« Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered | Main | In Defense Of Donald Rumsfeld »

Iran Issuing Another Threat


The threats keep coming from the leaders of Iran.

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."

And Iran threatened, again, to destroy Israel:

TEHRAN, Iran -- The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

The head of Israel's National Security Council reacts:

Giora Eiland told Israel Radio that Iran was trying to create an inaccurate impression of inevitability about its nuclear program.

"True, they somehow upgraded their ability and have achieved new abilities of research and development in uranium enrichment. But between that stage and having the commercial ability to produce uranium in amounts needed for a bomb, and between this ability and creating a system of real weapons, there is a gap of technology and time," he said.

John Podhoretz offers his advice:

There is one, and only one, advantage to this terrifyingly difficult situation: It may allow the partisan stalemate on foreign policy to be broken. President Bush and Howard Dean agree on very little save that Iran can't be allowed to go nuclear. So - and this is an entirely serious proposal - let them break bread together on the subject.

The president should invite leading Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, sooner rather than later, to Camp David for a major policy summit with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Intelligence Director John Negroponte. He could say, very plainly, that the United States faces a crisis and that it would be in the best interest of the nation and the world for there to be a bipartisan consensus on what to do about Iran.

He should have officials from the CIA, Defense Intelligence and the National Security Agency offer serious briefings on what we know and don't know about the situation. And then he should lead a series of no-holds-barred conversations about the possible options and ways forward.

Update: Raw Story is reporting that military actions in Iran are already underway. Via Stop the ACLU

Update II: Not everyone supports Ahamadinejad's outrageous rhetoric:

"The more Ahmadinejad confronts the international community, the more power he may show to his public in the short term but deny Iran a good life among world nations in the long term," said Hossein Salimi, a professor of international relations in Tehran.


Even some of Ahmadinejad's supporters are starting to question his tactics.

"Ahmadinejad has forgotten why he won the presidential vote. The needy voted for him because he promised to bring bread to people's homes but nothing good has been done to improve living standards," said Reza Lotfi, a student at Tehran University.

Mansour Ramezanpour, a construction worker, questioned why the government hasn't done more for the weak economy.

"Previously, I went to work four days a week. Now, not more than two days. Recession is everywhere," he said.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iran Issuing Another Threat:

» FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog linked with Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Issues Military WARNING to the United States

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated

» Joust The Facts linked with Too Frightened To Act

Comments (27)

These Iranian leaders are ... (Below threshold)

These Iranian leaders are sounding exactly like Saddam and Baghdad Bob , do they think were intimidated or what ? Not

Interesting to see General ... (Below threshold)

Interesting to see General Safavi using the Q-word. Doesn't he know that's the Dem's line?

yeah Your right, I bet tha... (Below threshold)

yeah Your right, I bet thats where He heard it from.

Take the Mo-fo's at their w... (Below threshold)

Take the Mo-fo's at their word and nuke 'em off the face of the earth first. A cautionary tale for the rest of the rest of the Mo's.

"And then he should lead a ... (Below threshold)
Billy Hollis:

"And then he should lead a series of no-holds-barred conversations about the possible options and ways forward."

I have a lot of respect for John Podhertz, and I'd like to think he's right. But I don't, not in this case.

No matter what the Democratic Party leaders say about how we can't let Iran go nuclear, there are no circumstances under which they would *ever* support the use of force. They showed this in the runup to Iraq, and they are more hardened than ever in that position, reflecting exactly what their base believes.

Without a credible threat of using force against the Iranians, no policy or action on the part of the US will have any impact. Period. Since the Democrats will never support such a policy or action, even as a threat, there is no point in trying to work with them on this.

On the other hand, there's a quite good reason *not* to work with them. If such a conversation were held, and inevitably failed to reach agreement, the Democrats would use that as an opportunity to bash Bush. They would call him "intransigent", and their supporters in the media would inevitably make it appear that the lack of agreement was all Bush's fault. The public might well get the impression that Bush threw away an opportunity to deal with the Iranian situation, which would then make it more difficult for him to take any appropriate action in the future.

What you call threats are j... (Below threshold)

What you call threats are just means of defending Iran. What do you expect them to do? When USA invades countries it is not at all bad but when innocent people swear to fight for their own country it is an evil thing? Please think with an open mind.
What should Iran do? Tell America to attack them and Iran will wellcome the attack with dry fruits?
Do not make such illogical comments, they really are stupid. Try to spread peace and understanding instead.

Fine, MU, try this then.</p... (Below threshold)

Fine, MU, try this then.

Lay off making threats toward Israel.

Lay off making threats toward the US.

Lay off supporting insurgents in Iraq.

Drop the development of nuclear weapons. Let the UN provide the enriched uranium for the nuclear power they say they need, and don't try to shortcut or bypass their regulation.

