Iran puts gun in it's own mouth, puts hand on trigger...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-19 09:56pm

Link to one form of this story

Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites

DOHA : Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."

A commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the Iranian press earlier Wednesday as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's own burgeoning nuclear facilities.

"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.

Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at its plant being built at Bushehr is seen by arch-enemies Israel and the United States as a cover for nuclear weapons development.

The latest comments mark an escalation in an exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks, leading to speculation that there may be a repeat of Israel's strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.

Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while pointing at its enemy's alleged nuclear arsenal, which Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing.

Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera it was not possible "from a practical standpoint" to destroy Iran's nuclear programs because they are the product of national skills "which cannot be eliminated by military means."

He also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of an attack.

"The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear installations) would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side, which (in turn) means that we would no longer be bound by any of our obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said.

Diplomats said in Vienna Tuesday that the IAEA would not say in a report next month whether Iran's nuclear activities are of a military nature, nor will it recommend bringing the case before the UN Security Council.

The IAEA board is due to deliver the report on Iran's nuclear activities during a meeting at the organization's headquarters in Vienna from September 13 after the last of a group of IAEA inspectors returned from Iran last week.

The UN's nuclear agency is conducting a major probe into Iran's bid to generate electricity through nuclear power.

The Islamic republic has agreed to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment pending the completion of the IAEA probe, but is working on other parts of the fuel cycle and has recently resumed making centrifuges used for enrichment.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-19 10:00pm

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Baghdad Bob? Is that you?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-19 10:45pm

Beautiful. Just fucking beautiful. This shows more and more why the Middle East is moving closer and closer to, just like Serbia 90 years ago, the powder-keg of global civilization.

Spice Runner · Post by **Spice Runner** » 2004-08-19 11:06pm

This doesn't isn't anything out of the ordinary. Iran making threats is nothing new. I hope cooler heads prevail on both sides. The Iranian government I don't trust, but I hope Bush and co. aren't going to do anything rash.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-19 11:06pm

This smacks of bullshit postering, the Iranian leaders are not so suicidal as to conduct a first-strike against the US forces in the Middle East.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-08-19 11:26pm

A commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the Iranian press earlier Wednesday as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's own burgeoning nuclear facilities.

Emphasis mine.

Didn't we hear the same things about the Iraqi Republican Guard?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-19 11:28pm

The Kernel wrote:This smacks of bullshit postering, the Iranian leaders are not so suicidal as to conduct a first-strike against the US forces in the Middle East.

Of course they aren't, but what possible benifit will blowing this hot air give them, other than making themselves look tough in the eyes of their own people? Surely they don't believe that the other powers in the region won't call their bluff?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-19 11:37pm

Ma Deuce wrote: Of course they aren't, but what possible benifit will blowing this hot air give them, other than making themselves look tough in the eyes of their own people? Surely they don't believe that the other powers in the region won't call their bluff?

And it needs to do something else because?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-19 11:42pm

Whatever.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-08-20 12:25am

Wow...I'm guessing that they weren't paying attention to how the US mopped up Iraq?

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-08-20 12:28am

Iran?? Why does it have to be Iran? It's Syria that we need to invade so we can find all of Iraq's WMDs!

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-20 12:41am

Iran?? Why does it have to be Iran? It's Syria that we need to invade so we can find all of Iraq's WMDs!

But Syria has no oil!!!!!1111one one eleven*

In any case, The US is not going to be invading Iran (or anyone, for that matter) anytime soon after OIF. Raining JDAMs on them is still a possibility, however.

*Actually Syria does have oil, but not much, and most of it is low-grade stuff which wouldn't be worth a fraction of the effort it would take to invade them

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-20 03:52am

Does Iran even have the ability to launch either missiles or fly planes all the way to Israel?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-08-20 04:34am

Does Iran even have the ability to launch either missiles or fly planes all the way to Israel?

With tankers support yes, by flying over Coalition controled airspace past who knows how many fire control radars

Sort of like saying that America could have invaded Vietnam back in the 60s through Russia AND China

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-08-20 04:57am

Bleh..and Iran can do exactly what? zip. Sounds like a lot of hot air or to be more exact, a fart in the wind.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-08-20 07:19am

Stuart Mackey wrote:Bleh..and Iran can do exactly what? zip. Sounds like a lot of hot air or to be more exact, a fart in the wind.

If they threw their entire air force into an attack they'd probably get quite a few bombs onto US airbases in the Gulf. However the number of Iranian survivor's would be very small, and since the USAF is known to have hardened its airfields the damage wouldn't be that great.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-08-20 07:25am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Bleh..and Iran can do exactly what? zip. Sounds like a lot of hot air or to be more exact, a fart in the wind.
If they threw their entire air force into an attack they'd probably get quite a few bombs onto US airbases in the Gulf. However the number of Iranian survivor's would be very small, and since the USAF is known to have hardened its airfields the damage wouldn't be that great.

And we know what the US can do to Iran and I rather suspect that the Iranians know that too. And so Tehran will bluster and strut and do not much of anything.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2004-08-20 01:43pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:Wow...I'm guessing that they weren't paying attention to how the US mopped up Iraq?

And how many allied soldiers have died since the "mopping up" was officially over?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-20 01:51pm

FTeik wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Wow...I'm guessing that they weren't paying attention to how the US mopped up Iraq?
And how many allied soldiers have died since the "mopping up" was officially over?

Heh. Actually, Bush's aircraft carrier stunt is one of my favorite pieces of Bush propaganda.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-08-20 01:53pm

FTeik wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Wow...I'm guessing that they weren't paying attention to how the US mopped up Iraq?
And how many allied soldiers have died since the "mopping up" was officially over?

Invasion and peacekeeping are two different things.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-20 01:59pm

FTeik wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Wow...I'm guessing that they weren't paying attention to how the US mopped up Iraq?
And how many allied soldiers have died since the "mopping up" was officially over?

What does that have to do with the fact that we would stomp the shit out of Iran if they followed through on this, and that they know we would?

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-08-20 04:19pm

Compare our total casualties versus the Iranian casualties during their war with Iraq, and add in the fact that a nightmarish post-war occupation does nothing for the Iranian leaders who will have lost their power.