Iran's special forces chief warns Trump - 'If you begin the war, we will end it': Tasnim

By Parisa Hafezi

 

FILE PHOTO: Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Qassem Soleimani (L) stands at the frontline during offensive operations against Islamic State militants in the town of Tal Ksaiba in Salahuddin province March 8, 2015. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

 

ANKARA (Reuters) - A powerful commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said on Thursday Donald Trump should address any threats against Tehran directly to him, and mocked the U.S. president as using the language of "night clubs and gambling halls".

 

The comments by Major-General Qassem Soleimani, who heads the Quds Force of the Guards, were the latest salvo in a war of words between the two countries.

 

"As a soldier, it is my duty to respond to your threats ... If you wants to use the language of threat ... talk to me, not to the president (Hassan Rouhani). It is not in our president's dignity to respond to you," Soleimani was quoted as saying by Iran's semi-official Tasnim news agency.

 

Soleimani's message was in essence a warning to the United states to stop threatening Iran with war or risk exposing itself to an Iranian response.

 

"We are near you, where you can't even imagine... Come. We are ready ... If you begin the war, we will end the war," Tasnim news agency quoted Soleimani as saying. "You know that this war will destroy all that you possess."

 

Israel's Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said the fiery rhetoric of Soleimani was only "empty talk" because Iran was aware of "the strength and might of the U.S. military".

 

On Sunday night, Trump said in a tweet directed at Rouhani: "Never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before. We are no longer a country that will stand for your demented words of violence & death. Be cautious!"

 

A few hours earlier, Rouhani had addressed Trump in a speech, saying that hostile U.S. policies could lead to "the mother of all wars".

 

Fanning the heightened tensions, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said in a statement on Monday: "President Trump told me that if Iran does anything at all to the negative, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid before."

 

Bolton is a proponent of interventionist foreign policy and was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the administration of George W. Bush during the Iraq war.

 

"You (Trump) threaten us with paying a price like few countries have ever paid. Trump, this is the language of night clubs and gambling halls," said Soleimani, who as Quds Force commander is in charge of the Revolutionary Guards' overseas operations.

 

Iran's Guards commanders have threatened to destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East and target Israel, which Iran refuses to recognise, within minutes of being attacked.

 

WAR OF WORDS

Since Trump's decision in May to withdraw the United States from a 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers, Tehran's clerical establishment has been under increasing U.S. pressure and the prospect of possible sanctions.

 

Washington aims to force Tehran to end its nuclear programme and its support of militant groups in the Middle East, where Iran is involved in proxy wars from Yemen to Syria.

 

Despite the bellicose rhetoric, there is limited appetite in Washington for a conflict with Iran, not least because of the difficulties the U.S. military faced in Iraq after its 2003 invasion but also because of the impact on the global economy if conflict raised oil prices.

 

Mounting U.S. economic pressure, a faltering economy, sliding currency and state corruption are rattling Iran's clerical rulers, but analysts and insiders rule out any chance of a seismic shift in Iran's political landscape.

 

"This is a war of words. Neither side want a military confrontation. But of course, if America attacks Iran, our response will be crushing," a senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named, told Reuters.

 

Trump suggested on Tuesday that talks with Iran were an option, saying "we're ready to make a real deal". But Iranrejected it.

 

"But eventually, within a few months, half a year, they'll have no choice and will return to negotiation table with the United States and give up their nuclear programme," Yuval told Israeli Reshet TV on Thursday.

 

While the United States is pushing countries to cut all imports of Iranian oil from November, Iran has warned of counter-measures and has threatened to block Gulf oil exports if its own exports are halted.

 

"The Red Sea which was secure is no longer secure today with the presence of American forces," Soleimani said.

 

Saudi Arabia said on Thursday it was temporarily halting all oil shipments through the Red Sea shipping lane of Bab al-Mandeb after an attack on two oil tankers by Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi movement.

 

(Additional reporting by Tom Perry in Beirut, Maayan Lubell in Jerusalem; Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by David Evans)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-27

Those Iranian top guys are so frustrated that Trump has thrown a spanner into their murky and sneaky plans to go nuke, that they have nothing better to do that issue more and more threats every couple of days, knowing full well that they can only flex their muscles and can't possibly and seriously hurt the US with their aging air force and armored equipments....

