Iran says U.S. attack option is a 'joke'

[News_Editor]

Iran says U.S. attack option is a 'joke'

2010-11-29 12:20:21 GMT+7 (ICT)

TEHRAN (BNO NEWS) -- An Iranian military commander has brushed off remarks by a top U.S. official about the possibility of the nation attacking Iran as a 'joke'.

Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Commander of Iran's Basij Force, was responding to comments by U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"We've actually been thinking about military options for a significant period of time," Mullen said on CNN, adding that he does not 'for a second' believe that Tehran is using its nuclear plants for peaceful, civilian purposes.

But in an interview with Iran's Press TV, Naqdi brushed off the comments as a joke. "This is a joke. For 30 years they have been dreaming, hopefully they will wake up," he said, adding that Iran is a powerful country and that it has supporters around the world who have 'surrounded' the United States.

Naqdi also said that U.S. forces would immediately be surrounded by Basij forces if it tried to step 'an inch' into Iranian territory.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2010-11-29

[hammered]

An attack on Iran could have a few economic repercussion for the battered western economies. Quite likely the old US general on CNN was as set up considering the wikileaks stuff piling out and being analysed right now and that the Iranians are just having a laugh.

[geriatrickid]

Interesting that it is the Arab nations that support the attack. Sort of obvious though that the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are tired of having a nation of nutters on their border threatening their livelihood with their attempt to control the strait of Hormuz. There isn't one Gulf state that doesn't remember the invasion and looting of Kuwait. I wouldn't be too surprised if the Gulf states looked the other way when the Israeli jets borrowed a bit of airspace. The arabs also remember that any nukes fired from Iran at the EU or Israel is going to drop alot of fallout over arab countries. As much as Hamas, Hizbollah and other wackos talk of martyrdom, the typical Mr. & Mrs. Abdullah and family liking in Cairo, or Amman, or Abu Dhabi does not want to end up glowing with radiation.

The benfit of these leaks is that it just might force alot of people who have been in denial to accept that there is a problem with a nation like Iran possessing nuclear arms and threatening to use them on anyone it doesn't like.

[Ulysses G.]

Iran says U.S. attack option is a 'joke'

True, but they won't be laughing when one of our closest allies does it for us.

[gotlost]

Shyt on them before they shyt on us I say.

[RKASA]

Didn't someone in Iraq once say the same thing?

[craigt3365]

Didn't someone in Iraq once say the same thing?

I believe the quote was something like "Mother of all wars"! Right....

But I sure hope it doesn't come to war. Last thing the US needs is another conflict.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

The arabs also remember that any nukes fired from Iran at the EU....

The doctor advises less Tom Clancy, more reality.

Even the Americans aren't stupid enough to start a war with Iran (though the Americans might just be stupid enough to elect Palin or some other pig-ignorant Tea-bagging creationist/bible-quoting cretin waiting for the rapture and then who knows). The Israelis, on the other hand, quite possibly are. The question then is, who to cheer for when one wildly unpleasant theocracy takes on another?

[nong38]

This Iranian problem has been lingering for some time and it wont go away, whilst the no one wants to make a decision about what to do what will happen when one day Mr Armadinnerjacket says we have a bomb, done it all by ouselves(with a bit of help from N Korea and some others) now what will happen? Is it safer to destroy all their nuclear sites or hope they are not making a bomb? Iran has been taking the p--s for a long time and like N Korea gets bolder all the time. If the threat is not taken seriously and solution found to stop them in their tracks big trouble is on the horizon, appeasement does not work. The nuclear power in the middle east will wait how long before it attempts to sort out the rival? Can they be sure of destroying all the sites? It is far more likely that they will strike than the US, who would then be a peace broker with others. GWB was right to identify these rogue states who dont want to exist like the majority do.

Make no mistake this is a big far reaching global situation that will affect us all one way or another.

[kuffki]

Didn't someone in Iraq once say the same thing?

I believe the quote was something like "Mother of all wars"! Right....

But I sure hope it doesn't come to war. Last thing the US needs is another conflict.

