When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?

[mheslep]

Both those statements clearly involve Israel/the "Zionist regime" causing its own destruction, ...

AFP

...has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese...

i.e., Iranian backed Hezbollah.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't want to get drawn into this back and forth. I have no intention of defending Ahmadinejad - I think he's a scoundrel and I'm partly mad at Bush that Ahmadinejad was elected in '04. All I was doing was calling russ on his "exaggeration".

 

[mjolnir80]

It is important to use an objective definition of the word "terrorism" and not just apply it however you feel like it (otherwise, what you say really has no meaning at all). By the established/accepted international definition, what you say is wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1373

i never called them terrorsits but I am saying what theyre doing is basically the same thing
and that definition is the "UN's security councils" definition. if international means "anyone friendly to america" then I am sorry i ever spoke up

 

[Mental Gridlock]

You misread. That claim was not made in the quote you responded to.

Not a misread at all. Both the claim that they pursue nuclear weapons, and want to destroy Israel are both being made:

"...a rogue state which pursues nuclear weapons and which wants to "wipe Israel off the map."

Regardless, there is circumstantial evidence that they are. You have been provided with the IAEA reports on the subject. You really need to stop saying such nonsense. I don't believe that you even believe what you are saying. Iran's president says it on a regular basis. Once every few weeks.

Circumstantial evidence? Who cares. There is no concrete PROOF that they are pursuing nuclear weapons. Making that assumption based on the circumstances does not equal evidence.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

You really need to stop saying such nonsense. I don't believe that you even believe what you are saying. Iran's president says it on a regular basis. Once every few weeks.

It's not nonsense. The nonsense being claimed is that Iran wants to destroy Israel and Mahmoud or any other Iranian official has ever said such a thing.

What they said was that they wanted Israel gone. Or that it would be annihilated. Not that THEY wanted to do it.

It's disengenious people taking a Mahmoud quote about his disapproval for Israel and desired removal of it, and then lying and claiming he said that he actually wants Iran to destroy Israel. He never said it. Ever.

I might say that, "Bush is a disgraceful president who should be removed from office", but I would be mad about being misquoted if someone claimed I therefore said that I wanted to assasinate Bush.

Even if I wanted Bush to die, it doesn't mean that I want to assassinate him.

 

[OmCheeto]

Even if I wanted Bush to die, it doesn't mean that I want to assassinate him.

Exactly! Just like when Ron Reagan outlawed the USSR and claimed the bombing would start in 5 minutes. Just because these guys say stupid things, doesn't make it either the truth or national policy. People love to get behind leaders who wag their tongues, and point their fingers at others as the source of their problems. It's been common throughout history.

Hitler: If we'd just kill all these jews, our problems will be over.
West: If we'd just stamp out communism, our problems would be over.
Middle East: If we'd just annihilate the state of Israel,...
Bush: If we capture bin Laden, ...
Bush: If we get rid of Saddam, ...
Bush: If we just level a small portion of Iran...

And has anyone mentioned the Iranian law forbidding the building and use of nuclear weapons? Or should we just assume that they are a bunch of sneaky liars.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

That's not right at all. Those 3rd world dictatorships get resolutions passed blasting their richer rivals all the time.

They have only had their resolutions passed which have been approved by the elite security council.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Exactly! Just like when Ron Reagan outlawed the USSR and claimed the bombing would start in 5 minutes. Just because these guys say stupid things, doesn't make it either the truth or national policy. People love to get behind leaders who wag their tongues, and point their fingers at others as the source of their problems. It's been common throughout history.

Hitler: If we'd just kill all these jews, our problems will be over.
West: If we'd just stamp out communism, our problems would be over.
Middle East: If we'd just annihilate the state of Israel,...
Bush: If we capture bin Laden, ...
Bush: If we get rid of Saddam, ...
Bush: If we just level a small portion of Iran...

And has anyone mentioned the Iranian law forbidding the building and use of nuclear weapons? Or should we just assume that they are a bunch of sneaky liars.

I thnk that comes in automatically...

 

[Evo]

The exact quote

For a start, let us look at the now-famous speech that Ahmadinejad actually gave at the Interior Ministry on Oct. 26, 2005. (I am using the translation made by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran bureau, whose Persian is probably the equal of Professor Cole's.) The relevant portions read:

Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. … Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. … For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.

from this article.

