| > 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 |
