It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Irans official position on the attack and stand down orders?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 12:32 AM
link   
What is Irans official position on both the attack and stand down orders by the US? I am just curious. I've tried using search engines but haven't found much of anything.. Maybe it's the search terms I am using. I could use a suggestion on how to search for such things as well.
edit on 23-6-2019 by Antipathy17 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 12:42 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Antipathy17
What is Irans official position on both the attack and stand down orders by the US? I am just curious. I've tried using search engines but haven't found much of anything.. Maybe it's the search terms I am using. I could use a suggestion on how to search for such things as well.


Their leaders stand is death to America, death to the great satan and the little satan.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Demented Donald has started the war with cyberattacks on Iranian forces.
06/23/2019 08:00 UTC

The USA has started a new war.

A_boring_dystopia



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Artical by Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani


Iran’s top security official has blasted the US for targeting the national identity and sovereignty of the world countries, calling for global resistance against Washington’s “illegal bullying.”... “No title other than economic terrorism suits this US behavior,” he said.


Other things he said at a recent security forum, link


“We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities… Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal sanctions against Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its own mistakes. This process needs no mediation,” “This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement and return to fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be reducing its commitments] step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.”


I have started a thread on this topic, A recent Russian security forum



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

Although unannounced I think their position is watch and wait , they are due to breach the internationally agreed limits on Uranium production next week so that's the next milestone in this conflict in the waiting.
As mentioned above the US launched a cyber attack instead of an military attack and have announced yet more sanctions so the tension is still ratcheting up.

There is also this.

In a separate development, Iran said it had broken up a cyber spying network run by the CIA. It said several US spies had been arrested in different countries.

The US did not immediately comment on the allegation.
www.bbc.co.uk...


As with Iran all we can do is watch and wait.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 03:35 AM
link   
I believe the order to attack, and the 10 minute cancellation are a carefully calculated ploy by Trump.


Enemies and their spies got to see the US build up, were blind to fifth gen capabilities, ordered to wait.

It sent the message we could respond. Pummeled the message Iran was no contest, trampled them into submission.
edit on 6/23/2019 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Several outlets are reporting that the US performed a cyber attack on Iran rather than a conventional 'boom boom' strike.
www.bbc.co.uk...
It seems that the attacks focused on Iranian missile systems, as well as other strategic computer networks.

They claim these attacks are in response to the tankers being bombed a few weeks ago but the timing seems pretty obvious, IMHO.

And again just my opinion but whether or not these attacks were retaliation for only the tankers or if the downing of the UAV is included, doesn't really matter. A pretty strong message has been sent and no lives were lost. Disarming Iran's ability to fire rockets or missiles until new hardware and software can be brought in leaves them more vulnerable than blowing up a small percentage of their munitions and killing 150 grunts. If the cyber attacks worked, it will create a time buffer and maybe allow Iran to ponder their existence a little easier. Physically blowing up the missiles and killing people leads to more anger and rash decisions.

I believe this was a great call, for the time being. Let's see what happens and if things escalate, big booms are always still an option. For now, though, the president comes off looking like he made a carefully thought out plan. He wasn't weak and didn't show it to go without retaliation and even showed some compassion by not killing a few dozen Iranians.
edit on 6232019 by Tanga36 because: On mobile sooooooo.... Spelling



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex



they are due to breach the internationally agreed limits on Uranium production


It sounds more like western agreed limits on Uranium production. The whole international arms race has fallen of the wagon again.

Why is it ok for America to drop its international nuclear weapons treaty obligations then expect other nations to disarm? What happened to the same laws applying to everyone? America make more bombs good, Iran make more bombs bad? This policy may appear good for America, but it does appear to be lacking in why we have bombs in the first place.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 05:17 AM
link   
John Bolton is in Israel probably to explain to his boss why the planned airstrikes didn't happen.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   


What is Irans official position on the attack and stand down orders?

I dont know . Let's go ask Mr.Owl.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: gortex



they are due to breach the internationally agreed limits on Uranium production


It sounds more like western agreed limits on Uranium production. The whole international arms race has fallen of the wagon again.

