,” the ministry added.

Let’s roll back the clock to Wednesday, shall we?

Referring to Palestinian suicide bomb attacks in Israel, Ahmadinejad said: “there is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.”

Now that’s derision. And it is not the first time a high-ranking Iranian threatened the destruction of Israel. A former president of Iran said nearly five years ago that a nuclear weapon would destroy Israel, but leave the Islamic world mostly intact. Rafsajani, by the way, is considered a moderate. Yes, a moderate.

It seems that both Iranian moderates and hardliners agree on something: The destruction of Israel. Color me unsurprised.