Jason, during the Cold War the right-wing press frequently exaggerated Stalinist belligerence and military capacity. Much of the left then used those exaggerations and the need to counter them as reason to think that it was left-wing duty to insist that the Stalinist states (although a tad bureaucratic) were peaceful, benevolent, and anyway very weak militarily.
That was wrong, wasn't it? The quote you give from the Sun is a mild version applied to Iran of the same sort of thing. To add "sensation", it gives a shorter timescale for possible Iranian development of nuclear weapons than other sources. That's all.
Pretty much all facts reported by the Sun are reported by it in a hyped-up, sensationalist, distorted way. That fact about the Sun tells you nothing about... Iran.
Even if the Sun had printed something really demented, it would not follow that it is an "imperialist lie" that Iran's leaders have said that they want to destroy Israel, and they might acquire nuclear weapons.
What you wrote originally was this: you quoted Sean: "there is good reason, from an Israeli point of view, to refuse to stand by and let people who have said that they want to destroy Israel acquire the weapons with which they just might try to do that", and you commented: "This repeats imperialist lies..."
Now you redefine the "imperialist lies" as "the sort of tabloid bourgeois hysteria that Iran is part of an axis of evil, that we are all about to be nuked etc". But that is not what Sean wrote....! As it happens, it is not even what the Sun (as quoted by you) writes, but it is certainly not what Sean wrote.
You construct a hyped-up version of what Sean wrote, label it as "imperialist lies", and use that label to dismiss the original point. Isn't it exactly the same procedure as Stalinoids used? To use vehement denunciation of exaggerations in the right-wing bourgeois press as a way of dismissing real, unexaggerated facts about the USSR?