In some ways, the continuing row over his call for the complete destruction of Israel must baffle Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All he did, after all, was to turn up at a routine anti-Zionist event and repeat the standard line—laid down by the Ayatollah Khomeini and thus considered by some to be beyond repeal—that the state of Israel is illegitimate and must be obliterated. There's nothing new in that. In the early '90s, I can remember seeing, in the areas around Baalbek in Lebanon that were dominated by Hezbollah and Amal, large posters of the by-then-late Khomeini embellished (in English) with the slogan, "Israel Must Be Completely Destroyed!" And I have twice been to Friday prayers in Tehran itself, addressed by leading mullahs and by former President Rafsanjani, where the more terse version (Marg bar Esrail—"Death to Israel") is chanted as a matter of routine; sometimes as an applause line to an especially deft clerical thrust.

Ahmadinejad then denounced the recent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over Gaza as a sellout and added, "If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill."

Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini's injunctions are referred to twice. Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:

"Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast."

My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:

"Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam."

continued...

http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/

 

[Gokul43201]

To complete the story behind that sorry hit-job "article" by Hitchens...

I belong to a private email discussion group called Gulf2000. It has academics, journalists and policy makers on it. It has a strict rule that messages appearing there will not be forwarded off the list. It is run, edited and moderated by former National Security Council staffer for Carter and Reagan, Gary Sick, now a political scientist at Columbia University. The "no-forwarding" rule is his, and is intended to allow the participants to converse about controversial matters without worrying about being in trouble. Also, in an informal email discussion, ideas evolve, you make mistakes and they get corrected, etc. It is a rough, rough draft.

Hitchens somehow hacked into the site, or joined and lurked, or had a crony pass him things. And he has now made my private email messages the subject of an attack on me in Slate. (I am not linking to the article because it is highly unethical and Slate does not deserve any direct traffic from my site for it.) Moreover, he did not even have the decency to quote the final outcome of the discussions.
...
Mr. Hitchens never contacted me about this piece. He never sought clarification of anything. He never asked permission to quote my private mail.
...
I'm glad to share the message that encapsulates the results of our deliberations at Gulf2000.

[original email follows]
...
Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.

I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies.
...

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

 

[Evo]

To complete the story behind that sorry hit-job "article" by Hitchens...

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

The article by Hitchens in the Slate still stands without the quote from cole, I didn't post the quote either. Are you saying that the translations I posted are incorrect?

Are you saying the article below is false?

Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech

Published: October 30, 2005

This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.

The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com[/URL]). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.[/quote]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html[/url]

 

[rootX]

In his English blog, I did not find anything like wiping off Israel.

here:
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

 

[Gokul43201]

The article by Hitchens in the Slate still stands without the quote from cole, I didn't post the quote either. Are you saying that the translations I posted are incorrect?

I'm not - but Cole is. Apparently there is no idiom in Persian for "wiping off the map". Moreover, the part you quoted relies crucially on Hitchens interpretation of what even Cole would admit. From the second quote in your post:

Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States.

Well, Cole does dispute that awfully simplistic interpretation.

Nevertheless, all I was doing was pointing out the slimy origin of the Hitchens article. It's just a terrible article, and it would be better if we could just stick to the translation an avoid Hitchens' own rambling.

Maybe the Times article or the ISNA article would have been better.

 

[Evo]

Hitchens gave a couple of interpretations to be fair.

Maybe the Times article or the ISNA article would have been better.

I provided the link for those. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

Remember that Cole is extremely biased against Israel, so I would take anything he says with a great deal of skepticism.

Cole is a strong critic of Israel's foreign and military policy and its treatment of Palestinians. He criticizes the nature of America's support for Israel and the activities of the "Israel Lobby",[58] and claims that some senior US officials such as Doug Feith have dual loyalties to America and the Israeli Likud Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole#Ahmadinejad.27s_remarks_on_Israel

You can visit his blog if you don't want to believe the above.

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe the above, and don't see how it shows extreme bias. But by the same measure, Hitchens is extremely biased against Iran (which is the important thing here, since we are talking about Iran).

I wouldn't quote an argument from Cole's blog to support a point in a thread Israel. I only pointed to it now because of the manner in which Hitchens uses his name and words without permission in the slate article.

 

[Evo]

I believe the above, and don't see how it shows extreme bias. But by the same measure, Hitchens is extremely biased against Iran (which is the important thing here, since we are talking about Iran).

I wouldn't quote an argument from Cole's blog to support a point in a thread Israel. I only pointed to it now because of the manner in which Hitchens uses his name and words without permission in the slate article.