Senior figures in the Turnbull Government have told the ABC they believe the United States is prepared to bomb Iran's nuclear capability, perhaps as early as next month, and that Australia is poised to help identify possible targets.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-27/donald-trump-may-be-prepared-to-strike-iran-sources-say/10037728

Rhetoric or not Iran are very dangerous, any first strike by them would not be on the US it would be a massive one on Israel to take them out of any potential conflict.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Rhetoric or not Iran are very dangerous, any first strike by them would not be on the US it would be a massive one on Israel to take them out of any potential conflict.

 

 

Israel have been bombing Iran before, and Im quite sure if Iran bomb Istrael, they will go down as bad as Irak! There is no way Iran will carry out first attack. If Israel attack first, there will be less support for a war with Iran, but if Iran strikes Israel first, there will be nothing Russia or China official can do. 

Edited July 26, 20187 yr by Hummin

As we all know the US military will have no match at all about dealing with the Iranian military. In a fair war the US would get a great victory. However, that is not the case here.

There are many questions that must be asked:

 

Do Iran care same much about killing innocent people escalating the war to the general population? That they can do with all the sleepers and citizen as well as the big amount of religious supporters they have in the US already. In that area US will loose.

 

How does the great moron that at the moment is the presindent of the US think? What does he want to protect? Here he got a private threat against all he have and posesses? Will he tone down so that he will not lose his precious private fortune and family?

 

How many iranians are willing to die for every US soldier?

 

Sure they talk a lot of rubbish, but they should absolutely not be taken as harmless to the US. Only one person with the right equipment at the right time and place, could wipe out a big city population. It could even be a US citizen that symphatizes with Iran and it´s religion.

The nature of war has changed forever. Nations have stopped 'fighting fair'. Direct confrontation is avoided. Long term hit and run terror tactics have become normal. Similar to how the USA is still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan the Iranians will employ tactics that convention armies can not fight. Plus these people are religious fanatics that willingly die for their cause. Does America really think it can take on all the Islamic world and finish the job in weeks? By year 5 the US citizens will be regretting the choice to fight. Surely negotiations are preferred?

1 hour ago, webfact said:

'If you begin the war, we will end it'

American wars never end, they just fade away.

43 minutes ago, Lungstib said:

The nature of war has changed forever. Nations have stopped 'fighting fair'. Direct confrontation is avoided. Long term hit and run terror tactics have become normal. Similar to how the USA is still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan the Iranians will employ tactics that convention armies can not fight. Plus these people are religious fanatics that willingly die for their cause. Does America really think it can take on all the Islamic world and finish the job in weeks? By year 5 the US citizens will be regretting the choice to fight. Surely negotiations are preferred?

When have war ever been fear? 

 

Napoleon wars? 200 000 men up against each other? No raping, no plundering no exploiting of civilians? 

 

Drone attacks is better than what we call terror attacks? 

1 hour ago, Thailand said:

Rhetoric or not Iran are very dangerous, any first strike by them would not be on the US it would be a massive one on Israel to take them out of any potential conflict.

 

 

Are you serious? take out Israel? with what exactly? Israel have an answer for any and every missiles and rockets that Iran possess right now, their 40 years old decrepit ancient jet fighters  are no match to Israel's F-16 F-15 and F35 not even mentioning the quality of the pilots of these machines, say for argument sake that Iran has managed somehow to knock some of israel cities and towns, how long do you think it will take before those weapons of the armageddon will come out out of the sillios either on land or nuke submarines?...

I think Israel (Yallah!) and Trump (himself in fact) would simultaneously carpet bomb them back to 

stoneage.

 

 

 

'If you begin the war, we will end it'

Lots of historical precedent for that

It's called "surrender"

That usually ends wars.....

trump can send his kids first, just to measure the waters.

A salvo of tweets should take them out.

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

Trump has thrown a spanner into their murky and sneaky plans to go nuke, <snip>

If it were not for the other signatories to the JCPOA restraint, Trump would very likely achieved the exact opposite outcome to your claim.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

"You know that this war will destroy all that you possess."

