I was listening to some news piece on NPR, and the reporter was talking about the UN sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. He discussed how the Iranians were developing (I think) ground-to-air missiles that would attach to armored units, things that were originally developed by the Soviet Union for use against NATO forces.
The reporter further explained that Iranian officials insist the weapons are defensive, but that certain "experts" are worried that they are offensive. To explain, they played a clip from some analyst who said something like:
"This is a very provocative move. Iran is hoping that this hardware will allow their ground units to challenge the air supremacy of US forces."
Does everyone see that? (There was nothing else in the audio clip about offense vs. defense, by the way.) So the fact that Iran wants to be able to defend its armored units against American aircraft proves that they are offensive, not defensive. After all, it's not as if there is a realistic threat that the US would start bombing Iran anytime soon. Don't these nutjobs know that democracies are good?