The Hitchens - Cole hatred of each other is well known. You can't take either of them on their word, IMO, they are both too biased.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Lets get real here...Nejad did not say that 'We/He/Iran/Islamic Republic will wipe Israel off the map'...FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I hope one reads this before pressing the 'reply' button and starts flaming.

 

[OmCheeto]

Lets get real here...Nejad did not say that 'We/He/Iran/Islamic Republic will wipe Israel off the map'...FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I hope one reads this before pressing the 'reply' button and starts flaming.

Well, I didn't read every word. It's interesting how one statement can generate so much debate. One entry stuck me as a bit ironic, but nevertheless true, and somewhat sums up my opinion of Ahmadinejad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...madinejad_by_Canadian_Professor_Shiraz_Dossa"
... His rhetoric has been excessive and provocative. ...

But I have the same opinion of some other world leaders as well.

 

[OmCheeto]

And has anyone mentioned the Iranian law forbidding the building and use of nuclear weapons? Or should we just assume that they are a bunch of sneaky liars.

I thnk that comes in automatically...

Ahmed, I've heard that a later fatwa was issued by someone in Iran, Mohsen Gharavian, that allowed the production and use of nuclear weapons. Does the level of the fatwa giver determine which one is overruling? I've heard that even taxi drivers can issue them.

And I must also point out that my use of the word "law" was apparently incorrect. Fatwa's are opinions. Which may or may not be considered law. I think.

 

[vociferous]

Lets get real here...Nejad did not say that 'We/He/Iran/Islamic Republic will wipe Israel off the map'...FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I hope one reads this before pressing the 'reply' button and starts flaming.

No, he did not. I do not think anyone is disputing that, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that George W. Bush included this in one of his speeches: "Iran will be wiped off the map." What do you think the implications would be?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

No, he did not. I do not think anyone is disputing that, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that George W. Bush included this in one of his speeches: "Iran will be wiped off the map." What do you think the implications would be?

Mahmoud said the occupying regime, not Israel itself. Just as Bush threatened to have the Iraqi regime vanquished.

Nevertheless the quote is useless without the context.

 

[Evo]

Lets get real here...Nejad did not say that 'We/He/Iran/Islamic Republic will wipe Israel off the map'...FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I hope one reads this before pressing the 'reply' button and starts flaming.

Ahmed, the quotes that are translated by Cole cannot be trusted as he is against Israel and pro-palestinian. I already addressed this earlier.

Anyway, here is what Obama's stance on Iran is. It seems the translation he has chosen is "threats by Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the world map."

Obama: World must not let Iran corner Israel

DAVENPORT, Iowa (AFP) - White House hopeful Barack Obama said Monday sanctions and diplomacy must be made to bite against Iran so that Israel does not feel its "back is against the wall" and stages an attack.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a "game-changer for the region," allowing the Islamic republic to meddle through extremist proxies, intervene in Iraq and threaten oil supplies, the Democrat told about 250 voters at a meeting here.

Obama underlined that Israel, "one of our strongest allies in the world," would feel hugely threatened given threats by Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the world map.

"My job as president is to make sure we are tightening the screws on Iran diplomatically... to get sanctions in place so that Iran starts making a different calculation," the Illinois senator said.

Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_alt_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusvote_080825200912;_ylt=AlBZUqDHEqTtYnun.UKZ7CXCw5R4

 

[quadraphonics]

Mahmoud said the occupying regime, not Israel itself.

Terms like "occupying regime," "Zionist entity" and so on are simply codewords that many of the Arab states and Iran use to refer to Israel, whose existence as a state they do not recognize in the first place. The region they are "occupying" is understood to include all of historical Palestine (except maybe modern-day Jordan), and not solely the "occupied territories," as they are sometimes referred to in the West (i.e., West Bank + Gaza Strip). I would be surprised if you could find *any* reference to "Israel" in the official statements of Iranian government officials.

And, in any case, the elimination of the Israeli government is tantamount to the removal of Israel itself, conditions being what they are. The only real ambiguity in the "wiped off the map" comment is as to whether he was suggesting that Iran itself should pursue it as a policy outcome, or if he's simply expressing faith that geopolitical forces will eventually result in such an outcome. Regardless, it seems clear that he was expressing a desire to see Israel disappear, which cannot be reasonably construed as an innocuous sentiment.