Is he saying they will blow up all the Trump Towers?

Iran need not attack Israel , nor the USA directly. It can  use its proxy  forces such as Hizbollah. A conflict would also have collateral damage as Lebanon was devastated and Jordan  burdened with refugees.

 

To those assuming Israel can handle the incoming missiles, the past history has shown that it can not. Israel was unable to stop Iraq's scuds, and Iran has purchased some modern technology from China and Russia. US naval vessels in the Gulf are easy prey and are  difficult to defend against Iranian speed boat  attacks.

 

No one needs a war in the region as all it will result in is death, destruction and waste. Iran  will huff and puff and bluff, and won't engage directly. Watch for the Houthi to attack the Saudis again, more unrest in Bahrain, and for Turkey to stick its nose into the affair. Erdogan is just waiting on a chance to assert his  dominance in the region, while the Egyptian military  sits on a powder keg of discontent. And of course we can always expect the Palestinian arabs to back the wrong side so watch for Hamas to launch a second front. Israel  can no longer  sustain a three front war. It's not 1967 and war technology changed. If faced with a potential loss, Israel will wipe out Gaza, and unleash a devastation that will reduce southern Lebanon to dust. Do we need this?

27 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Iran need not attack Israel , nor the USA directly. It can  use its proxy  forces such as Hizbollah. A conflict would also have collateral damage as Lebanon was devastated and Jordan  burdened with refugees.

 

To those assuming Israel can handle the incoming missiles, the past history has shown that it can not. Israel was unable to stop Iraq's scuds, and Iran has purchased some modern technology from China and Russia. US naval vessels in the Gulf are easy prey and are  difficult to defend against Iranian speed boat  attacks.

 

No one needs a war in the region as all it will result in is death, destruction and waste. Iran  will huff and puff and bluff, and won't engage directly. Watch for the Houthi to attack the Saudis again, more unrest in Bahrain, and for Turkey to stick its nose into the affair. Erdogan is just waiting on a chance to assert his  dominance in the region, while the Egyptian military  sits on a powder keg of discontent. And of course we can always expect the Palestinian arabs to back the wrong side so watch for Hamas to launch a second front. Israel  can no longer  sustain a three front war. It's not 1967 and war technology changed. If faced with a potential loss, Israel will wipe out Gaza, and unleash a devastation that will reduce southern Lebanon to dust. Do we need this?

>> Do we need this?

..no we don't. So why has Donald Trump with Netanyahu cheerleading provoked this?

 

Just remember when the proverbial hits the fan, who broke the US word and sabotaged a nuclear deal that was working against a country 7,000 miles from the USA and was no threat it. And also watch how the script will change to the necessity of regime change as it did last time when the pretext  of  non existent WMD failed.

Edited July 27, 20187 yr by dexterm

4 hours ago, ezzra said:

Those Iranian top guys are so frustrated that Trump has thrown a spanner into their murky and sneaky plans to go nuke, that they have nothing better to do that issue more and more threats every couple of days, knowing full well that they can only flex their muscles and can't possibly and seriously hurt the US with their aging air force and armored equipments....

I worked with the Iran army aviation out of Isfahan and Tehran for four years as an instructor and trainer.Their army couldn't beat an armed UK or US Boy Scout Troop.

9 minutes ago, AsiaHand said:

I worked with the Iran army aviation out of Isfahan and Tehran for four years as an instructor and trainer.Their army couldn't beat an armed UK or US Boy Scout Troop.

Perhaps they need better instructors/trainers?

All war sucks it’s usally the innocent that suffer not the perpetrators 

8 minutes ago, Vacuum said:

Perhaps they need better instructors/trainers?

 

apparently, spot on, the result of 4 years of work: zilch

 

maybe the results compare with trainer's capability  to assess the effectiveness of the resources

 

 

A wacky idea for the CIA is to hack into Iran's mosque's speaker systems and play endless Trump's narrated tweets on continuous loop when all the men in Iran have fallen soundly asleep send in the seals too kill them all and peace could be restored.

This 'special forces' chief ; is he a Democrat? Sounds like an anti-trumper for sure.

