Iran threatens 'decisive strike' if US attacks

Iran threatens 'decisive strike' if US attacks

www.telegraph.co.uk

Iran has threatened to hit back with an "even more decisive strike" if the US bombs its nuclear installations, as international tensions rise following Washington's imposition of sanctions against Teheran.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 29-10-2007 by Crakeur]

[edit on 29-10-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

So what exactly, if anything will this "decisive strike" entail? Could they possibly already have a few of those soviet made nukes prepared to strike Israel?

This whole ordeal is getting scary. On the one hand, you have the United States and Israel provoking Iran every chance they get. On the other, you have a Russia backed Iran preparing to launch a full counter attack should they be hit. Since we already suspect that the United States/Israel are already determined to strike Iran, it's just a matter of time before this situation turns real ugly, real fast.

For some strange reason, directly after reading this article I couldn't help but think of the movie "The Day After".

Jasn

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 29-10-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

I agree that the whole thing is getting a bit worrisome. A few thoughts on it though:

I don't think Iran has any choice but to make these counterthreats to the US. I think that they really don't want to be perceived as weak, so they have to say that they are powerful enough to scare the US out of any attack. Now, how real could their "decisive" attack be? Who knows. I would imagine that it would be part of their 1100 rocket attack that they talked about earlier. I think they would target the US assets in Iraq and they would also launch some at Isreal for good measure.

I don't really think that they have anything catastrophic up their sleeve. They certainly don't have the means to trade punches with the US or Israel on a "Decisive" attack scale. Lets say that they and the IAEA are correct and that they don't have any nukes at this point. The worst they could do would be to launch a chem/bio attack on Israel and the US bases in Iraq. That would certainly not sit well with Israel, who would use that as all the reason they need to turn a large chunk of Tehran into glass. I mean, look at Israels response to having 2 soldiers kidnapped. I doubt they would think twice about returning the favor 100 fold to Iran if they were to have some sort of WMD used on them.

While I think that Iran has a decent military that could certainly make a ground war more challenginging than what the US faced in Iraq, I don't think they would stand much of a chance with a bombing campaign. I think that Iran's greatest defense right now is having the support of Putin. That will probably prove to be the largest deterrent in their arsenal. Now the real question is how "real" is the threat that Putin is making. Again, who knows?

My main question is just how real is this threat? I mean, the military industrial complex stands to make a fortune (at the cost of the American people) by another arms race / cold war with Russia. This entire thing could be orchestrated to continue the flow of money, and it certainly would work. The other issue though is the all mighty Oil. If we have truely hit peak oil, like some media outlets are suggesting, than I am afraid the US could have ample motivation to take control of the oil in Iran. Sure, they will sell the war on something else, nuclear weapons, terrorism... whatever they want, but if they can control the oil reserves, it would be very beneficial for the US.

If it is about Oil, it would also make sense for Putin to be behind Iran. If the world runs out of Oil, Russia would be right back in the front of the world power race. It would make sense for them to try to keep the US from obtaining any more oil, therefore expediting the downfall of the US. So, they wouldn't be backing Iran as much as they would be keeping America away from a resource that it needs to continue its world domination.

Crazy times ahead.

As soon as Iran committs these 'terrorist-attacks'
we will have a green light to absolutley pulverize them.

After all, if they dont sit back and LET us bomb them in the name of freedom, they must surely be terrorists...

How do you bomb someone, under the guise of foreign security?

Hows about this.... at present Iran arent bombing us..
...they arent bombing Israel..
...they havent been found to be in breach of their IAEA requirements...
...they are REQUESTING DIALOUGE

yet... we seem to be preparing to bomb them.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


I'm surprised more people can't see the close resemblance between the Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia situation and the Iraq/Iran/Syria/Russia situation.

We had operatives in Vietnam long before the actual "war" started who did nothing but agitate the populace to provoke the war, why should (or would) we do any different now?


Jasn


EDIT TO ADD: I'm very much expecting another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident sometime before the middle part of 2008. I don't think we'll launch any real (read: publicized) attack against Iran until June or July of next year. And I feel it's pretty safe to assume there will be a story about that time very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin affair.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by SimiusDei]

Originally posted by SimiusDei
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

EDIT TO ADD: I'm very much expecting another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident sometime before the middle part of 2008. I don't think we'll launch any real (read: publicized) attack against Iran until June or July of next year. And I feel it's pretty safe to assume there will be a story about that time very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin affair.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by SimiusDei]

Yes, I am expecting the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some Iranian passports end up being found at location where the fires started in California. Miraculously unharmed of course. Sure it would be WAY too obvious but, I still wouldn't be surprised.

reply to post by Karlhungis


It would be way to obvious to us, the rest of the United States, however, worry me. They would likely accept it like the accepted the passport in the WTC rubble.

"Why, you must be a fool if you think jet fuel can destroy a passport! Don't you know that it's only capable of fueling planes and melting steel? Paper is pliable, that's why it survived even though the concrete was turned to dust STUPID!"

US is acting like a bully on the world scene, and its arrogance and total disregard for human suffering is incredible. Its all about the money... developing and testing new horrible weapons on whatever middle eastern country they feel like attacking.

At some point the US needs to be stopped, and several countries will have to combine their forces to do it. I hate wars, but considering that the US is acting like a rabid dog, what choice does the world have?

Originally posted by SimiusDei

"Why, you must be a fool if you think jet fuel can destroy a passport! Don't you know that it's only capable of fueling planes and melting steel?"

Don't forget that it is also capable of destroying Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders - perhaps the aircraft manufacturers should consider constructing them out of the same material as Saudi passports?

As regards Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest piece of rhetoric - is anyone else reminded of Saddam promising the "Mother of all Battles" on the eve of the First Gulf War? Seems like a bad omen to me...

