I didn't get the idea that they were upset about being portrayed as the aggressors. I got the idea that they were upset about being portrayed as bloodthirsty. I offer this quote from the OP article:
Originally Posted by jujuman13
"In 2007, the war epic '300', a smash hit in the United States for its gory portrayal of the Greco-Persian wars, drew the wrath of Iranians for showing their ancestors as bloodthirsty."Not that I think Hollywood should apologize for portraying them as bloodthirsty, either. But, I do understand their sentiment. Would you be upset if Americans were always portrayed in Hollywood movies as bloodthirsty conquerors? I would, but unlike the Iranians, I wouldn't think I was owed an apology.
The more interesting aspect of the whole thing is how the Iranians seem to be trying to use the matter to their diplomatic advantage. In the international arena, does it contribute to their political capital to be able to play up the purportedly unfair portrayals? Does it distract American's, and perhaps the World's attention away from what is truly important? And if so, should Hollywood care?
In my opinion, the apology part of the thing is a strategy that is a red herring set up by the Iranians to distract and to gain some small amount of political capital. They don't really want an apology. On the world stage, I don't believe apologies like this are asked for for their obvious reasons, unless it could lead to the prevention of injustice in the future. Such as, when the Jews ask for an apology from Germany, etc. I don't see that sort of issue at play here, so I feel that it is best to look for the ulterior motive.