I do not think anyone wants any kind of war, but keep in mind that the troops are already there, so its very easily doable and also a great way to exit Iraq and the region(sort of like face saving)

I specially like this comment "Iran is a powerful country and that it has supporters around the world who have 'surrounded' the United States."

Powerful in whose opinion? friends like who? ElQuada and Taliban along with Hezbullah? Even Russia supported sanctions against Iran.

What i struggle to understand is what went through Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi mind when he made those comments??? Why would anyone in their right mind try to pick a fight with a raging bull?, sort of like calling bluff but being well aware that its highly possible.

Iraq did it till the very last minute, i guess learning from the past is not Iranian best feature.

[kuffki]

This Iranian problem has been lingering for some time and it wont go away, whilst the no one wants to make a decision about what to do what will happen when one day Mr Armadinnerjacket says we have a bomb, done it all by ouselves(with a bit of help from N Korea and some others) now what will happen? Is it safer to destroy all their nuclear sites or hope they are not making a bomb? Iran has been taking the p--s for a long time and like N Korea gets bolder all the time. If the threat is not taken seriously and solution found to stop them in their tracks big trouble is on the horizon, appeasement does not work. The nuclear power in the middle east will wait how long before it attempts to sort out the rival? Can they be sure of destroying all the sites? It is far more likely that they will strike than the US, who would then be a peace broker with others. GWB was right to identify these rogue states who dont want to exist like the majority do.

Make no mistake this is a big far reaching global situation that will affect us all one way or another.

The day Iran has a full nuclear bomb or is very close to having it, is the day Israel will flatten most of Iran, which they have already said a number of times..

They(Israel) have already developed a rocket/bomb which is capable of penetrating through meters and meter of cement,so no underground facility is safe any longer

[Robby nz]

I suspect Kuffki that Iran has learnt from the past.

That would be why they hate the US who supported, probably even encouraged, sadam when he attacked Iran.

Read who fired the last shots in that war.

Yea the good old US when one of their warships shot down an Iranian passenger jet over the gulf when it was travelling away from them.

The Russians on the other hand are more even handed.

I am led to understand that as well as building a nuck power station for Iran they, at the same time, sold the Jews missiles that could take it out.

No favourites there.

[Ulysses G.]

The question then is, who to cheer for when one wildly unpleasant theocracy takes on another?

The dictatorship or the democracy? Not a difficult decision.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Yeah, I'm going with the Iranians, too. But maybe the Americans are serious about having a nuclear-free Middle East and they'll decide to launch pre-emptive attacks on its only nuclear state (and, to make matters worse, one with an astonishing history of naked aggression and violation of UN resolutions.)

[nong38]

If anyone is going to try and take out the Iranian sites they will need to very good intelligence on what to hit where and how hard, I suspect the Iranians have dug pretty deep and poured in lots of concrete. One get the one chance here.

[Ulysses G.]

...But maybe the Americans are serious about having a nuclear-free Middle East and they'll decide to launch pre-emptive attacks on its only nuclear state (and, to make matters worse, one with an astonishing history of naked aggression and violation of UN resolutions.)

There is little chance that America will destroy the nuclear reactor in Iran despite the way that the Islamic dictatorship ignore the UN, threaten other countries and subjugate their own people.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

At least some of the Arab countries in the area might consider a nuclear Iran as an internal problem as well.

Taking the lead on radical Islamic point of view, Iranian influence is not heartily welcome. Having a self made bomb will surly bolster its prestige and the claim for leading position within the Muslim world.

Attacking a single (or even a few) site is one thing, not something unimaginable. It does seem a bit far fetched to imagine a single coordinated strike that would wipe out Iran's entire wide spread nuclear infrastructure, but then again - who knows? It seemed impossible on 1967 as well...

[craigt3365]

I do not think anyone wants any kind of war, but keep in mind that the troops are already there, so its very easily doable and also a great way to exit Iraq and the region(sort of like face saving)

I specially like this comment "Iran is a powerful country and that it has supporters around the world who have 'surrounded' the United States."