 

[wildman]

I asked an Arab friend about Israel. He said that it was very helpful to the Arab states. To quote: "If Israel didn't exist, the Arab (and Iranian) governments would have to invent something like it."

The last thing that these governments want to do is destroy Israel. Who would they blame for all their problems then?

 

[kyleb]

Ahmed, the quotes that are translated by Cole cannot be trusted as he is against Israel and pro-palestinian. I already addressed this earlier.

Anyway, here is what Obama's stance on Iran is. It seems the translation he has chosen is "threats by Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the world map."



Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_alt_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusvote_080825200912;_ylt=AlBZUqDHEqTtYnun.UKZ7CXCw5R4

What you quoted there is some AFP journalist's words, not Obama.

Terms like "occupying regime," "Zionist entity" and so on are simply codewords that many of the Arab states and Iran use to refer to Israel, whose existence as a state they do not recognize in the first place. The region they are "occupying" is understood to include all of historical Palestine (except maybe modern-day Jordan), and not solely the "occupied territories," as they are sometimes referred to in the West (i.e., West Bank + Gaza Strip). I would be surprised if you could find *any* reference to "Israel" in the official statements of Iranian government officials.

And, in any case, the elimination of the Israeli government is tantamount to the removal of Israel itself, conditions being what they are. The only real ambiguity in the "wiped off the map" comment is as to whether he was suggesting that Iran itself should pursue it as a policy outcome, or if he's simply expressing faith that geopolitical forces will eventually result in such an outcome. Regardless, it seems clear that he was expressing a desire to see Israel disappear, which cannot be reasonably construed as an innocuous sentiment.

Zionist regime means what it means and nothing more, just like Reagan referring to the Soviet regime wasn't code for kill all the Russians. Iranian officials have said that if Israelis and Palestinians can reach a peaceful resolution, they will support it. However, as long as Israel insists on expanding their colonization of the West Bank, Iran is obviously favors and end to the government behind that land grab.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ahmed, the quotes that are translated by Cole cannot be trusted as he is against Israel and pro-palestinian. I already addressed this earlier.

Also, he is extremely against Ahmedinejad. And he is a Professor at a University, and is not likely to stake his reputation on a bad translation. But in any case, several other sources (listed in the wiki article) have provided a similar translation.

But really, I think this whole business with the exact words is silly. You really don't need to apply extreme interpretations of words to show that Ahmadinejad holds ridiculously extreme views.

Anyway, here is what Obama's stance on Iran is. It seems the translation he has chosen is "threats by Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the world map."

Do you have a link to the actual transcript? The part in bold is not in quotes. Not that Obama's opinion should count as informative of Ahmadinejad's intentions, but perhaps it would be interesting to see the language that Obama used.

 

[seycyrus]

...
Zionist regime means what it means and nothing more,...

The history and existence of modern day Israel is irrevocably linked to the zionist regime.

To remove the zionist regime would be to remove Israel.

 

[Evo]

What you quoted there is some AFP journalist's words, not Obama.

You're right, I didn't notice the quotation marks weren't there.

Do you have a link to the actual transcript?

Since it was only a reply to a question asked in a group of 250 voters I think that most of it is in the articles.

Here are the Reuters and AP versions.

http://www.gulfinthemedia.com/index.php?m=reuters&id=922972&lang=en&

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/765474.html

 

[kyleb]

The history and existence of modern day Israel is irrevocably linked to the zionist regime.

To remove the zionist regime would be to remove Israel.

Not at all. The only thing here irrevocably linked to the Zionist regime is the ongoing removal of Palestine, while the post-Zionist movement within Israel demonstrates a possibility for Israel to eventually coexist with Palestine in peace.

 

[quadraphonics]

Zionist regime means what it means and nothing more,

And it means "Israel."

just like Reagan referring to the Soviet regime wasn't code for kill all the Russians.

Okay. Expressing the desire that Israel disappear does mean exactly that he wishes Israel would disappear.

Iranian officials have said that if Israelis and Palestinians can reach a peaceful resolution, they will support it.

A facile position considering that Iran is actively working to prevent any peaceful solution.

However, as long as Israel insists on expanding their colonization of the West Bank, Iran is obviously favors and end to the government behind that land grab.

Why is that obvious? What does Iran care about the Palestinians?

 

[Gokul43201]

The history and existence of modern day Israel is irrevocably linked to the zionist regime.

Just as the history and existence of modern day Soviet Union was irrevocably linked to the communist regime.