If Iran did this, which is about as likely as a jackal turning vegetarian, they'd find that a lot of their international problems would disappear, and they'd be left alone to go to hell in their own handbasket.


Yes MU, Iran is saying they... (Below threshold)

Yes MU, Iran is saying they let burn Israel off the face of the earth just because they exist. Those Iranian Muslims, what a sense of humor. Real comedians. The Iranian's are also threatening the US. Like the embassy takeover, the threat is an act of war. Destroy them before they attack us again.

"What you call threats are ... (Below threshold)

"What you call threats are just means of defending Iran."

They are also threats that can be used by a regime with visions of expanding their strict version of Dar-al-Islam as far as they can ... your and my inalienable rights be damned.

I'd add one more thing to JLawson's good list ... establish a government that structurally protects the rights of individuals -- men AND women to live free and pursue happiness, including freedom of religion.

That way, I would have far more assurance than I do now, that thugs and fanatics could not leverage Iran's resources and people into the implements of my destruction ... or submission.

MU, your moral equivalence is in fact a moral vacuum, for America seeks to liberate, while Iran seeks to enslave.

It is the Iranian leadership who needs to prove their committment to "peace and understanding" ... not America.

The fact that we haven't already turned Iran into glass is proof of our committment to those ideals.

I'll add to the list, as we... (Below threshold)

I'll add to the list, as well ...

... a government with sufficient checks-and-balances to prevent one or a few leaders from hijacking the nation and using it for totalitarian expansionism and/or the support of terrorism.

Muslim Unity:The I... (Below threshold)

Muslim Unity:

The Iranians have crossed the line. When they openly state they are going to burn a country off the face of the earth simply because they can't abide that countries existence, there is no reasoning or dealing with them except to defang them. The Israeli's are not going to lay down and die to appease the Muslims, Europeans and the leftist.
They will nuke Iran first if they have to. Better for the US to stop Iran with conventional air strikes than have the Israeli's backed against the wall. All the weapon factory bunkers don't have to be destroyed. The key ones will do. Destroy their electrical power grid and refinery infrastructure and they won't be producing anything least of all weapons. The US Air force is quite capable of doing the job alone without allied air forces. We don't need to occupy them, all we need to do is destroy their ability to produce anything.
Perhaps if the US would make that message crystal clear the Iranian military might decide the crazies running the country will have to go in order to save their country.

Last I heard, we had enough... (Below threshold)

Last I heard, we had enough nukes to destroy the entire surface of the Earth, so what makes these scumbags think that they could win a nuclear confrontation with US?

Don't bother to respond to ... (Below threshold)

Don't bother to respond to MU.


Don't bother to listen to a... (Below threshold)

Don't bother to listen to any Muslim Politicians Words.


You must read them only by their actions, and look closely for smoke and mirrors.

Kinda like Teddy Kennedy an... (Below threshold)

Kinda like Teddy Kennedy and Hilary.

Adding my two cents on this... (Below threshold)

Adding my two cents on this thread:

First, I agree with Billy Hollis above. Bush has too little to gain, and too much to lose, by politicizing discussions of strategy options with the Democratic Party. The opposition party can use a discussion of "options" to highlight how they would "handle the situation better" and how the majority party is "incapable" of meeting the challenge. The political ads practically write themselves. And if you don't think this is true, look how the Dems handled the draft and immigration issues - by positioning themselves one way in the press, then by voting the opposite way - and blaming the Republicans for their turns on both counts. Both were complex issues that were reduced to easily-digested soundbites of "Republicans = bad" in the media. How much more so on an issue as serious as a rogue nation with a ballistic nuclear capability?

As for MU, who hijacked this thread, I can only hope that MU is a woman, and that "she" goes back to her lovely Islamic sharia-law ruled world, and gets raped. I can hope, right?

cubanbob, I disagree with the airstrike option you have purported. "Airstrike only" (with miniumum followup on the ground) was the method Clinton used in his misadventures in Mogadishu, Kosovo, Iraq, etc., etc. during the 1990's. Not only did it get him nowhere, but it allowed our enemies to carefully study methods of defense (both on the ground, and in the media) against such attacks.

It's clear in Iraq that Saddam rearranged his C3 infrastructure after GWI to escape aerial bombardment, as did Iran. Improving on this strategy to milk the media for maximum effect is easily done: build civilian infrastructure on top of buried targets (e.g., "milk factories" on top of buried uranium centrifuge facilities) so that when the bombs fall, the media have prepared for them, easily consumed, photogenic Iranians blooded, injured, and slaughtered by "imperialistic" weapons.