Powerful in whose opinion? friends like who? ElQuada and Taliban along with Hezbullah? Even Russia supported sanctions against Iran.

What i struggle to understand is what went through Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi mind when he made those comments??? Why would anyone in their right mind try to pick a fight with a raging bull?, sort of like calling bluff but being well aware that its highly possible.

Iraq did it till the very last minute, i guess learning from the past is not Iranian best feature.

I am 100% anti war, anti violence. Like you said, Israel will likely be the initial aggressor against Iran, they've done it before and have the weapons to do so. But many of the countries in the ME don't like Iran's new power. Specifically Saudi Arabia. Lots of countries are against a nation like Iran going nuclear.

...But maybe the Americans are serious about having a nuclear-free Middle East and they'll decide to launch pre-emptive attacks on its only nuclear state (and, to make matters worse, one with an astonishing history of naked aggression and violation of UN resolutions.)

There is little chance that America will destroy the nuclear reactor in Iran despite the way that the Islamic dictatorship ignore the UN, threaten other countries and subjugate their own people.

For sure. I doubt the US will do anything...other than to keep supplying Israel. It's a horrible mess for sure.

[Morch]

The Russians on the other hand are more even handed.

I am led to understand that as well as building a nuck power station for Iran they, at the same time, sold the Jews missiles that could take it out.

No favourites there.

I might be mistaken, but I think the missiles you're referring to are advanced surface to air missiles Russia was supposed to sell Iran, apparently for protecting said nuclear sites.

Israel was rather worried about it, and then the Russians held the deal off. Next thing you know, very similar missiles appear in a military parade in Teheran and are claimed to be self made...yeah right :-).

[kuffki]

I am led to understand that as well as building a nuck power station for Iran they, at the same time, sold the Jews missiles that could take it out.

No favourites there.

if you referring to Russia, then its incorrect. Russia does not sell any weapons to Israel

[SweeneyAgonistes]

...But maybe the Americans are serious about having a nuclear-free Middle East and they'll decide to launch pre-emptive attacks on its only nuclear state (and, to make matters worse, one with an astonishing history of naked aggression and violation of UN resolutions.)

There is little chance that America will destroy the nuclear reactor in Iran despite the way that the Islamic dictatorship ignore the UN, threaten other countries and subjugate their own people.

Good effort but having an as yet non-functioning nuclear power plant (thanks in part to the yanks, who were remarkably keen on a nuclear Iran until the Iranians had the good sense to kick out their imperial overlords) doesn't make them a nuclear state. But having several hundred nuclear warheads does - and that's exactly what the zionist entity has.

[kuffki]

...But maybe the Americans are serious about having a nuclear-free Middle East and they'll decide to launch pre-emptive attacks on its only nuclear state (and, to make matters worse, one with an astonishing history of naked aggression and violation of UN resolutions.)

There is little chance that America will destroy the nuclear reactor in Iran despite the way that the Islamic dictatorship ignore the UN, threaten other countries and subjugate their own people.

Good effort but having an as yet non-functioning nuclear power plant (thanks in part to the yanks, who were remarkably keen on a nuclear Iran until the Iranians had the good sense to kick out their imperial overlords) doesn't make them a nuclear state. But having several hundred nuclear warheads does - and that's exactly what the zionist entity has.

The only difference is zionist entity does not go around threatening to wipe out the entire nation just for the sake of it, nor does it defy and denounce every democratic nation in the world, nor does it supply and support every terrorist group in the world

Edited November 29, 2010 by kuffki

[SweeneyAgonistes]

The zionist entity does threaten other nations constantly, and it's got form. Care to find Palestine on a map for me? What happened to that, I wonder. And - with the exception of the United States - it does defy the wishes of every nation, regularly. And, yes, it does fund terror. Mainly its own, true, but also that of others.

Edited November 29, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[geriatrickid]

...But maybe the Americans are serious about having a nuclear-free Middle East and they'll decide to launch pre-emptive attacks on its only nuclear state (and, to make matters worse, one with an astonishing history of naked aggression and violation of UN resolutions.)

