Defying Trump, Iran says will boost missile capabilities

[rooster59]

Defying Trump, Iran says will boost missile capabilities

By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin

 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani arrives to attend an armed forces parade in Tehran, Iran, September 22, 2017. President.ir/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVE.

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Iran will strengthen its missile capabilities and not seek any country's permission, President Hassan Rouhani said on Friday rejecting demands from U.S. President Donald Trump.

 

Rouhani spoke at a military parade where an Iranian news agency said one of the weapons on display was a new ballistic missile with range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles), capable of carrying several warheads.

 

The Tasnim news agency, which quoted the head of the Revolutionary Guards' aerospace division, Amirali Hajizadeh, gave few other details of the missile.

 

Iranian state television showed footage of the firing of "Khoramshahr missile" but did not specify if the test-fire happened on Friday or in the past.

 

At the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said Iran was building its missile capability and accused it exporting violence to Yemen, Syria and other parts of the Middle East.

 

He also criticised the 2015 pact that the United States and six other powers struck with Iran under which Tehran agreed to restrict its nuclear programme in return for relief from economic sanctions.

 

In a speech broadcast on state television, Rouhani said: "We will increase our military power as a deterrent. We will strengthen our missile capabilities ... We will not seek permission from anyone to defend our country.

 

"All countries in the world supported the nuclear deal in the United Nations General Assembly this year ... except the United States and the Zionist regime (Israel)," Rouhani said.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the agreement must be changed or the United States could not stick with it. Iran has said its nuclear accord cannot be renegotiated.

 

The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it, especially as the world grapples with North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile development.

 

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said tensions on the Korean peninsula underlined the importance of the Iranian deal, and that China would continue to support it.

 

Trump put Iran "on notice" in February for test-firing a ballistic missile and imposed new economic sanctions in July over its missile programme and "malign activities" in the Middle East.

 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday that the U.S. imposition of unilateral sanctions on Iran was "illegitimate and undermines the collective nature of international efforts."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-23

[nausea]

Lots to ponder here but to take one paragraph:

 

"The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it, especially as the world grapples with North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile development."

 

I'm not much of a multi-tasker myself so my own instinct would be to deal with North Korea first, and keep Iran on the back burner.

 

 

 

 

[phantomfiddler]

Iran have proven themselves to be the total enemy of civilization, and they will most likely turn out to be much more of a problem than L.F.B. (little fat boy)

[ilostmypassword]

22 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Iran have proven themselves to be the total enemy of civilization, and they will most likely turn out to be much more of a problem than L.F.B. (little fat boy)

The civilized nation and US ally Saudi Arabia agrees with you. As do all Sunni extremists.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, phantomfiddler said:

Iran have proven themselves to be the total enemy of civilization, and they will most likely turn out to be much more of a problem than L.F.B. (little fat boy)

Which has nuclear weapons?

Now:

• Iran - none
• NK   - no more than 60      http://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-nuclear-missile-number-651034

Next 5 years:

• Iran - none (under nuclear deal)
• NK - more than 60

I'm with nausea's post: deal with North Korea first, and keep Iran on the back burner. At least with regard to the nuclear deal.

[farq]

"The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal........."!! 

This is a given! The US reneges on every deal it makes, can't trust them an inch! 

The US needs to concentrate its efforts on getting its own house in order before dictating to others what they should be doing!

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, nausea said:

Lots to ponder here but to take one paragraph:

 

"The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it, especially as the world grapples with North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile development."

 

I'm not much of a multi-tasker myself so my own instinct would be to deal with North Korea first, and keep Iran on the back burner.

 

 

 

 

I think you are crediting Trump with more brains than he has.  He is incapable of "dealing with either".  His weapon is bluster and threats.

[farq]

2 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Iran have proven themselves to be the total enemy of civilization, and they will most likely turn out to be much more of a problem than L.F.B. (little fat boy)

 

 What justification or proof do you have for this comment?!  The US is the total enemy of civilisation and a much more worrying prospect than Iran or North Korea who are entitled to defend themselves from the constant threats and bullying from the maniacs in Washington!

[dunroaming]

2 minutes ago, farq said:

 

 What justification or proof do you have for this comment?!  The US is the total enemy of civilisation and a much more worrying prospect than Iran or North Korea who are entitled to defend themselves from the constant threats and bullying from the maniacs in Washington!

Maybe you should edit the "maniacs" to maniac

[smotherb]

18 hours ago, nausea said:

Lots to ponder here but to take one paragraph:

 

"The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it, especially as the world grapples with North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile development."

 

I'm not much of a multi-tasker myself so my own instinct would be to deal with North Korea first, and keep Iran on the back burner.

