Iran issues stark military warning to United States

surria · Post by **surria** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:31 pm

Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."

Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28.

The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire.

At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions.

And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance."

"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.

"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.

On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations."

"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear."

Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China.

Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis.

In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at the United States and Israel.

"The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign sympathizers.

"Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last year when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his controversial stance on the Holocaust.

"If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed as a "myth" the killing of an estimated six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II.

"I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he said.

Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region under Israeli control.

"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said.

There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel.

"As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement.

"Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/1 ... 0o3w3.html

What do you guys thingk? Is Iran moving towards the position of leadership in the Muslim world, with its technological advancement, its structured society and strong theocratic system? I see a hope for Iran.

dhuusa_deer · Post by **dhuusa_deer** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:38 pm

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. Well, we know if a conflict breakouts the Iranians would give the former Iraqi Minister of Information (where is he btw?) run for his money. Laughing

On a serious note, Iran has one advantage that would pose a serious planning challenge for the US: its terrain. Much of Iran is mountians, the Zagros mountians the most formidable. But then, the US routed the Taliban fighting in similar terrian in mincemeat fashion. Us victory is assured outcome regardless of how many challenges they must overcome.

ERROR · Post by **ERROR** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:01 pm

I didn't read the whole article but I saw a news clip (just yesyerday) in which he said we are going to annihilate the state of israel with one storm. ... the end of israel is here...

I didn't read the whole article but I saw a news clip in which he said we are going to annihilate the state of israel.

I think this guy:
1 - has an atom bomb already.
2- has some internal problems and wants to entertain ppl about his childhood dream
3- he's totally nuts.

If he materializes his call, it will be a suicide mission. call it large scale suede bomber.

michael_ital · Post by **michael_ital** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:49 pm

[quote="dhuusa_deer"]:lol: Laughing

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. Well, we know if a conflict breakouts the Iranians would give the former Iraqi Minister of Information (where is he btw?) run for his money. Laughing

On a serious note, Iran has one advantage that would pose a serious planning challenge for the US: its terrain. Much of Iran is mountians, the Zagros mountians the most formidable. But then, the US routed the Taliban fighting in similar terrian in mincemeat fashion. Us victory is assured outcome regardless of how many challenges they must overcome.[/quote]

Don't be too sure. Read what it's cost the U.S as of Aug 2005, http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/#us and determine for yourself (leaving the religious aspect aside for a sec) whether or not it's feasible for them to engage Iran at the same time. Also, recognize that one of the countries holding veto power (China) has just announced it's foreign exchange reserves (already the world's largest) rose $56 B U.S in the first quarter to a record $875.1 B U.S !!! They own more of America than America does!!! So an engagement in Iran would just bleed them to death at an ever increasing rate. Militarily, the Yanks are tough, but monetarily, they just CAN'T afford it.

Mowhawk · Post by **Mowhawk** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:23 pm

"What do you guys thingk? Is Iran moving towards the position of leadership in the Muslim world?"

Surria

Though I admire the Iranians the fact is that most Arab and Sunni Muslims are against the idea of an Iranian leadership. Having a nuclear power is not a sample that the country is technologically superior than other Muslim states, and a good example is Malaysia. Many Salafi brothers that I met don't even consider the Iranians as Muslims. Let us ask J.B, Salafi student and Nur in Somaliaonline.

Michael

You are right, there is less the Americans can do about Iran if we discount short of a nuclear war.

TZ Somali · Post by **TZ Somali** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:33 pm

I personally support the aquisation of nuclear by the Iranians, not offcourse on the religious front but on the logic and commonsense. I believe America's prime oppositon of iranian nuclear weapon is based one single principle which in my views is to see Israeli as the dominant nuclear power and therefore any balance of nuclear power by Iranian will entail that Israeli will at list be in jeopady not on military sense but more on political ground

Xplosive · Post by **Xplosive** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:45 pm

[quote]Militarily, the Yanks are tough, but monetarily, they just CAN'T afford it.[/quote]

Exactly what I said in the other thread Laughing

dhuusa_deer · Post by **dhuusa_deer** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:47 pm

[quote="michael_ital"] Don't be too sure. Read what it's cost the U.S as of Aug 2005, http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/#us and determine for yourself (leaving the religious aspect aside for a sec) whether or not it's feasible for them to engage Iran at the same time. Also, recognize that one of the countries holding veto power (China) has just announced it's foreign exchange reserves (already the world's largest) rose $56 B U.S in the first quarter to a record $875.1 B U.S !!! They own more of America than America does!!! So an engagement in Iran would just bleed them to death at an ever increasing rate. Militarily, the Yanks are tough, but monetarily, they just CAN'T afford it.[/quote]

It all depends on the what the objective is AND the capabilities of the foe. I think no one would disagree that invasion of China is more costly (both monetary and human) undertaking than invansion of Iran. Iran is not a major military power, in fact it is at least a full generation or 2 behind the US in military technology. To achieve 'regime change' does the US really need to invade or take military action againts the Iranians? I contend not necessarily... the US wields limitless power and influence in the diplomatic, economic and military spheres. They can levy crippling economic sanctions (on top current ones), internationally isolate the Iranians, fund anti-Iranian militias, sponsor internal coupes... there is a whole a catalogue of options availabe to them. In the event it comes to toe-to-toe combat, it would be a cake walk for the US since the US uses airpower to devastating effect. In modern warfares, the side that dominates the air always wins. This is how Isreal won every war with arabs despite the arabs having supprior armies -- infantry, armory, reserves etc.