There is little chance that America will destroy the nuclear reactor in Iran despite the way that the Islamic dictatorship ignore the UN, threaten other countries and subjugate their own people.

Good effort but having an as yet non-functioning nuclear power plant (thanks in part to the yanks, who were remarkably keen on a nuclear Iran until the Iranians had the good sense to kick out their imperial overlords) doesn't make them a nuclear state. But having several hundred nuclear warheads does - and that's exactly what the zionist entity has.

Ok, so the you consider the UN inspectors to be imperial overlords. That's nice.

The Iranians had made several agreements and promises. They broke all of them. The fact of the matter is that no one would object if the Iranians were not threatening to launch nukes against multiple countries. If you were a Gulf oil state and the welfare of your citizens was constantly threatened and the major route to sell your oil could be cut off any day by a despot, you might be worried too. If you are a resident of the UK or a country along the missile trajectory from Iran, you might be concerned. After all, Iran has said it would launch its nukes. Has Israel threatened have the heavens rain down the "fire of death" on any country in the EU?

Ok, so you do not like the "Zionist entity". Good for you. The worry isn't from Israel, since it knows that a nuclear exchange would wipe out Israel. The adjacent arab nations know that too. Jordan is smack dab under the fall out cloud. There is no culture of "martyrdom in the Israeli culture. Israelis do not dream of going to heaven to meet their virgins or feast on grapes (or whatever interpretation of the Koran you wish to use). Most arabs in the region do not have that belief either. However, the Iranians do. They export that view as well. That's the problem. iran is filled with people that look forward to dying. The surrounding arab countries and Israel would like to get on with their lives. If Qatar had a nuke, or Oman, I wouldn't b worried since neither place has threatened to incinerate anyone. Iran makes those threats on a regular basis.

[Scott]

A major concern with nuclear weapons is who actually has the authority to launch them and the controls that are in place to prevent an accidental launch. Does anyone know what protocol the Iranians would use?

[craigt3365]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

TEHRAN, Iran – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused Israel and Western governments of being behind the killing of a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist in a bombing Monday.

Assailants on motorcycles attached bombs to the cars of two nuclear scientists as they were driving to work in Tehran Monday, killing one and wounding the other, Iranian officials say.

Arab worries over Iran often have been expressed in public in careful, diplomatic language by officials in the Gulf and elsewhere. The messages obtained by Wikileaks, however, appear to reflect the urgency of the concerns and the impression that a U.S.-led attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be welcomed by some leaders of Arab nations in the Middle East, especially the oil-rich states that neighbor Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Edited November 29, 2010 by craigt3365

[Scott]

A major concern with nuclear weapons is the launch protocol and who has the authority to launch them. In the case of Iran, does anyone know who would have the authority to use them?

[sibeymai]

A major concern with nuclear weapons is who actually has the authority to launch them and the controls that are in place to prevent an accidental launch. Does anyone know what protocol the Iranians would use?

There is almost no strategic value for a country possessing a limited nuclear arsenal compared to their enemy unless the country uses their arsenal first, so not a very sophisticated protocol needed, just the belief of an imminent threat.

The whole purpose of the proposed missile defense shield intended to be deployed in eastern Europe is to reduce the strategic value of nuclear weapons (specifically Iran's or N. Korea's) as a threat to western nations from almost nothing to absolutely nothing.

Edited November 29, 2010 by sibeymai

[Ulysses G.]

Care to find Palestine on a map for me? What happened to that, I wonder.

That might have something to do with the fact that there has never been a country called Palestine - other than the ancient Jewish one - or a Palestinian people or a Palestinian language.The Arabs immigrants started calling themselves that in about 1967.

[pampal]

The question then is, who to cheer for when one wildly unpleasant theocracy takes on another?

The dictatorship or the democracy? Not a difficult decision.

The last time Iran tried for Democracy and elected a democratic leader was 1953(Dr. Mossadegh). 

And the US immediately staged a coup to return the Shah to his throne.

If the US champions Democracy, they should start with their allies in the region who are thoroughly undemocratic like Egypt,Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the list goes on and on