Iranian remains defiant on nuclear issue
Not because I worry about a war with Iran -- why fight the inevitable? -- but because of the terribly clumsy formation.
"Iranian"? Why not "Iran"? I mean, sure, the president of Iran (who is, after all, the subject of the story) is a Holocaust-denying fundamentalist kook, but he is the somewhat democratically elected leader of a major country. If this was an article about Britain or Burma or Burundi, it would presumably read "Britain remains defiant on nuclear issue" or "Burundi stands up to UN ultimatum" or "Myanmar to New York: Drop Dead" or something. Whatever his failings, doesn't he qualify for the journalistic courtesy of embodying his government and state? If not, why not call him by his name and have it read "Khameini remains defiant on nuclear issue"? Same number of letters. And if it's because the AP editors don't think that people know who Khameini is, again, why not just go with "Iran"? The way it reads now, it could be just some yutz down at the Tehran Laff 'n' Launder who's remaining defiant on the nuclear issue.
Or maybe I'm reading it wrong, and the emphasized word in the headline is remains; maybe the Ayatollah Khomeini's corpse has oozed into a press conference and is being defiant on the nuclear issue.