Though the article doesn't really get into it, I think part of the conflict might be that Iran seems to be very proud of their non-militant history; they've generally been the invaded rather than the invader (by Iraq, Russians and Brits in WWII and WWI, the Ottomans, Imperialist Russia, Mongols, Turks, Timurids, more Turks, Arabic Muslims, and the Huns). The last time Iran was actually a major aggressor in a war was probably against the Roman Empire during the Sassanid dynasty, sometime around 300 AD (though there was also a minor Safavid campaign into India). The US and Israel have really worked hard to try to paint Iran as a military aggressor, a claim that is absolutely false and really offends Iranians, given their recent (1700-year old) history as a peaceful, conservative, intellectual people. It's also the same argument the US is using to try to build opposition to an Iranian nuclear program. So I can see how the Iranian authorities and probably some intellectuals in the country see this as part of a campaign to portray Iran/Persia as something it isn't.
I'm not saying they're justified in their belief; I think the evolution of this film came about very organically, what with the comic book, the success of previous Frank Miller films, etc. Making this movie was completely motivated by commercial and creative interests. But it's a very sensitive nationalistic issue for Iranians.
And just in regards to the Persia/Iran naming convention, many Iranians think of themselves as Persians, it doesn't really have much to do with opposition to the current regime. When the Islamic State was founded in the 1920s, it orginally kept the name of Persia, then changed it to Iran in the 1930s. But because there was such a strong attachment to the Persian history of the country, they later decided that both Iran and Persia were legitimate names, essentially saying that Iran and Persia were synonyms. Thus even today there are many who choose to identify themselves as Persians rather than Iranians.
|