6 hours ago, ezzra said:

Those Iranian top guys are so frustrated that Trump has thrown a spanner into their murky and sneaky plans to go nuke, that they have nothing better to do that issue more and more threats every couple of days, knowing full well that they can only flex their muscles and can't possibly and seriously hurt the US with their aging air force and armored equipments....

I am really curious how Trump has thrown a spanner into any plans of the Iranians to go nuclear. Before Trump, they were facing one of the most strict controls on nuclear development ever agreed to with extremely good monitoring systems. Now they have none and can and will do what they like.

 

I am a little careful with throwing empty threats after bad decisions - yes, the USA is a very large force, the largest and most powerful on earth. So what went wrong in Vietnam? And Iraq? And Bay of Pigs? But the USA is not the only example of a large power not able to beat a small power. Chinese invasion of Vietnam (1979), Southern Ireland's ejection of British (1922), French loss of Indochina as a colony, ejection of Soviet Union from Afghanistan, just to name a few. In each case, the much larger force lost. And, generally speaking, the war was fought in the following manner:

 

a) the smaller force was fighting on its own territory for, as it perceived, its own territory

b) the smaller force had to support of the local population

c) the soldiers of the larger army of invaders did not have anything like the motivation of the local soldiers

d) the smaller force did not fight a "conventional" war but instead fought a guerrila war, concentrating on making war expensive for the other side and making the country ungovernable.

e) the soldiers of the larger side were in a strange land far from home with little understanding of why they were there and sometimes did not even have the support of their own populations back home.

f) the policy makers and generals of the armies of the larger side totally underestimated the situation they were facing, invariably relying on the bigger fire-power of their side. They failed to understand the willingness of the smaller force to give their lives for their cause in far greater numbers than the larger army would ever accept. They failed to realise that the only way they could decisively win would be to commit near absolute genocide. As they moved closer and closer to that particular flame, they failed to realise how atrocities would eat away at the resolve of their own soldiers and their legacy.

 

If you have read through all of this, how would you like the Americans to respond to the Iranians? Invade? You would have another Syria on your hands and Trump would be painted as another Al Asad. Bomb them? Why? They have done nothing to the Americans apart from further their own foreign policy that does not happen to cohere with the foreign policy of a number of Arab countries that are far from being democratic. And they support Palestinian organizations that fight Israel in a rather one-sided battle.

 

Why punish the Iranians because Trump has removed the agreement that contained their nuclear ambitions? That sent the Iranians the message, "Go Ahead - build the nukes." What other message does it send?

3 hours ago, AsiaHand said:

I worked with the Iran army aviation out of Isfahan and Tehran for four years as an instructor and trainer.Their army couldn't beat an armed UK or US Boy Scout Troop.

And of course you are permitted to share information about that. Normally a person with your "training position" would be sworn under silence. So, there goes that bubble.

14 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

I am really curious how Trump has thrown a spanner into any plans of the Iranians to go nuclear. Before Trump, they were facing one of the most strict controls on nuclear development ever agreed to with extremely good monitoring systems. Now they have none and can and will do what they like.

 

I am a little careful with throwing empty threats after bad decisions - yes, the USA is a very large force, the largest and most powerful on earth. So what went wrong in Vietnam? And Iraq? And Bay of Pigs? But the USA is not the only example of a large power not able to beat a small power. Chinese invasion of Vietnam (1979), Southern Ireland's ejection of British (1922), French loss of Indochina as a colony, ejection of Soviet Union from Afghanistan, just to name a few. In each case, the much larger force lost. And, generally speaking, the war was fought in the following manner:

 

a) the smaller force was fighting on its own territory for, as it perceived, its own territory

b) the smaller force had to support of the local population

c) the soldiers of the larger army of invaders did not have anything like the motivation of the local soldiers

d) the smaller force did not fight a "conventional" war but instead fought a guerrila war, concentrating on making war expensive for the other side and making the country ungovernable.

e) the soldiers of the larger side were in a strange land far from home with little understanding of why they were there and sometimes did not even have the support of their own populations back home.

f) the policy makers and generals of the armies of the larger side totally underestimated the situation they were facing, invariably relying on the bigger fire-power of their side. They failed to understand the willingness of the smaller force to give their lives for their cause in far greater numbers than the larger army would ever accept. They failed to realise that the only way they could decisively win would be to commit near absolute genocide. As they moved closer and closer to that particular flame, they failed to realise how atrocities would eat away at the resolve of their own soldiers and their legacy.

