Yes Huh, But Then What?

To say that [Iran] is uniquely aggressive is to say that it is aggressive in a way unlike any other state on earth.  This is a sorry abuse of language. -- Larison

I'm afraid I find the label quite fitting. The issue is really analogical to accurately calling someone a bastard and then reasoning that because he is a bastard he ought to be bombed to smithereens. Which of course, at a bare minimum, feels like overkill, and more adventurously like fuzzy logic. But what other state on planet Earth today has attained Iranian or even Iran-like levels of violence promotion? Yes, disgruntled wag? What's that you say? The...the United States? Well certainly the United States, if you want to see it that way, is uniquely violent in a way unlike any other state on earth (in remarkable combination of constraint and lack thereof). But that changes nothing about the uniqueness of Iranian foreign policy, which has a particularly rotten, illegal, inexcusable, and ominously tentacular bent to it.

Nobody else has a proxy-theocolonial relationship with nonstate terrorist armies. Nobody else is working so diligently and flauntingly toward nuclear armament. And nobody else is publicly advocating the obliteration from the planet of another state. Sorry, but that counts as uniquely aggressive. And someone angling for a Responsible Foreign Policy, myself included, should be able to reach responsibility from that point of departure anyway.