[justsee]

> Also: who cares if Iran has a Jewish population?

It's a simple fact to illustrate that Iran is not bent on destruction of the Jewish people. Cultivating that idea in the public mind is the aim of that mistranslation, because the false idea of a genocidal Iran garners more worldwide support for the Israeli Government.

> That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to Israel.

The only people threatened in any serious way by the Iranian regime are the Iranian people themselves. The idea that Iran poses a threat to Israel or the West is merely the public story to garner support for any military action.

Iran is surrounded by the largest military super-power in history, and has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons. Iran's military posture is defensive, and all serious military analysis does not regard Iran as a threat. A politician talking things up for a domestic audience does not qualify as a serious threat, but it certainly helps feed into a narrative for Western audiences.

The nuclear ambitions of Iran are also clearly defensive. North Korea remains untouched where Iran's neighbour Iraq is completely overrun. Obtaining nuclear-power status delivers much more political leverage, but that's it. Iran's leaders know any move to aggression would quickly result in military annhilation by Israel / US.

[philwelch]

> Iran...has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons.

There isn't a single time in history Israel has gone to war or engaged in military action except to address a direct threat to its own security. Aggressive? No. Hostile? Only when threatened, which Israel constantly has been.

Geographically, Iran is nowhere near Israel. Israel has no realistic way of projecting force as far as Iran, and no reason to initiate a nuclear strike.

> Iran's leaders know any move to aggression would quickly result in military annhilation by Israel / US.

If that's the status quo, then it's in the interests of the world to keep it that way. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will be free to act with aggression against its neighbors, including Iraq, because the US will have no means to stop them.

[18pfsmt]

>because the US will have no means to stop them.

I'm not one to get into political arguments, but we (the US) have ~1,000 nukes and could turn the entire country into a piece of glass.

[philwelch]

Yes, but it doesn't matter because Iran will detect those nukes in midair and lash out in retaliation before they land.

[tkahn6]

> Iran's military posture is defensive

Iran has insurgents and clerics in Iraq actively attacking Sunni civilians and Saudi-backed militias and NATO soldiers. Iran sends weapons and money to Hamas in Gaza. Iran funds and sends weapons to Hezbollah, a paramilitary and political organization that has metastasized in Lebanon, accused of assassinating the Lebanese president. Iran sends weapons and money to Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.

Can you explain what is to be gained by pushing apologist rhetoric for the Iranian regime?

I'm genuinely curious to know what you personally gain or what is gained 'in the abstract' by sugar-coating Iran's international ambitions. There seems to be a certain faction within the left that is very bent on this mission and I'm hoping you can explain the rationale behind it.

[justsee]

> Iran has insurgents and clerics in Iraq actively attacking Sunni civilians...

Yes it does, as outlined in the Defense Intelligence Agency's statement on Iran's military power (from 2010)[1]. However I simply said Iran's military posture is defensive, which it is:

"Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external threats, particularly from the United States and Israel." and "This reflects its defensive military doctrine, which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities"

A more recent analysis from the US military (from 2012)[2] also concludes: "However, it is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack".

The actual military analysis is very clear that Iran is not a military threat, but the narrative for public consumption is that Iran is a major threat. That's the difference between reality and public relations.

> Can you explain what is to be gained by pushing apologist rhetoric for the Iranian regime?

What apologist rhetoric? I specifically condemn the regime in an earlier comment. It is certainly possible to point out facts (such as "Iran's military posture is defensive") without condoning or supporting the Iranian regime. It seems where I type "Iran's military posture is defensive", you read "Iran is a good actor", which is a very different sentiment (and one I don't hold!).

> I'm genuinely curious to know what you personally gain or what is gained 'in the abstract' by sugar-coating Iran's international ambitions. There seems to be a certain faction within the left that is very bent on this mission and I'm hoping you can explain the rationale behind it.

What sugar-coating? I've simply observed in this thread that the Iranian regime is not genocidal, and has a defensive military posture. I've also said the current regime is certainly terrible. It appears you think that striving to understand the geopolitical reality rather than buying in to the pr story immediately makes someone a 'left' Iranian regime sympathiser, which is rather odd (and untrue).

In terms of Iranian strategies and ambitions, it's really worth looking at the military context Iran is operating within[3]. The "Iranian Threat" is not an existential threat to Israel or the world (which is how it is portrayed in the media), but simply a threat to US interests in the region. Iran naturally wants to enhance and assert its regional influence, which obviously conflicts with US regional ambitions.

The reality is a war with Iran would be a war of aggression for territorial gain and subjugation[4], but to make the action palatable to the public it needs to be perceived as a war of self-defense. As much as I despise the Iranian regime, I agree with the statements at the Nuremberg Trials: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

[1] http://www.dia.mil/public-affairs/testimonies/2010-04-13.htm... [2] http://www.dia.mil/public-affairs/testimonies/2012-02-16.htm... [3] http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4ee6562eecad04150d0... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression