Israel, US bases within the range of Iranian missiles, commander says

[News_Editor]

Israel, US bases within the range of Iranian missiles, commander says

2011-04-23 06:22:54 GMT+7 (ICT)

TEHRAN (BNO NEWS) -- The commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps warned on Friday that Israel and American military bases in the Middle East are all within the range of Iranian missiles, Press TV reported.

Although Tehran has repeatedly assured that its missiles are no threat to other countries, Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari said that Iran is capable of targeting the military bases of both countries.

"Although we are capable of increasing the range of our missiles, we don't think it would be necessary because today our extra-regional enemy -- the Zionist regime of [israel] -- is within the range of our missiles," Jafari said.

"As for the American forces -- if they were to back Israeli threats -- they would be closer to us than them (the Israeli) and [therefore,] they would be within the range of our firepower as well," he added.

Iran has made great achievements in the defense sector in recent years. On April 16, it successfully test-fired another air-defense missile system dubbed Sayyad-2 (Hunter II). The newly tested system is an upgraded version of the Sayyad-1 system with higher precision, range and destruction power and will be unveiled in the near future.

In January, Iran unveiled a new air defense plan, designed by the Air Defense Base. Officials said the Iranian Army would produce the tools, weapons and equipment that will be required to implement the plan during the five-year period.

Iran launched its arms development program during the 1980-88 armed conflict with Iraq. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own jet fighters and armored vehicles as well as radar-avoiding missiles and other high-tech weapons.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-04-23

[geriatrickid]

Well there go my plans to holiday at the bases.

[Ulysses G.]

I bet that Iran is in range of Israel's - much more powerful - missles too.

[chuckd]

I bet that Iran is in range of Israel's - much more powerful - missles too.

This should spin up the liberals...

How do you spell 'preemptive strike'?

[Steely Dan]

It's impressive just how far a pirated copy of photoshop can reach. And of course the Iranians mentioned their supposed missile capability for defensive reasons.

[coma]

It is a neccesary capability that almost all countries possess. Doesn't mean that Israel and the US no longer have the capability to kick Irans arse, militarily. However it does make things alot more dangerous for any identity that was thinking about ANY pre emptive strike on any Iranian facilities. Said 'identity' would have to keep in mind that Iran can also retaliate quickly. That been said I think it is more of a deterant as oppossed being a 'first strike' weapon.

[bangkokeddy]

Published 01:24 21.04.11

Haaretz WikiLeaks exclusive / Netanyahu agreed to join Olmert's government if Israel attacked Iran

By Ofer Aderet and Yossi Melman

In 2007, Netanyahu said he would agree to join Ehud Olmert's government if Israel attacked Iran, a WikiLeaks document shows.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed willingness to join Ehud Olmert's government in 2007 if Israel initiated an attack on Iran, a document from the Israeli WikiLeaks collection has revealed.

On July 20, 2007, Marc J. Sievers, the political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, sent a telegram to the State Department in Washington on the matter. The telegram was classified "Confidential," the level between "Unclassified" and "Secret."

...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-wikileaks-exclusive-netanyahu-agreed-to-join-olmert-s-government-if-israel-attacked-iran-1.357113

[slapout]

Not to disagree with you coma, but these people do have a history of national and international refrain which trends more to offensive than defense.

[bangkokeddy]

^^

Keep in mind its wikileaks.

State Department will just say: "We cannot confirm the authenticity of these documents and we cannot comment on supposedly leaked classified information," or "I can’t comment on the contents of allegedly classified documents nor can we vouch for their authenticity."

The State Department admit that there was a theft of their documents, they never claimed that the published cables are fake or modified or falsified or not from them. And nobody else, except few (Iran) who think wikileaks is an CIA operation, doubt the authenticity of the cables.

Furthermore it is still only that what someone from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv said about Netanyahu.

[bangkokeddy]

Not to disagree with you coma, but these people do have a history of national and international refrain which trends more to offensive than defense.

Who? Israel, Iran or the US?

Please provide details of that 'history'.

[slapout]

Not to disagree with you coma, but these people do have a history of national and international refrain which trends more to offensive than defense.

Who? Israel, Iran or the US?

Please provide details of that 'history'.