 

 

 

 

Well, let's do some unilateral thought then. What if KJU would sell his nuclear devices and delivery systems to Iran, or ISIS or any other belligerent entity--what better way to rid himself of that pesky Trump without directly incurring the wrath of the US.

[Scott]

A post containing a racial slur has been removed.  

[inThailand]

Let them violate the agreement, all the more reason to terminate it.

[FreddieRoyle]

14 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Iran have proven themselves to be the total enemy of civilization, and they will most likely turn out to be much more of a problem than L.F.B. (little fat boy)

I'm not sure the illicit sending of wooden pallets topped with over a billion dollars in used banknotes to the Iranian regime was the Obama administration's greatest move. It was in the back of my mind they would use this dirty money to buy weapons of mass destruction and make the regional instability even worse, and whaddya know...

 

 

[Srikcir]

5 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

I'm not sure the illicit sending of wooden pallets topped with over a billion dollars in used banknotes to the Iranian regime was the Obama administration's greatest move. It was in the back of my mind they would use this dirty money to buy weapons of mass destruction and make the regional instability even worse, and whaddya know...

 

 

After all that has happened since 2016 you need to cite fake news.  Uninspiring.

http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

 

[FreddieRoyle]

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

After all that has happened since 2016 you need to cite fake news.  Uninspiring.

http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

 

We should probably not drag the Iran suddenly getting rich and dangerous topic into bizarro territory by quoting extremist anti Trump trashmag Times. There are thousands of credible links using Google showing that they did send tons of cash after frantic denials. Heres a quick start.

 

"The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran"

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html

[boomerangutang]

13 hours ago, Srikcir said:

deal with North Korea first, and keep Iran on the back burner. At least with regard to the nuclear deal.

Why is the US acting so 'more-righteous-than-thou'?  I'm American, but with Trump at the helm, I've dropped the mantle of thinking WE are superior.   Trump acts like HE is (...and Americans are) superior.  What a wrongheaded view!

 

It would be like the first tribe to invent the metal sword, pontificated about which other tribes can be allowed to have swords - forever. 

 

All nukes, everywhere, should be eradicated permanently.  Since there are currently no world leaders sensible-enough to back that idea, then let the arms races explode.  Who can say whether Iran will be more or less responsible than the US re; nukes?  I can't say, can you?  The US is the only country in world history to have used a N bomb in anger.   

 

As things stand now, I trust Iranian leaders as being wiser and more cool-headed than US leaders, and I don't trust Iranian leaders much at all. 

 

As for Fat Boy Kim....   the comparison to Trump is like comparing a rotten pear to a rotten peach.

[Credo]

The money was Iran's money, pure and simple and anything else is just trolling.

 

This situation is where Trump and his big mouth are going to find himself in trouble.  He has alienated nearly every world leader and he is extremely unlikely to find any friends when it comes to any military action.   

 

He has two potential situations, NK and Iran.   If they team up, it could make for a nasty situation.   

 

[ELVIS123456]

22 hours ago, rooster59 said:

At the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said Iran was building its missile capability and accused it exporting violence to Yemen, Syria and other parts of the Middle East.

 

He also criticised the 2015 pact that the United States and six other powers struck with Iran under which Tehran agreed to restrict its nuclear programme in return for relief from economic sanctions.

 

Trump is doing what he said he would do - cancel all Trade and UN deals that were signed off on that dont benefit USA.  Iran is an extremist terrorist country and anything they say and do is lies and deceit - period. That Obama thought he could 'pay' Iran and they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons and missiles was ridiculous and stupid, and was just another of his 'order' done to keep the UN happy (and get his Nobel prize). That the other stupid Democrat POTUS (Clinton) had done the same (and failed) with Nth Korea, and Obama ignored that for his own benefit, astounds me (and a majority of the USA people). Trump is going to unwind everything that is not in the interests of the American people.  Hang on for the ride - NK and Iran now - but a long way to go.

 

 

[craigt3365]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The civilized nation and US ally Saudi Arabia agrees with you. As do all Sunni extremists.

And most of the civilised world.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, farq said:

"The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal........."!! 

This is a given! The US reneges on every deal it makes, can't trust them an inch! 

The US needs to concentrate its efforts on getting its own house in order before dictating to others what they should be doing!

Nice troll post. Care to back that statement up with credible links?

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

The US is the only country in world history to have used a N bomb in anger.   

Used in war as a strategic last-resort weapon that saved millions of allied lives. No anger there.

Just the unfortunate consequence for a nation that decided to expand its empire throughout the asia-pacific theater by blood.

 

PS: Japan and Germany were developing a nuclear weapon as well. US got there first.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Srikcir
add PS

[stevenl]

Quote

In a speech broadcast on state television, Rouhani said: "We will increase our military power as a deterrent. We will strengthen our missile capabilities ... We will not seek permission from anyone to defend our country.