 

[Gokul43201]

Iranian officials have said that if Israelis and Palestinians can reach a peaceful resolution, they will support it.

Which officials? And do they make up a majority? I hardly think so. Here's one recent indicator of how most government officials in Iran think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?ref=middleeast

In a statement signed by some 200 members of the 290-seat assembly, Iranian lawmakers called on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to dismiss Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, the vice president for tourism, after he repeated on Sunday his earlier comment that “we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans.”

In his comments, Mr. Mashai, a political ally of Mr. Ahmadinejad and one of his in-laws, specified “for a thousandth time” that his country was against Israel, not Jews.

But Parliament was not placated. “We do not recognize a country called Israel and so we cannot recognize a nation called Israel,” the lawmakers said in their statement, according to Fars, the semiofficial Iranian news agency.

“If Mr. Mashai does not have the political awareness that the Israeli people are the same people who have occupied the homes of millions of innocent and oppressed Palestinians and have created the army of the Zionist regime, he has no right to hold such a position,” the statement added.

 

[vociferous]

Not at all. The only thing here irrevocably linked to the Zionist regime is the ongoing removal of Palestine, while the post-Zionist movement within Israel demonstrates a possibility for Israel to eventually coexist with Palestine in peace.

That is not a correct statement. A Zionist means a person (usually Jewish, but not necessarily so), that believes that the state of Israel should exist. Any Jew, and in the broader term, any person, who believes that the state of Israel has a right to exist is a Zionist. Zionists were originally Jews who wanted to establish the state of Israel, and after its establishment, Jews (and in the broader sense, anyone) who supported the rights of Israel to continue to exist, and opposed those who tried to destroy it by military means.

 

[seycyrus]

Just as the history and existence of modern day Soviet Union was irrevocably linked to the communist regime.

When I said existence, I meant the continuing existence.

The Zionist movement is not just a political structure. It is the very fabric of the modern State of Israel.

 

[AhmedEzz]

That is not a correct statement. A Zionist means a person (usually Jewish, but not necessarily so), that believes that the state of Israel should exist. Any Jew, and in the broader term, any person, who believes that the state of Israel has a right to exist is a Zionist. Zionists were originally Jews who wanted to establish the state of Israel, and after its establishment, Jews (and in the broader sense, anyone) who supported the rights of Israel to continue to exist, and opposed those who tried to destroy it by military means.

Zionism has more to it than "supporting Israel to exist"...it might be on the list but this is not what make one a Zionist. Same as if I supported the Soviet Union does not make me a communist.

Ahmed, I've heard that a later fatwa was issued by someone in Iran, Mohsen Gharavian, that allowed the production and use of nuclear weapons. Does the level of the fatwa giver determine which one is overruling? I've heard that even taxi drivers can issue them.

And I must also point out that my use of the word "law" was apparently incorrect. Fatwa's are opinions. Which may or may not be considered law. I think.

No my friend, "fatwa" is an opinion that an authority makes on an issue. A taxi driver can do that -i think- but it doesn't really matter because as I said, its significance is when an authority makes it...I wouldn't care too much about it anyways,its not binding.

The only real ambiguity in the "wiped off the map" comment is as to whether he was suggesting that Iran itself should pursue it as a policy outcome, or if he's simply expressing faith that geopolitical forces will eventually result in such an outcome. Regardless, it seems clear that he was expressing a desire to see Israel disappear

It was clearly stated afterwards that his words are not a new policy by Iran. Moreover, I think it is more than clear that both Nejad AND Israelis are sworn enemies, ofcourse they both want each other to disappear.

Terms like "occupying regime," "Zionist entity" and so on are simply codewords that many of the Arab states and Iran use to refer to Israel, whose existence as a state they do not recognize in the first place. The region they are "occupying" is understood to include all of historical Palestine

This is false, for all Arab states ask Israel to stop its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza strip and Eastern Jerusalem, which are the borders of Palestine(because if you were talking about historical Palestine then Israel is not in the mix).

However, as long as Israel insists on expanding their colonization of the West Bank, Iran is obviously favors and end to the government behind that land grab.

Why is that obvious? What does Iran care about the Palestinians?

Its not that Iran cares about Palestinians but its that Iran is threatened greatly by Israel...my enemy's enemy is my friend

I would just like to add that I am not in favor of Iran, same as my country, I think Iran is radical and aggressive, they helped and are in-support-of the assassination of Egypt's previous president Al-Sadat.