The NYT and the IRG

The reported impending naming of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists has elicited much commentary in the media. Most outlets recognize the danger of the IRG and the need to deal with the group. The IRG are responsible for the death of many Americans, Iraqis, Iranians and Israelis.

This savage history does not seem to bother the New York Times, which runs an editorial  in today's paper criticizing the Administration for even thinking about listing the IRG as a terror group, disparaging such a move in an editorial titled "Amateur Hour on Iran."

For good measure, the Times also runs an op-ed that favors the selling of arms to Saudi Arabia. A paradox: the Times rarely finds an arms sale it approves of, nor an arms manufacturer that it does not hold in contempt. Yet when it comes to arming Israel's adversaries, the calculus seems to change.

This paradox is matched by the editorial that ran a few months ago criticizing the imposition of sanctions on oil companies doing business in Iran. Again, the paradox (as noted by Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto): the Times almost never runs editorials that favor oil companies. but when it comes to helping out an adversary of Israel....

The paradox reveals a double standard at work. This is a continuation of the New York Times' editorial policy outlined in this previous American Thinker article.
The reported impending naming of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists has elicited much commentary in the media. Most outlets recognize the danger of the IRG and the need to deal with the group. The IRG are responsible for the death of many Americans, Iraqis, Iranians and Israelis.

This savage history does not seem to bother the New York Times, which runs an editorial  in today's paper criticizing the Administration for even thinking about listing the IRG as a terror group, disparaging such a move in an editorial titled "Amateur Hour on Iran."

For good measure, the Times also runs an op-ed that favors the selling of arms to Saudi Arabia. A paradox: the Times rarely finds an arms sale it approves of, nor an arms manufacturer that it does not hold in contempt. Yet when it comes to arming Israel's adversaries, the calculus seems to change.

This paradox is matched by the editorial that ran a few months ago criticizing the imposition of sanctions on oil companies doing business in Iran. Again, the paradox (as noted by Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto): the Times almost never runs editorials that favor oil companies. but when it comes to helping out an adversary of Israel....

The paradox reveals a double standard at work. This is a continuation of the New York Times' editorial policy outlined in this previous American Thinker article.