 

If you have read through all of this, how would you like the Americans to respond to the Iranians? Invade? You would have another Syria on your hands and Trump would be painted as another Al Asad. Bomb them? Why? They have done nothing to the Americans apart from further their own foreign policy that does not happen to cohere with the foreign policy of a number of Arab countries that are far from being democratic. And they support Palestinian organizations that fight Israel in a rather one-sided battle.

 

Why punish the Iranians because Trump has removed the agreement that contained their nuclear ambitions? That sent the Iranians the message, "Go Ahead - build the nukes." What other message does it send?

Iran is doing a lot more meddling in the Middle east than just supporting Palestine. Removing Saddam Hussein was like a dream coming true for Iran and they have spread their evil wings ever since.

 

You will like this: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/bitter-rivals-iran-and-saudi-arabia

 

21 minutes ago, Get Real said:

And of course you are permitted to share information about that. Normally a person with your "training position" would be sworn under silence. So, there goes that bubble.

I really doubt that whatever agreements he may have signed on to cover a generalization like this.

That said, I suspect that Iran learned a lot about warfare since then first from fighting the Iraqis and then from tormenting the Americans, and finally from battling ISIS.

In the same way the Syrian army is now a very different quantity from what it was before the civil war.

General Mathis. !!!      

Come and get some.

3 hours ago, Proboscis said:

I am really curious how Trump has thrown a spanner into any plans of the Iranians to go nuclear. Before Trump, they were facing one of the most strict controls on nuclear development ever agreed to with extremely good monitoring systems. Now they have none and can and will do what they like.

 

I am a little careful with throwing empty threats after bad decisions - yes, the USA is a very large force, the largest and most powerful on earth. So what went wrong in Vietnam? And Iraq? And Bay of Pigs? But the USA is not the only example of a large power not able to beat a small power. Chinese invasion of Vietnam (1979), Southern Ireland's ejection of British (1922), French loss of Indochina as a colony, ejection of Soviet Union from Afghanistan, just to name a few. In each case, the much larger force lost. And, generally speaking, the war was fought in the following manner:

 

a) the smaller force was fighting on its own territory for, as it perceived, its own territory

b) the smaller force had to support of the local population

c) the soldiers of the larger army of invaders did not have anything like the motivation of the local soldiers

d) the smaller force did not fight a "conventional" war but instead fought a guerrila war, concentrating on making war expensive for the other side and making the country ungovernable.

e) the soldiers of the larger side were in a strange land far from home with little understanding of why they were there and sometimes did not even have the support of their own populations back home.

f) the policy makers and generals of the armies of the larger side totally underestimated the situation they were facing, invariably relying on the bigger fire-power of their side. They failed to understand the willingness of the smaller force to give their lives for their cause in far greater numbers than the larger army would ever accept. They failed to realise that the only way they could decisively win would be to commit near absolute genocide. As they moved closer and closer to that particular flame, they failed to realise how atrocities would eat away at the resolve of their own soldiers and their legacy.

 

If you have read through all of this, how would you like the Americans to respond to the Iranians? Invade? You would have another Syria on your hands and Trump would be painted as another Al Asad. Bomb them? Why? They have done nothing to the Americans apart from further their own foreign policy that does not happen to cohere with the foreign policy of a number of Arab countries that are far from being democratic. And they support Palestinian organizations that fight Israel in a rather one-sided battle.

 

Why punish the Iranians because Trump has removed the agreement that contained their nuclear ambitions? That sent the Iranians the message, "Go Ahead - build the nukes." What other message does it send?

Very well said.

All the rhetoric is just reminiscent of how Trump started the stupid NK war of words.

No doubt the US could destroy Iran militarily but quite likely result in a Shia version of AQ &/or IS. In other words more instability throughout the world.