So many questions plus a request for detailed history. You want to be burped after you ingest all this info? All three countries have proven offensive to each other at times as do some individual people.

[coma]

Not to disagree with you coma, but these people do have a history of national and international refrain which trends more to offensive than defense.

Who? Israel, Iran or the US?

Please provide details of that 'history'.

So many questions plus a request for detailed history. You want to be burped after you ingest all this info? All three countries have proven offensive to each other at times as do some individual people.

I agree to some extent. However my view is, when has Iran overtly attacked another nation ? I know they fought a long hard defensive war againts Iraq in the 80's. But they didn't initiate it. Without going into weather Iran is supporting terrorism or not, as this is about strategic weapons, where/ when have they been the natural aggreessor ? I think people have been misconcieved or even fool that Iran is an agressive country by Mr Ahmadijed and his empty threat rhetoric.He wants the West scared and it is working.

[bangkokeddy]

Not to disagree with you coma, but these people do have a history of national and international refrain which trends more to offensive than defense.

Who? Israel, Iran or the US?

Please provide details of that 'history'.

So many questions plus a request for detailed history. You want to be burped after you ingest all this info? All three countries have proven offensive to each other at times as do some individual people.

No need to be burped. Just don't feed platitudes. try it with substance.

[chuckd]

Not to disagree with you coma, but these people do have a history of national and international refrain which trends more to offensive than defense.

Who? Israel, Iran or the US?

Please provide details of that 'history'.

So many questions plus a request for detailed history. You want to be burped after you ingest all this info? All three countries have proven offensive to each other at times as do some individual people.

I agree to some extent. However my view is, when has Iran overtly attacked another nation ? I know they fought a long hard defensive war againts Iraq in the 80's. But they didn't initiate it. Without going into weather Iran is supporting terrorism or not, as this is about strategic weapons, where/ when have they been the natural aggreessor ? I think people have been misconcieved or even fool that Iran is an agressive country by Mr Ahmadijed and his empty threat rhetoric.He wants the West scared and it is working.

Q. "when has Iran overtly attacked another nation ?"

A. 1979

[Jingthing]

Iran is involved in a proxy war with Israel for years now and in that sense has already attacked Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

The Hezzbollah terrorists are controlled by Iran.

[bangkokeddy]

Q. "when has Iran overtly attacked another nation ?"

A. 1979

Okay.

1979

Some students sized an embassy. No shots were fired, no-one was killed.

It was the embassy of a country which overtly participated in a coup that overthrow a democratically elected government and actively supported a dictator.

More examples?

[SteeleJoe]

Without going into weather Iran is supporting terrorism or not, as this is about strategic weapons, where/ when have they been the natural aggreessor ? I think people have been misconcieved or even fool that Iran is an agressive country...

How can you avoid the question of whether or not Iran is supporting terrorism and still discuss whether they have been the "natural aggressor"? Indeed one might need to discuss whether they've done more than "support" it.

[coma]

Q. "when has Iran overtly attacked another nation ?"

A. 1979

Okay.

1979

Some students sized an embassy. No shots were fired, no-one was killed.

It was the embassy of a country which overtly participated in a coup that overthrow a democratically elected government and actively supported a dictator.

More examples?

Like that one LOL

[coma]

Without going into weather Iran is supporting terrorism or not, as this is about strategic weapons, where/ when have they been the natural aggreessor ? I think people have been misconcieved or even fool that Iran is an agressive country...

How can you avoid the question of whether or not Iran is supporting terrorism and still discuss whether they have been the "natural aggressor"? Indeed one might need to discuss whether they've done more than "support" it.

The way I and I am sure a large part of the greater world population have the view that what NATO is doing in Libya , supporting the uprising there, as being the same as Iran propping up Hezbollah and the like. Every country does it. Have been for a long time. Nobody can deny it. It just comes down to what country you do it for as to the title bestowed upon that person. If for say you did it in the name of Western Alliances then you are a rebel or a freedom fighter. If you are an Arab or a Muslim individual or identity or country or even poor old Julian Assange . They are given the title Terrorist.

Edited April 23, 2011 by coma

[SteeleJoe]

Q. "when has Iran overtly attacked another nation ?"

A. 1979

Okay.

1979

Some students sized an embassy. No shots were fired, no-one was killed.

It was the embassy of a country which overtly participated in a coup that overthrow a democratically elected government and actively supported a dictator.

More examples?

It's rare that one sees such blatant bias and apologism (sic). Remarkable really -- almost a caricature.

Yes. Some students seized an embassy. No shots were fired and no one was killed. What lovely job of diminishing that was. Unfortunately there's the omission of the fact that they held 52 people hostage for well over a year. People who were reportedly threatened with execution repeatedly and had a more than reasonable fear that the threats were not idle. People who were held in brutally inhumane conditions. People who underwent what anyone who would object to, for example, what happens in Guantanamo (as I do), should find absolutely abhorrent.

Conveniently left out, that was.

More examples? Well, these are arguably some...

Lebanese Civil War --1982?

Beirut Hostage crisis - 1982-1992?

US Embassy, Beirut - 1983?

Hijacking of Kuwait Airlines flight 422 - 1988?

Argnetina?

Hamas

Hezbollah

Lebanon - 2006.

Jason Creswell, Jason Swindlehurst, Alec Maclachlan, Alan Mcmenemy, and Peter Moore?

And plenty more perhaps less substantiated and/or too varied and numerous to cite.

Oh, and by the way -- are you sure you want to suggest that the US (covert, not overt, but no less real) role in the coup and its support for the Shah is justification for the attack on US sovereign territory? A violation of international law of a type which was rarely seen if ever and one of which it would benefit NO ONE if it were to be seen as a reasonable course of action in some circumstances?

One wonders how many places could such an action be justified on a similar basis...

[SteeleJoe]

Without going into weather Iran is supporting terrorism or not, as this is about strategic weapons, where/ when have they been the natural aggreessor ? I think people have been misconcieved or even fool that Iran is an agressive country...

How can you avoid the question of whether or not Iran is supporting terrorism and still discuss whether they have been the "natural aggressor"? Indeed one might need to discuss whether they've done more than "support" it.

The way I and I am sure a large part of the greater world population have the view that what NATO is doing in Libya , supporting the uprising there, as being the same as Iran propping up Hezbollah and the like. Every country does it. Have been for a long time. Nobody can deny it. It just comes down to what country you do it for as to the title bestowed upon that person. If for say you did it in the name of Western Alliances then you are a rebel or a freedom fighter. If you are an Arab or a Muslim individual or identity or country or even poor old Julian Assange . They are given the title Terrorist.

So leaving aside the casual (and rather ugly) relativism and vague generalizations, you think that that sort of thing is NOT to be described as being an aggressor?

OK.

[coma]

Without going into weather Iran is supporting terrorism or not, as this is about strategic weapons, where/ when have they been the natural aggreessor ? I think people have been misconcieved or even fool that Iran is an agressive country...

How can you avoid the question of whether or not Iran is supporting terrorism and still discuss whether they have been the "natural aggressor"? Indeed one might need to discuss whether they've done more than "support" it.

The way I and I am sure a large part of the greater world population have the view that what NATO is doing in Libya , supporting the uprising there, as being the same as Iran propping up Hezbollah and the like. Every country does it. Have been for a long time. Nobody can deny it. It just comes down to what country you do it for as to the title bestowed upon that person. If for say you did it in the name of Western Alliances then you are a rebel or a freedom fighter. If you are an Arab or a Muslim individual or identity or country or even poor old Julian Assange . They are given the title Terrorist.

So leaving aside the casual (and rather ugly) relativism and vague generalizations, you think that that sort of thing is NOT to be described as being an aggressor?

OK.

You may like to read my original post again. I thought I was quite clear on my point that I was thinking at the strategic level. When has Iran been an agressor at a strategic level ? As the weapons that this story is about are stratigic weapons being used to act as a deterant to any pre emptive strikes by Israel or the US. That is ALL I was talking about. I could be less vague and general for you but I would probabley get a

[SteeleJoe]

You may like to read my original post again. I thought I was quite clear on my point that I was thinking at the strategic level. When has Iran been an agressor at a strategic level ? As the weapons that this story is about are stratigic weapons being used to act as a deterant to any pre emptive strikes by Israel or the US. That is ALL I was talking about. I could be less vague and general for you but I would probabley get a

Oh, I see. So you were OK responding to my question at first but now that your response has been held up to scrutiny and perhaps looks less tenable, suddenly you aren't?

