And by "Western" he means Americans and Netanyahu. France, Germany, Britain, etc are not mentioned. So what are those four ways? His first one is that "1. They want total victory. Anything less would be a disaster."
Adelson's call for the potential mass annihilation of Iranians may have struck some in the U.S. as less than helpful, but he's got counterparts in the fringe of Iran. "Adelson didn't call for the mass annihilation of anyone, and in case this article wasn't ridiculous enough Hersh provided a contrast with the "Death to the US committee" who hold the aforementioned rally with that slogan. What Hersh doesn't mention is that Iran is a dictatorship so if the government really didn't want those rallies to happen, they wouldn't be happening. Therefore the people who run them are far from on the fringe. And if the government wanted to hold "Peace and Love to America" rallies, they would be happening. So though Hersh can try for moral equivalence, there is none.
The next way? "3. They keep ratcheting up the pressure."
“Now is a time to strengthen -- not weaken -- U.S. and international sanctions,” some of the lawmakers said in a statement. “The U.S. should not suspend new sanctions, nor consider releasing limited frozen assets, before Tehran suspends its nuclear enrichment activities.”"Apparently not wanting to capitulate before getting results is the sign of a "hardliner" on the Huffington Post. Finally we have "4. They view the other side as violent, unpredictable and untrustworthy." Of course both America and Iran are violent, unpredictable and untrustworthy. So I guess we'll give Hersh that one.
Still, it goes to show that the Huffington Post editors will see their own country and a medieval fascist theocratic dictatorship and think "how can we make them seem more or less the same?" Which I think is very telling.