I really do wonder what would have happened in 1941 had the US been under the political and media climate that it finds itself now: would the US have been blamed for Japanese aggression, and would the Japanese have been excused by the Left and the media for the attack on Pearl Harbor, on the basis that the US caused them (by the oil embargo) to "lash out" the way they did on 7 December of that year? Oh, and let's not forget, Husband Kimmel's strategic mistake of having the majority of his fleet tied up in one place that day would have been FDR's plot to set up a pretext for getting the US into WWII...

(oh, that's right...some of the DU crowd believe this already...sigh)

The sadistic part of me really hopes that Hillary becomes Prez in 2008, and that the Dems have a majority at least in the Senate, with a practical deadlock in the House. Kinda like Jimmah's screwups during his term, but with a nuclearized Iran instead of a disorganized, revolutionary one. I say: Bring. It. On.

To all who know a little a... (Below threshold)

To all who know a little about WW-2 history here's a bit of "what if". What if Adolf had developed the bomb first. Does anyone knowing history think he would not have used it? Can anyone imagine how different the world might be today had he beat the US to the punch? Does anyone believe that that wing nut in Iran is not just as crazy as Hitler was? Not withstanding the loss of life on 9-11, do too few no longer remember the economic loss to the country? Years later most of our airlines are still suffering. Can anyone really imagine the economic chaos the country would experience if even a dirty bomb of sizable magnitude was to pop off in NYC, Chicago, or any one of our major cities? Well I can and what I imagine sure as hell isn't very pretty. The whole country should be supporting the President on this issue. Those crazies should not and MUST NOT BE ALLOWED to develop a nuke, and if takes turning the whole damned country of Iran into glass for the next thousand years to stop them, as far as I'm concerned the party can start tomorrow.

On Sale Now:WWF ha... (Below threshold)

On Sale Now:

WWF has just announced the Cage Match of the century...a no holds barred holy war smack-down. The combatants are two loose cannons who have each been pile-driven one time too often.

It's a winner take all grudge match. The stakes are high. Each man is allowed three conventional weapons and there will be one WMD perched atop a 30 foot pole that can only be used if the match exceeds 15 rounds. The winner will assume his rightful position as either God's right hand man or Allah's main mullah.

Yes, you've guessed right...it's none other than George "Big W" Bush against that up and coming scrapper Mahmoud "Mad Dog" Ahmadinejad. Tickets go on sale Easter Sunday. Not available on pay-per-view. Seating is limited and United Nations Security Council nations will have first choice on floor seating.

Don't miss this one...when it's over there will finally be one nation under God...or Allah

more observations here:


Hey MU: November 4, 1979... (Below threshold)

Hey MU: November 4, 1979. Paybacks will be HELL.
Oh, and Happy Easter!

And if you don't t... (Below threshold)
And if you don't think this is true, look how the Dems handled the draft and immigration issues -- by positioning themselves one way in the press, then by voting the opposite way - and blaming the Republicans for their turns on both counts.

On the draft, as I recall, the Republicans in Congress rather deftly clotheslined the Dems simply by scheduling a vote on the draft bill introduced by Democrats and letting the Dems panic and vote down their own bill.

The draft was also the basis for the Dems' expectation of a massive youth vote in 2004 that would supposedly wash Kerry into the White House. The youth vote turnout was precisely the same as it had been in the last several presidential elections: negligible.

On immigration, you can't call this one for the Dems because it isn't over. Neither party is in touch with the views of the electorate on this issue, which are increasingly antipathetic to the demonstrators.

You don't threaten someone ... (Below threshold)

You don't threaten someone with a tank, when all you have is a slingshot. Iran feels they can be arrogant , radical and assume the free world to be the opposite. Iran needs to study some simple history. Out of the two of us, which one has used atomic weapons to resolve a conflict. Out of the two of us, which one if fully armed. Out of the two of us, which one can back up what they say.

Yes , and which one of us ... (Below threshold)

Yes , and which one of us has the other tactifully and economically overpowered as well as strategically already surrounded.
of course We already know the madmans ideals call for Martyrdom so lets not wait for Him to aquire even more weapons with which He might manage to sneak out or use locally..

The mood of many conservati... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The mood of many conservatives is to confront Iran's verbal and potential aggression with real military force. Are the rulers of Iran really as stupid as they seem or is the U.S. being bated into a trap? It's likely that either or both Russia and China will use their veto power in the U.N. security council to prevent any substantive economic or military sanctions against Iran. From news reports over the past few days it seems our allies in Iraq want nothing to do with military action against Iran. The only other ally would be Israel, but that would inflame the Islamic world to the point of war or at least an oil embargo.

The U.S. is alone against Iran, which isn't a military problem if what we wanted to do was destroy Iran's ability to threaten anyone with nuclear attack and do so as often as needed. The problems is a political one. There's simply no support in the U.S. for an Iraqi style invasion and rebuilding of Iran. All we can do is bomb from the air, and the deep reinforced bunkers Iran has built are extremely hard targets to destroy with conventional bombs. In WW2, Germany built submarine pens in France that withstood everything the allies could drop on them from the air including the British 12,000 pound tallboy bomb, and these submarine pens were surface structures. Bomb technology has progressed, but so has bunker technology.

