> It's generaly permissible under international law.

This is false, and you know it. But I will challenge you for others to see. Please point me to a statue of the international law that makes this "resistance" legal.

> Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the Iranian response, who is essentially singlehandedly responsible for the genocide in South Sudan and it does so with the blessing of the US.

Interesting. You completely ignored that Saudis back the other side (SAF), which committed no fewer atrocities than RSF and co. Why do you single out UAE?

> The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US and steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai and Switzerland.

I won't argue with that, but this is not the complete picture, and the two main warring sides in Sudan are supported by US-friendly regimes in the region.

> But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism" (which, again, it is not), how do you even begin to argue "if not more [than the United States]"? US imperialism touches virtually every country on Earth. Iran at best has regional influence.

Two things:

1. Does the fact that IR's imperialism is regional, and anti-US, and not global makes it good?

2. It is imperialism -- IR through its militant proxies suppresses independent development of multiple states in the region. Can you explain to me how this is a good thing?