Of course they don't seek permission from any country, no reason at all to do so.

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, inThailand said:

Let them violate the agreement, all the more reason to terminate it.

So far they have not violated the agreement, and there are no indications they will.

 

The only ones indicating they will violate the agreement are the USA.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So far they have not violated the agreement, and there are no indications they will.

 

The only ones indicating they will violate the agreement are the USA.

If history is taken into account, there's every reason to think they will violate this agreement.  Like they've done in the past.

 

This is worth a read.  Staggering.  Yet some seem to think the USA is the bad guy here.

 

https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/violation-of-treaties

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-rafizadeh/iran-breached-the-nuclear_b_9977768.html

Quote

Iran Breaches the Nuclear Deal and UN Resolutions for Third Time

 

[billd766]

19 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Iran have proven themselves to be the total enemy of civilization, and they will most likely turn out to be much more of a problem than L.F.B. (little fat boy)

 

Really?

 

And how many countries has Iran invaded compared to the mighty bastion of peace in the world called the USA.

 

The biggest enemy of civilisation IMHO had been the USA and they are STILL bent on doing it either by themselves or by their proxies.

 

Again, IMHO, if the USA had stepped asige from most of the actual conflicts that they have fought in since WW2 and Korea the world would have been a safer place.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Really?

 

And how many countries has Iran invaded compared to the mighty bastion of peace in the world called the USA.

 

The biggest enemy of civilisation IMHO had been the USA and they are STILL bent on doing it either by themselves or by their proxies.

 

Again, IMHO, if the USA had stepped asige from most of the actual conflicts that they have fought in since WW2 and Korea the world would have been a safer place.

That's not a fair comparison.  A small nation to one of the largest in the world.  Not to mention, look at the partners in the wars the US has been involved with.  It's a loooog list.

 

At least one nation is glad for help from the US.  Kuwait.  Could add a few others, even Thailand when the US helped in their fight several decades ago.

[billd766]

24 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That's not a fair comparison.  A small nation to one of the largest in the world.  Not to mention, look at the partners in the wars the US has been involved with.  It's a loooog list.

 

At least one nation is glad for help from the US.  Kuwait.  Could add a few others, even Thailand when the US helped in their fight several decades ago.

Do you think that for example Grenada was happy to get a visit from the US military, or even Iran when the US and the UK engineered a coup that threw out the government and installed the Shah only in its turn to throw him out?

 

Kuwait was only "helped beacuse of the oil and Kuwait was invaded by Iraq which was an ally of the USA several years earlier.

 

How about Afghanistan or even Vietnam if you want to go back that far.

 

In WW2 Ho Chi Minh was an ally of the US and the UK and fought against the Japanese invaders to get the country back for the Vietnamese. Because the North Vietnamese were communist the USA was against them and after the French were decisively beaten at Dien Bien Phu and effectively kicked out there was a period of comparaitve peace and the DMZ was established.

 

The Geneva Accords stipulated that after an election in 1956 both North and South would be reunited.

 

It never happened and the country went downhill from there.

 

American "advisors" came to S Vietnam to "assist" the government and their numbers just grew and grew as did the Chinese and Russian "advisors" in the North though in far fewer numbers than the USA.

 

There are some very interesting articles on line about the Vietnam war.

 

Enough digression.

 

It is enough to say that very few countries in the last 50 years have asked for or wanted USA intervention.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

If history is taken into account, there's every reason to think they will violate this agreement.  Like they've done in the past.

 

This is worth a read.  Staggering.  Yet some seem to think the USA is the bad guy here.

 

https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/violation-of-treaties

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majid-rafizadeh/iran-breached-the-nuclear_b_9977768.html

 

Some being, among others, Europe.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

So far they have not violated the agreement, and there are no indications they will.

 

The only ones indicating they will violate the agreement are the USA.

 

Blanket statements notwithstanding, there were Iranian violations of the agreement, as covered in a parallel topic (and past ones). This wasn't unexpected, given the complexity of the agreement and the conditions under which it was signed. The question is, perhaps, more to do with defining when such minor violations become an issue meriting action. So far, at least, most involved parties seem to think there's no call for re-evaluation, re-enacting of sanctions etc.

 

When it is said that Iran is complying with the agreement's terms it does not necessarily imply 100% compliance to a degree where there are not breaches, but rather refers to an acceptable level of compliance. It is also somewhat effected by how effectively the terms are enforced.

 

If there was "no indication" the terms would be breached, then the strict monitoring regime applied wouldn't be in place. It is there, at least in part, due to Iran's previous conduct and to the low level of trust afforded.

[rijb]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

It is enough to say that very few countries in the last 50 years have asked for or wanted USA intervention.

Bullshit!  It's a well-known fact that a vampire cannot enter someone's home unless invited.