Get a grip people, enough of all the paranoid ranting. You make some very ineresting candidates for some psych students.

If Iran were to hit back it would be in Iraq, they coud order a massive uprising of the Shiite militia's at relatively litle cost to themsleves.

As for Putin, there is no way he would go to war witht the US over Iran. People who state that really are uniformed about geoploitics, economics and a whole host of other things. Really think about what you [pst veofer posting it, becaue you sound worse than the plot of a Tom Clancy novel.

Originally posted by sonicology
As regards Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest piece of rhetoric - is anyone else reminded of Saddam promising the "Mother of all Battles" on the eve of the First Gulf War? Seems like a bad omen to me...

For the Iranians I guess, becaue the US took apart the worlds 4th largest Army in a matter of weeks for a little over 100 dead. Is that what you're saying ?

reply to post by SimiusDei


Thanks for the thread SimiusDei,

I find interesting as I imagine many of you here in the boards and while watching news, that the a game is been played between Iran and the US, is a game of words.

While we have Cheney and Bush talking about a possible confrontation with Iran and that Iran should be dealt with, "because it wants to become nuclear and wipe Israel" this is all nothing more than a geared and manipulated psychological preparedness to gain public support on what is already in the planning with the American people approval or not.

I spend my morning exercises yesterday at my local military gym watching 4 TVs with Fox showing Iran's military marching and while his leader smiling and fox talking on how Iran is taunting the US .

I found this very disturbing, what in the world is going on, feels like brain washing to me but so obvious and ridiculous I could not keep wondering as how our nation has fallen while trying to push the agendas of our leaders.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are supplying the insurgents with training and materials? Or, maybe it has more to do with the fact that we are capturing active members of their military in Iraq attacking our troops?

Originally posted by marg6043
I found this very disturbing, what in the world is going on, feels like brain washing to me but so obvious and ridiculous I could not keep wondering as how our nation has fallen while trying to push the agendas of our leaders.

.

Well, it could be a type of conditioning, sure. However you also display a tpye of conditioning/brainwashing, by believing that everything on the news is wrong or propoganda. You have been conditioned to believe what is on the news isn't true, even when it obviously is. It's hard for anyone to know the truth or to be truly informed when all they do is read the internet and have never been exposed to the history of the region pre internet, or pre Iraq/GFI. I was reading about Iran and knew Iranians who had left Ian back in the 1980's. It interesating how both sides in here completely misunderstand what Iran is all about.

You are living in a fantasy world if you beleive that the US would leave any assets capable of being launched at US assets would be left standing after the first two hours of a war. The US commanders know about the missiles and they would be pummeled badly before they could be launched. All the AA and SAMS would be destroyed in the fisrt minutes of the war. F-18's would destroy any Iranian naval vessel. F-15 would have complete air superiority. Special forces would aid in taking out SAM sites. Cruise missiles would take out communications and power plants. B-1 and B-2 would drop bunker busters on nuclear sites. Apaches would take out military sites along the Iran/Iraq border.

Iran is powerless to stop stealth cruise missiles, special forces and stealth aircraft.

The missiles that Iran boosts about are just another set of targets to destory in the first minuntes of a war. Don't be fooled to think the US will go in without split second percision and without taking care of counter strike mechanisms in the first waves.

We are in a propaganda war right now and I don not beleive the US will strike unless Iran strikes first.

Iran will never strike first, that is a fact, but they could be made into a situation that will put them at fault and in the direct path to an attack by our leaders in the US.

Funny but when you are surrounded by 4 TVs with the same channel news showing the same thing about Iran over and over again, it does sound like brain washing either that or the commanding officer of the base is very pro fox.

BTW, has been complains about the TVs unless is sports related they will remain on fox.

Originally posted by eagledriver
The missiles that Iran boosts about are just another set of targets to destory in the first minuntes of a war. Don't be fooled to think the US will go in without split second percision and without taking care of counter strike mechanisms in the first waves.

Agreed the primary targets of the opening sorties of any bombing campaign would be Iran's long range offensive weapons. After that secondary targets would be bombed, SAM's, Nuke sites, IRGC compounds etc.
The only way Iran would respond is through terrorism, they may already have cells in place. And they would more than likely target soft civilian targets.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by mad scientist]

SO what excuse does the USA have for starting another illegal war? Iran have complied with the IAEA - go look on the IAEA website - Iran run an IAEA monitored nuclear reactor - that in 17 years hasn`t once tried to extract any plutonium.

so whats the excuse this time?

We are seeing the rise of the Forth Reich how will you fight.

Originally posted by marg6043
Iran will never strike first, that is a fact, but they could be made into a situation that will put them at fault and in the direct path to an attack by our leaders in the US.

the Israeli's could argue they already have. The Iranians have fater all be waging a proxy war with Israel through Hezbolah for 2 decades now.
As for not starting a war, that seems to be the primary reason for nuclear weapons, so people (ie.US) will back off if they choose to assert their regional dominance on the Persian Gulf.
Make no mistake Iran is developing a powerful offensive force, they are not a defensive military.

Funny but when you are surrounded by 4 TVs with the same channel news showing the same thing about Iran over and over again, it does sound like brain washing either that or the commanding officer of the base is very pro fox.

Well, do you think you are being brainwashed ? I like wathcing FOX news. I can still think for myslef though. I especially like wathcing them take apart someone I don't like. Sometimes I disagree though.

Hezbollah is recognised by most countries in the world as a legimate group of freedom fighters - only a handful of western countries (which include usa and israel) say they are terrorist...


which beggers the question - If it was `ok` for the usa to supply the IRA with military weapon and money to fight the british (NORAD) then why is it wrong for iran to do it.