Destroying Iran's underground nuclear facilities would require nuclear bunker buster bombs. Such bombs penetrate up to 20 feet before detonating in order to impart as much of the warhead's shockwave into the ground as possible, as it's the shockwave that destroys the underground bunker. However, this ground penetration before detonation produces the maximum amount of radioactive fallout with significant amounts falling far outside the borders of Iran. Being Iran has spread out it's nuclear facilities, many nuclear bunker busters would be required, and this would result in many thousands of civilian deaths and tens if not hundreds of thousands of people exposed to harmful levels of radiation, many outside of Iran.

Such action would make the U.S. an outcast in the world of civilized nations. Few if any of our allies would support our action and the U.S. may even need to use it's veto power in the U.N. security council to prevent sanctions against itself. Iran would get the world's sympathy with financial and technical aid to rebuild it's alleged peaceful nuclear program. Having stood up to the great Satan, the radicals of Iran would become the de facto leaders of the Islamic world, a world that controls a large percentage of world oil production.

Nuclear bomb technology is 60 years old and the U.S. simply can't expect to keep that technology out of the hands of opposition nations indefinitely. The U.S. needs a policy of dealing with such nations, and we're well on our way thanks to the vision of President Regan. We are close to having a viable anti-IBM missile system and close to deploying a high flying 747 based laser weapon capable of destroying missiles at ranges of more than 100 km as they clime for altitude. The U.S. should accelerate the development and deployment of anti-missile systems, secure it's borders, find the means to scan every cargo shipment entering the U.S., and develop both human and technological intelligence systems for countries like Iran. The policy of the U.S. should be that any weapon of mass destruction launched against the U.S. will result in massive retaliation against the number one suspected sponsors of that attack, no proof required. Public threats against the U.S. or it's allies will be considered proof enough.

With the right combination of hardware and policy, the U.S. can create serious doubt that any attack by an opposition nation would succeed in doing anything but assuring their own destruction. While Islamic rulers are comfortable sending their ignorant young to their deaths, they hold their own lives in high regard. The U.S. just needs to convince the Islamic rulers that their lives are in danger to put a stop to all this noise about attacking the U.S.

Iran sells a lot of oil.</p... (Below threshold)

Iran sells a lot of oil.

Iranian leader acts crazy, oil prices climb.

Is Iranian leader crazy like a fox?

Now Iran has 2000 more vol... (Below threshold)

Now Iran has 2000 more volunteers for Martyrdom ? Sounds peaceful to Me.

Lost on the yelling and scr... (Below threshold)

Lost on the yelling and screaming (and gnashing of teeth), is this theme in the latest Iranian PR stunt, that there will be one great blow or attack to end the Israeli and American Zionism.

The Iranian really need a couple of good lessons on the practical matters of atomic "devices."

First, no matter how big they are, they are never big enough. My point is that Israel is proported to have dozens, perhaps 100+, probably fission, "devices." If Iran has one device in ten (or some say as little as 3 years), their dinky little device, while big enough to give Israel a "bad day," won't be big enough to stop a dozen or so being thrown back.

Second enough is never enough. At the peak of the cold war, both the US and the Soviet Union had over 10,000 devices each (the exact number is within an order of magnitude), most hydrogen fusion "devices." START got that down to something like 3000 each, with the US having about half at sea. It will take Iran probably 50 years with ever growing infrastructure to get to the 3000 number. And even then those "devices" at sea will virtually always be there. The "Zionists" in Israel will always have, we'll call it, a few dozen devices with those real short delivery times.

It continually seems that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is leading Iran on a national Shahada, as their current vocalized plan seems much like taking on the Calvary with bows and arrows. While they can inflict pain, even the 12th imam won't be enough to save them from the response. The damage of the that day will exhaust the virgin population of heaven for years to come, requiring them to do it with Hitler, instead, I suppose.

But best of all, while Iran is busy making all these "devices," it will be depleting it's cash and oil reserves in an ever increasing mad rush to look "powerful." One might even say they long to be a super power. I suggest they look north to the former superpower, the USSR, depleted of cash, even the oil reserves didn't suppy enough cash fast enough.

That guy above in this post who complained that his 4 days had been cut back to 2 days as recession is gripping the antion .. well, that will soon be 1 day. Then one day, not too far in the future, Iran will be broke and the imams will use Shahada to stop their own overthrow.

Israel has recently been t... (Below threshold)

Israel has recently been threatened a multitude of times by pres Ahma (whatever the hell his name is), so I think they have every right to launch a balls out military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities...






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy