The future of humanity itself is now hanging on decisions made by the global dictator now occupying the White House. Is this his opportunity to say to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “I’ve done your dirty work, now you must stop the genocide in Gaza, establish the Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries, dismantle your nuclear arsenal and we will all live in peace?”

That actually might make some sense. But no one now expects sense to be made in a world run by mad dictators.

Days before US President Donald Trump decided to fall into the role of the 21st century’s Adolf Hitler and solidify Netanyahu’s role as his Benito Mussolini, I attempted to get some clarification on the official cause of the war the new Mussolini and Hitler had launched via a coordinated Pearl Harbor-style attack on June 13.

On the fundamental argument used to justify the most desperate geopolitical decisions of the 21st century, I addressed the following prompt to ChatGPT.

“We hear it mentioned frequently that Iran wants to destroy Israel. But has that specific intention been explicitly stated or is it just politicians and journalists expressing an interpretation of the official intentions?”

ChatGPT obliged with this response.

“This is a crucial and often misunderstood topic. The claim that ‘Iran wants to destroy Israel’ is widely repeated in media and political discourse, but the basis for it deserves careful scrutiny.

1. Official Statements from Iranian Leaders

Iranian leaders, particularly Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have made numerous provocative and hostile statements about Israel over the years. However, whether these statements explicitly call for Israel’s destruction in a military sense is debatable and often hinges on translation and context.

Ahmadinejad’s 2005 Statement

The most cited example is Ahmadinejad’s 2005 statement, often reported in the West as calling for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map.’ This phrase became a media catchphrase, but the original Persian phrase

more literally translates to: ‘This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.’

This phrasing, while deeply hostile to the regime, can be interpreted as a political statement against Zionism or the Israeli government rather than a literal military threat to annihilate the country or its people. Even prominent Israeli figures and scholars, like former Mossad head Efraim Halevy and Middle East historian Juan Cole, have pointed out the nuances in that translation.

Khamenei’s Position

Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly referred to Israel as a ‘cancerous tumor’ and stated that it will not exist in the future. In 2015, he published a document titled ‘Palestine,’ in which he called for a ‘referendum among the indigenous population of Palestine, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians’ to determine the country’s future — implying a post-Zionist solution. He explicitly opposed the killing of Jews or military genocide, while continuing to advocate for the end of the Zionist regime.

So, the official line seems to envision the end of the Israeli state as a Zionist regime, but not necessarily through direct military destruction.

2. Rhetoric vs. Policy

There is a significant gap between rhetoric and actual policy:

• Iran supports Hezbollah and Palestinian factions opposed to Israel, clearly challenging Israeli interests.
• But Iran has never directly attacked Israel (except through proxy conflicts), despite decades of hostile rhetoric.
• Israeli military planners treat Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a strategic threat, but this is largely pre-emptive, based on perceived potential rather than declared intentions to launch nuclear attacks.

3. Interpretations and Media Framing

Western and Israeli politicians, particularly those favoring a hawkish stance on Iran, often summarize Iranian rhetoric as a desire to ‘destroy Israel’. This serves political goals: rallying public opinion, justifying defense budgets, and shaping foreign policy.

The media frequently echoes this interpretation without always exploring the original language or historical context, reinforcing the simplified narrative.

Summary:

• Iran has expressed hostile views toward Israel’s government and Zionism, calling for its end as a regime.
• Iranian leaders have not explicitly called for the mass killing of Israeli civilians or a military destruction of Israel.
• The phrase ‘destroy Israel’ is largely an interpretation of rhetorical, ideological, and geopolitical opposition, often amplified or simplified in media and political discourse.

If you’d like, I can show examples of key statements in Persian and English with annotations.”

I confirmed my interest in examining those examples. ChatGPT obliged.

“Great — let’s examine some key statements by Iranian leaders, focusing on original Persian phrasing, literal translation, and context, followed by interpretative notes.

🗣️ 1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005)

Original Persian (Oct 26, 2005):
«امام فرمود این رژیم اشغالگر قدس باید از صفحه روزگار محو شود.»

Literal Translation:
‘The Imam said: This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.’

Context:

·         He was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s revolutionary leader.

·         The statement came during a conference titled ‘The World Without Zionism.’

·         No military action was proposed; the focus was ideological opposition.

Interpretative Note:
The phrase ‘محو شود’ (maḥv haved) means ‘be erased’ or ‘vanish,’ but not necessarily by violence. Critics say the phrase suggests genocide; defenders argue it expresses a belief that the Israeli regime will collapse or be replaced, akin to the Soviet Union.

🗣️ 2. Ali Khamenei (Twitter post, 2014, and repeated in 2015 publication)

Original Persian:
«اسرائیل 25 سال آینده را نخواهد دید.»

Literal Translation:
‘Israel will not see the next 25 years.’

Context:

·         Tweeted in 2014 after Netanyahu warned against the Iran nuclear deal.

·         This statement was widely interpreted as a threat of destruction.

Interpretative Note:
Khamenei later clarified that he was referring to the demise of the Zionist regime, not the physical destruction of people. He wrote in his 2015 booklet ‘Palestine’ that armed resistance and a referendum among the indigenous population (including Jews) was the path forward.

🗣️ 3. Ali Khamenei, ‘Palestine’ (2015 Booklet)

Original Persian:
«ما راه‌حل مسئله فلسطین را جنگ نظامی نمی‌دانیم… ما پیشنهاد همه‌پرسی برای ساکنان اصلی سرزمین فلسطین داریم.»

Literal Translation:
‘We do not consider military war as the solution to the Palestine issue… We propose a referendum for the original inhabitants of Palestine.’

Interpretative Note:
Khamenei frames the issue as anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish. His vision appears to be post-Zionist — the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state, but not necessarily the elimination of its Jewish inhabitants.

🗣️ 4. Recurrent Metaphor: ‘Cancerous Tumor’

Original Persian (various speeches):
«رژیم صهیونیستی غده سرطانی است.»

Literal Translation:
‘The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor.’

Interpretative Note:

·         This metaphor is inflammatory and dehumanizing.

·         However, it targets Zionism, not Judaism.

·         It’s a metaphor often used to argue for ‘surgical removal’ (i.e., regime change), which leads to diverse interpretations, including military action or political isolation.

Summary Table

Conclusion:

Iran’s official rhetoric unequivocally rejects the legitimacy of the Israeli state as a Zionist project, but explicit calls for physical destruction or genocide are not found in the official language. The language is radical, ideological, and symbolic, but also strategically ambiguous, allowing room for both deniability and mobilization.

Would you like me to include references to Iranian media or political sources to back these translations further?”

I followed this up by the following prompt: “Iranian assemblies have quite often been seen chanting a phrase translated in English as ‘Death to Israel’ or ‘Death to Jews.’ Since the two ideas are very different, it’s important to understand which is the official chant shouted in the presence of politicians.”

“You’re absolutely right to draw a sharp distinction between ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to Jews’ — the two have radically different implications. Understanding the original Farsi phrases, their historical context, and how they’re used is essential for clarity.

✅ The Common Official Chant: ‘Marg bar Isra’il’ (مرگ بر اسرائیل)

Translation:
‘Death to Israel’ or more literally, ‘Death upon Israel.’

This is the standard phrase chanted in political demonstrations, Friday prayers, and official state gatherings, especially on occasions like Quds Day (Rooz-e Qods) and anniversaries of the revolution.

It is often chanted alongside:

·         “Marg bar Amrika” (مرگ بر آمریکا) — ‘Death to America’

·         “Marg bar Engelis” (مرگ بر انگلیس) — ‘Death to England’

⚠️ What About ‘Death to Jews’?

The phrase ‘Marg bar Yahud’ (مرگ بر یهود) — ‘Death to Jews’ — is not an official chant in Iran, and there is no documented case of it being used by top leadership in state-sanctioned settings. In fact:

• Iranian leaders, including Khamenei, have repeatedly said they distinguish between Zionism and Judaism.
• Iran has the largest Jewish population of any country in the Middle East outside Israel (roughly 8,000–10,000), and the Jewish community has a seat in Iran’s parliament.
• Khamenei’s office has published statements saying ‘We are not anti-Semitic’ and distinguishing Jews from the ‘usurping Zionist regime.’

📢 Examples from Public Events

In Friday sermons or protests, the chants typically go:

مرگ بر اسرائیل
مرگ بر آمریکا
مرگ بر انگلیس

These are coordinated and often encouraged by the regime, but they target states and governments, not peoples or religions per se.

📌 Summary

🧭 Conclusion

Iran’s government and official assemblies do chant ‘Death to Israel’, which is directed at the Zionist state and its policies — not at Jewish people as an ethnic or religious group. While the slogan is undeniably aggressive and symbolic of deep hostility, it is not the same as — nor does it include — a genocidal or anti-Semitic slogan like ‘Death to Jews.’”

My conclusions

I don’t know how many Western politicians and journalists I’ve heard in the past week explain the necessity to attack Iran and overthrow its regimes because it has threatened to destroy not just Israel but Jews. Many of them insist equally that once Iran destroys Israel with a newly acquired nuclear weapon it will go on to attack Europe and the US. Republican Ted Cruz, challenged by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson, was perhaps the most explicit and extreme: “That’s who Iran wants to kill, is all the Jews and all the Americans.” Earlier this year, Congressman Jared Moskowitz submitted a resolution affirming that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a credible threat to the United States and an existential threat to Israel and other allies and partners in the Middle East.” 

While it is legitimate to suspect a possible hidden intent behind any government’s or politician’s words, most of these commentators claim to know that intent, even when, like Cruz, they demonstrate their ignorance of the country, the population and its culture, a fact Carlson highlighted (“You don’t know the population of the country you seek to topple?”). For the past three and a half years, Western commentators and politicians have similarly produced endless accounts of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s never expressed intentions to recreate the Soviet empire and send his tanks through the streets of most European capitals.

If this wasn’t about justifying war — a potentially nuclear war in both cases — we might chalk up this kind of gratuitous invention of other people’s thought processes simply to these commentators’ and politicians’ taste for hyperbole. The media plays its own role in this tragicomedy, preferring alarmism to cold analysis.

It’s worth noting the title of an article published by The Guardian this weekend by Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz: “Iran is the enemy Netanyahu has always wanted to destroy. Even from their bomb shelters, most Israelis support his war.”

Before drawing conclusions about the designated enemy’s hidden intention, we need to ask ourselves, with a sense of objectivity: “Who wants to destroy whom?”

In times of war, it is usual, when asking this question, to reflect on who took the initiative in the race to destroy the other. What complicates this case is the fact that the initiators were both Israel and the US, who colluded on Israel’s June 13 attack and again on this weekend’s illegal act of war by the US. Shouting slogans calling for the death of another nation, as the Iranians have done for decades, is the emotional expression of an unrealistic wish. Dropping bombs and assassinating leaders is, quite simply, an act of massive destruction.

However one assesses the success or failure of Trump’s brazen attack, it is difficult to imagine that the rest of the world is not now convinced that both Israel and the US are definitive rogue states, and deserve to be treated as embarrassing pariahs by even those nations that have maintained the status of loyal allies.

The worst is yet to come.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com.  We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue. 

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.