Compared to other potential foes, for the US, war with Iran is in the easily doable column. Iranians know this, in my view comments emanating from Iranians leaders these days is empty bravado designed to deflect attention away from urgent domestic issues. But I don't think it wise to play nuclear brinksmanship, as the Iranians are now a days, with the US. Who is the only country to have shown the will to us nuclear weapons.

You said we should ignore the religious dimension. I disagree. Muslim leaders and muslims in general have a habit of miscalculating Western intention and capabilities. Saddam did it, Bin Laden did it, Mullah Omar did it... a major blunder by the Iranians shouldn't be counted out.

michael_ital · Post by **michael_ital** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:48 am

As the night has wore on, i've pondered many scenarios, and I have to say that the one you've illustrated above is the one that keeps recurring to me. the U.S really has no need to engage Iran in a protracted battle. As Iran (unlike Iraq) is not landlocked, it wouldn't take much to send a few carriers and battle armada up the Persian Gulf and cripple their oil and natural gas production facilities. (as this map, the one in the far upper right illustrates). http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... e_2004.jpg And with assistance from Pakistan and the Saudis, there would be no need for a long protracted battle. A bombing of Tehran back to the stone age, and if it's a prefunctory airstrike, would be all the more unsettling to other uppity nations who wish to sabre rattle. I admire the baravado the General and the President are showing, but it would be no quagmire. It would be a prefunctory strike on their energy producing facilities, and then it would be over, rendering them harmless, and sending them back to the drawing board. There will be no need to engage troops.

B-MAX · Post by **B-MAX** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:11 am

Americans have been fighting ...ok First Afghanistan rebels aka Taliban with old AK47 and WW2 Tanks. Then Iraq with 15 Years of American&Britains Air bombardment plus the unjustly imposed Economic &Weapons Embargo. Iraq was a crippled and battered nation put in a ring with a well trained World Heavyweight aka world superpower! The war in Iraq is getting Uglier than ever before. Some Ex Generals in the US are pushing for a total pull out.

surria · Post by **surria** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:34 pm

First of all, Iran cannot be compared to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian regime cannot be replaced because it is a popular one, unlike the Saddam Hussein regime. Furthermore, the Iranians are not Arabs with different tribal and secretarial differences; Iran is a homogenous nation with strong Persian identity. Furthermore, unlike Iraq, Iran even has an air force. The U.S. seems to be having difficult time with a mere 27 million Arabs, how do you think they will deal with 70 million strong Shiite nation? The biggest problem for the Americans however would the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will face major danger from the Iranians.

fagash_killer · Post by **fagash_killer** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:48 pm

wel said suria

bush is goverment is making a big mistake they are already under fire by their own goverment let alone if they trieing to invade iran like suria said iran is not iraq and afghanistan its also russia and china interest to stick with iran thats why they selled many hub to iran and even alqaida taliban knows the strategies of the americans thats why they changed their strategy and are dieing evry month americans and brittish forces out their iraq the same last month only 30 americans died with no doubt americans lost it and esp their econonmy

but i should say fuck sauidi arabie,kuwait,yordan,egypt those 4 big arab countries are beeing owned by the americans they promised to send their money to the palastenians and the goverment after the eu refused now the palastenians ar hoping 2 get their money of the muslim civialians its sad wallahi

Unclebin · Post by **Unclebin** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:53 pm

Mike and Dhuusa brought up great points. But I think you fail to realize the resiliency of shiite dominated iran. Especially when you have a neighbouring country which is also shiite (Iraq) and another in afghanistan which is persian predominately in culture. Iran has almost 3 times the population and a stronger more united gov't then the two aformentioned nations.

Plus if America where to knock down the refineries and oil fields of Iran you would have international oil skyrocketting and America would be in a worsened position becuase of it. Plus Sino-communist China wouldn't want to see a country who sends them oil and in the future possibly more because iran has over 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Which could quench the whole world by themselves for 3-yrs of their oil needs.

Economically America could put some sanctions and other embargo's on Iran but Iran could do the same by selling their oil to a country like China who doesn't give a he-hoo of what America thinks. Plus do the oil embargo's of the 70's ring a bell?

Move over Toyota Camry and here comes the new Mongoose bike Laughing

fagash_killer · Post by **fagash_killer** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:59 pm

can you imagine it they prepared war on iran on 2003 that shows they know iran cant be messed with

the only thing they can do is like always use divide&rule strategy

surria · Post by **surria** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:01 pm

[quote="Unclebin"]
Plus Sino-communist China wouldn't want to see a country who sends them oil and in the future possibly more because iran has over 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. Which could quench the whole world by themselves for 3-yrs of their oil needs.

Move over Toyota Camry and here comes the new Mongoose bike Laughing

[/quote]

And as the article below states china is 70 bill in already.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 387140.htm

"China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a US$70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China's biggest energy deal with the No. 2 OPEC producer."