Iran commander calls U.S. military in Gulf a target not a threat - ISNA

 

The fast combat support ship USNS Arctic pulls alongside the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to conduct a replenishment-at-sea in the Mediterranean Sea, May 8, 2019. Michael Singley/U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS

 

GENEVA (Reuters) - A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said on Sunday the U.S. military presence in the Gulf used to be a serious threat but now represents a target, the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) reported.

 

The U.S. military has sent forces, including an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers, to the Middle East in a move that U.S. officials said was made to counter "clear indications" of threats from Iran to American forces in the region.

 

The USS Abraham Lincoln is replacing another carrier rotated out of the Gulf last month.

 

"An aircraft carrier that has at least 40 to 50 planes on it and 6,000 forces gathered within it was a serious threat for us in the past but now it is a target and the threats have switched to opportunities," said Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Guards' aerospace division.

 

"If (the Americans) make a move, we will hit them in the head," he added, according to ISNA.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump also has increased economic pressure on Iran, moving to cut off all its oil exports, to try to get Tehran to curb its nuclear and missile programs as well as end support for proxies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.

 

Speaking to CNBC in an interview to be broadcast on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. deployments came in response to intelligence about potential Iranian attacks and aimed both to deter them and to be able to respond if necessary.

 

"We've seen this reporting," Pompeo said. "It's real. It appears to be something that is current, that is things we're worried about today."

 

"In the event that Iran decided to come after an American interest - whether that be in Iraq or Afghanistan or Yemen or any place in the Middle East - we are prepared to respond in an appropriate way," he said, adding that "our aim is not war."

 

Iranian navy commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi said on Sunday that American forces must exit, according to ISNA. "The presence of the Americans in the Persian Gulf region has reached its end and they must leave the region," Khanzadi said.

 

Major General Hossein Salami, appointed head of the Guards last month, told parliament on Sunday the United States had started a psychological war in the region, the parliamentary spokesman said.

 

"Commander Salami, with attention to the situation in the region, presented an analysis that the Americans have started a psychological war because the comings and goings of their military is a normal matter," spokesman Behrouz Nemati said, according to parliament's ICANA news site.

 

(Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh; Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed in Washington; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle, Edmund Blair and Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-13

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

That would not be a smart move tha consequences would not be good for rather country

traditionally, Arabs and Muslims leaders macho posturing are big on rhetorics of war of words but very short on substance, while iran boast of a formidable army however ill equipped with ancient hardwear they will not hasisitae to sacrifice hundreds of thousand of soldiers and civilians lives fighting enemies as they did in the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, one thing they should take into account though that the're dealing with a madman name Trump who will stop at nothing if he pushed hard enough...

Exactly the  sort of response  the US  has been provoking !

"Our aim is not war!" ?

So why push so hard in defiance of the majority of  UN member countries?

Another "If you are not with us you are against us "  style of rhetoric will be doubly offensive if attempted!

Unlike  Iraq they are  not playing with an assisted puppet in Iran.

12 minutes ago, ezzra said:

traditionally, Arabs and Muslims leaders macho posturing are big on rhetorics of war of words but very short on substance, while iran boast of a formidable army however ill equipped with ancient hardwear they will not hasisitae to sacrifice hundreds of thousand of soldiers and civilians lives fighting enemies as they did in the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, one thing they should take into account though that the're dealing with a madman name Trump who will stop at nothing if he pushed hard enough...

And this is exactly the type of opportunity that the "madman" is seeking. He has no fear of the consequences because he couldn't possibly envision them anyway.

Don't usually see MSC ships on front page news, they're usually not photographed.

20 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Exactly the  sort of response  the US  has been provoking !

"Our aim is not war!" ?

So why push so hard in defiance of the majority of  UN member countries?

Another "If you are not with us you are against us "  style of rhetoric will be doubly offensive if attempted!

Unlike  Iraq they are  not playing with an assisted puppet in Iran.

Exactly and with Iranian resources and assets they would deliberately provoke Israel if the US were stupid enough to do any thing agreesive.  If one thing is needed to unite 95% of Muslim countries in the region then that would be that. The US vessels in the area would be targets for just more than Iran.  Trump and his war mongering rhetoric would have it pushed back to him where the sun doesn't shine.

30 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Don't usually see MSC ships on front page news, they're usually not photographed.

They're a little hard to miss:

 

22 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Exactly and with Iranian resources and assets they would deliberately provoke Israel if the US were stupid enough to do any thing agreesive.  If one thing is needed to unite 95% of Muslim countries in the region then that would be that. The US vessels in the area would be targets for just more than Iran.  Trump and his war mongering rhetoric would have it pushed back to him where the sun doesn't shine.

Do tell how conflict with Iran would unite 99% of the Muslim countries where majority are sunnis and hate Shias with passion , especially Iran .

1 hour ago, webfact said:

said on Sunday the U.S. military presence in the Gulf used to be a serious threat but now represents a target,

Of course he would say that , but unfortunately it is true .

 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

U.S. officials said was made to counter "clear indications" of threats from Iran to American forces

Just ' indications ' no prove whatsoever ...

 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"If (the Americans) make a move, we will hit them in the head," he added,

If they move , it may easily become the beginning of a new WW with Russia and China backing the Iran ...

 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

the U.S. deployments came in response to intelligence about potential Iranian attacks

" Potential " attacks ... from Iran , the USA or Israel ... I mean WHO is the aggressor here ?

It clearly is not Iran .

Some knee-jerk reactions here....unlike almost all previous presidents since WW2, Trump has not yet sent American troops to put boots on the ground in any foreign country.  