I confess, I honestly didn't see the bit about strategic weapons, and I apologize for that oversight -- nonetheless I don't see how you can ignore any of the things I've brought up and still examine whether or not Iran has ever been an aggressor. In fact, I think it's absurd to try. (And I'm rather certain you wouldn't accept that if someone were to do the same sort of thing in reference to Israeli or US actions, for example.)

By the way -- re post #19, you say this:

Like that one LOL

I wonder why? And if so, why no comment on post #21?

EDIT for Typos

Edited April 23, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Wallaby]

Which country has used nuclear weapons when things didn't go their way?

Which country wants to deny the right of another country to do the same?

[coma]

You may like to read my original post again. I thought I was quite clear on my point that I was thinking at the strategic level. When has Iran been an agressor at a strategic level ? As the weapons that this story is about are stratigic weapons being used to act as a deterant to any pre emptive strikes by Israel or the US. That is ALL I was talking about. I could be less vague and general for you but I would probabley get a

Oh, I see. So you were OK responding to my question at first but now that your response has been hwld up to scrutiny and perahps looks less tenable, suddenly you aren't?

I confess, I honestly didn't see the bit about strategic weapons, and I apologize for that oversight -- nonetheless I don't see how you can ignore any of the things I've brought up and still examine whether or not Iran has ever been an aggressor. In fact, I think it's absurd to try. (And I'm rather certain you wouldn't accept that if someone were to do the same sort of thing in reference to Israeli or US actions, for example.)

By the way -- re post #19, you say this:

Like that one LOL

I wonder why? And if so, why no comment on post #21?

If you want to look at it that way then yes they are not angel but they are no more bolder than any other Super power, Israel, India etc etc. Nobody can deny it if you look at it from both perspectives/ Like I said earlier everybody is actively doing it. So why should the world look at Iran as an evil state ? When Israel kills more Palestinian civy's in a week that Iran would do to anybody in a year?

[SteeleJoe]

Which country has used nuclear weapons when things didn't go their way?

Holy crap!!! I might be really offended by the daftness and distortion in that reply if that weren't so freaking hilarious. The Pacific theater in World War II (and the Japanese actions that led to it and were part of it) described as things not going the US's way?

Classic

But I'll try and pretend that was worthy of a serious response and answer:

The United States of America dropped 2 nuclear weapons. No one else has. And (humor me as I've humored you) precisely how is that relevant?

EDIT to Add:

Oh, nearly forgot to address the second question:

The US - and presumably perhaps a few other places -- doesn't want Iran to use nuclear weapons "when things don't go their way". Correct. That seems unreasonable, does it?

Edited April 23, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[SteeleJoe]

If you want to look at it that way then yes they are not angel but they are no more bolder than any other Super power, Israel, India etc etc. Nobody can deny it if you look at it from both perspectives/ Like I said earlier everybody is actively doing it. So why should the world look at Iran as an evil state ? When Israel kills more Palestinian civy's in a week that Iran would do to anybody in a year?

No country is an angel. That's hardly the point. And as for how the world looks at Iran, or should, I think I won't try and get into that. I find the moral relativism and glaringly obvious prejudice hard to stomach with all due respect but let's pretend for a moment that everyone is just as bad as everyone else, allow me this very trite cliche>

Two wrongs, don't make a right.

[coma]

" One should take the log out of ones own eye, before taking the splinter out of anothers " :jap:

[SteeleJoe]

" One should take the log out of ones own eye, before taking the splinter out of anothers " :jap:

Yes. You (as apparently self-appointed defender of Iran) ought to keep that in mind yourself.

But that's a rather weak defense. How about 'If its wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it? How about object to that which is objectionable and not try to defend it just because of the side you've chosen and your ideology (and/or all consuming dislike for the "other side")'.

Not as catchy I know. Guess those won't catch on.

But I personally prefer intellectual honesty and integrity (and real arguments) to empty rhetoric and evasion.