51 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Don't usually see MSC ships on front page news, they're usually not photographed.

On a less frivolous note than my previous post, U-Tube is full of videos of these supply ships replenishing carriers at sea.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, BestB said:

Do tell how conflict with Iran would unite 99% of the Muslim countries where majority are sunnis and hate Shias with passion , especially Iran .

Go back and read my post again. I made it simple. A clue - look for the common denominator

43 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Exactly and with Iranian resources and assets they would deliberately provoke Israel if the US were stupid enough to do any thing agreesive.  If one thing is needed to unite 95% of Muslim countries in the region then that would be that. The US vessels in the area would be targets for just more than Iran.  Trump and his war mongering rhetoric would have it pushed back to him where the sun doesn't shine.

Pretty accurate assessment.  Sadly there is a good chance that the sunshine would be instantaneous and man made!

16 minutes ago, blazes said:

Some knee-jerk reactions here....unlike almost all previous presidents since WW2, Trump has not yet sent American troops to put boots on the ground in any foreign country.  

Just give him a little more time. As the saying goes, "he's crusin' for a bruisin'".

 

Trump thrives on headlines.

52 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Exactly and with Iranian resources and assets they would deliberately provoke Israel if the US were stupid enough to do any thing agreesive.  If one thing is needed to unite 95% of Muslim countries in the region then that would be that. The US vessels in the area would be targets for just more than Iran.  Trump and his war mongering rhetoric would have it pushed back to him where the sun doesn't shine.

 

The fantasy about the Arab/Muslim World uniting against the infidels is just that - a fantasy. Didn't happen during the wars with Iraq, didn't happen in Syria, and so on and so forth. Iran is not exactly Ms. Popularity when it comes to many of its neighbors.

 

26 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Of course he would say that , but unfortunately it is true .

 

 

Just ' indications ' no prove whatsoever ...

 

 

If they move , it may easily become the beginning of a new WW with Russia and China backing the Iran ...

 

 

" Potential " attacks ... from Iran , the USA or Israel ... I mean WHO is the aggressor here ?

It clearly is not Iran .

 

Another the-sky-is-falling post. A new WW, no less. With Russia and China backing Iran. Neither of which is known for substituting interests with a principled approach, least of all on behalf of other nations.

As for the OP....guess this kind of talk is expected. Traditional even. Brings to mind that hilarious Iraqi army spokesman. 

40 minutes ago, blazes said:

Some knee-jerk reactions here....unlike almost all previous presidents since WW2, Trump has not yet sent American troops to put boots on the ground in any foreign country.  

Much to the frustration of his current crop of  Generals wanting a new personal gong !

2 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Much to the frustration of his current crop of  Generals wanting a new personal gong !

 

The three prominent generals (Mattis, McMaster, Kelly) who previously served on Trump's administration were considered to have a relatively moderating effect on policy, despite being "hard-liners".

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The three prominent generals (Mattis, McMaster, Kelly) who previously served on Trump's administration were considered to have a relatively moderating effect on policy, despite being "hard-liners".

Is the  key word "previously" ?

43 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Go back and read my post again. I made it simple. A clue - look for the common denominator

Sorry I do not speak in codes

6 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Is the  key word "previously" ?

 

The key word is keeping it real. Could you actually identify the "current crop of generals", or give examples for their expressed frustration of being denied a "new personal gong"?

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The key word is keeping it real. Could you actually identify the "current crop of generals", or give examples for their expressed frustration of being denied a "new personal gong"?

No. Don't want to.  The POTUS has repeatedly demonstrated the  defence of petulance. ????

However I will concede a little  and provide  my original comment as I should have put it.

 

Much to the frustration of his current crop of  Generals wanting a new personal gong ?

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

No. Don't want to.  The POTUS has repeatedly demonstrated the  defence of petulance. ????

However I will concede a little  and provide  my original comment as I should have put it.

 

Much to the frustration of his current crop of  Generals wanting a new personal gong ?

 

 

 

 

 

So basically, just making up stuff in lieu of actual facts or arguments. But do go on complaining about Trump doing the same...

3 hours ago, webfact said:

"In the event that Iran decided to come after an American interest - whether that be in Iraq or Afghanistan or Yemen or any place in the Middle East

American interest = oil!

And only oil.

Yemen = Bad.

Saudi = Good.

These scumbags have zero honour, respect or morals. Everything is about the $ and nothing else.

What interest is there in the ME and Asia such as Afghanistan?

What right have they got f###ing up and meddling in these countries?

I used to respect America as a country a long time ago.

Respect for their politics and foreign policy went out the window decades ago.

I would have thought Vietnam (52k dead & millions on the other side inc horrific civilian casualties) and meddling in other country's affairs might have taught them a lesson.

Nah.

All rise and bow to the military industrial complex that is the USA.

Where there's war there's money to be made.

I hope this comes back to bite them.

Rant over, carry on.

 

 

Don't give John Bolton and Israel an excuse to decimate your military...

 

Keep your shirt on and save your as-s...

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

So basically, just making up stuff in lieu of actual facts or arguments. But do go on complaining about Trump doing the same...

lol. Asking a  question or proposing a motive is not making things up. Discussion and debate necessarily requires such. Without such the world may just as well be flat.

Nixon's madman theory revisited??

5 hours ago, webfact said:

A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said on Sunday the U.S. military presence in the Gulf used to be a serious threat but now represents a target

Iran has chosen a "war of words" against the US armada instead of direct military aggression. Are they practicing Sun Tzu who said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."