Why is it ok for America to drop its international nuclear weapons treaty obligations then expect other nations to disarm? What happened to the same laws applying to everyone? America make more bombs good, Iran make more bombs bad? This policy may appear good for America, but it does appear to be lacking in why we have bombs in the first place.


Either you are naive, haven't taken the time to study mankinds history, or both.

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst is a good way to be.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Demented Donald has started the war with cyberattacks on Iranian forces.
06/23/2019 08:00 UTC

The USA has started a new war.

A_boring_dystopia


Iran has been hacking into the US for months if not years,

Justice Department charges Iranians with hacking attacks on U.S. ...
www.washingtonpost.com...
Nov 28, 2018 - The Justice Department unsealed charges Wednesday accusing two Iranian men of hacking into American hospitals, universities, government ...

U.S. busts 'massive' Iranian hacking scheme - POLITICO
www.politico.com...
Mar 23, 2018 - The Justice Department on Friday revealed charges against an Iranian hacking ring that prosecutors say spent years pilfering research and ...



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

For the same reason felons can't have guns. Iran has no problem giving weapons to terrorists to use. Weapons with the capability to end the world should not be given to everyone.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: putnam6

He's a European terrorist apologist who hates America. America could cure cancer and solve world hunger and he would find an angle of how evil America is doing it.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
Either you are naive, haven't taken the time to study mankinds history, or both.

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst is a good way to be.


I mean, the US is the one that breached the deal.

Iran's position here is rather reasonable. Since the US backed out and is instead applying sanctions, Iran is citing the treaty with other nations and saying that they either need to follow through on their obligations and either get those sanctions removed, or provide a way to circumvent them, or Iran really has no reason to stay in the deal, as they're compliant but still being attacked.

They gave Europe 60 days to solve the issue, Europe hasn't yet done so, and that deadline is approaching.

What is Iran supposed to do? The US is making every signal that they're going to attack no matter what Iran does. So what gives them any incentive at all to stick to a deal that the US bailed on, and that Europe seems to not be willing to stick to it's obligations on?

A diplomatic solution between Iran and the US is 100% off the table at this point. The previous deal took 12 years to negotiate, and that involved rational people who negotiated in good faith. Trump cannot be negotiated with, and will not honor any deal he signs, much less it doesn't solve the issue that you're looking at needing a decade+ to negotiate something both parties will agree to, and a more short term solution is required.
edit on 23-6-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That's the problem with "deals". Any president can make one and any president can break one. What is needed is a treaty with Iran. A treaty is passed by congress and is binding. A treaty is a "deal" with the American people and not just a deal with the president.



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
We have to make sure they don't interfere with the 2020 elections 😎



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

but but but...that was the promise of the previous administration. They say he wasn't actually representing the U.S. at that time so we can just break those treaties.

Negotiation? How do you get war out of negotiations?

For those who say we need to bomb them into the dirt because they give weapons to evil people, by that reasoning, the U.S. shouldn't even be allowed to produce knives, let along ordinances that go boom. Just look at what saudi is doing with the weapons we are giving them, yemen is the site of genocide. Genocide happening with our weapons. Are we the supporters of terror?

How many wars do we need to be involved in or instigate before people start asking questions?

Disgusting.
edit on 23-6-2019 by ClovenSky because: way=say



posted on Jun, 23 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Mach2
Either you are naive, haven't taken the time to study mankinds history, or both.

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst is a good way to be.


I mean, the US is the one that breached the deal.

Iran's position here is rather reasonable. Since the US backed out and is instead applying sanctions, Iran is citing the treaty with other nations and saying that they either need to follow through on their obligations and either get those sanctions removed, or provide a way to circumvent them, or Iran really has no reason to stay in the deal, as they're compliant but still being attacked.

They gave Europe 60 days to solve the issue, Europe hasn't yet done so, and that deadline is approaching.

What is Iran supposed to do? The US is making every signal that they're going to attack no matter what Iran does. So what gives them any incentive at all to stick to a deal that the US bailed on, and that Europe seems to not be willing to stick to it's obligations on?

A diplomatic solution between Iran and the US is 100% off the table at this point. The previous deal took 12 years to negotiate, and that involved rational people who negotiated in good faith. Trump cannot be negotiated with, and will not honor any deal he signs, much less it doesn't solve the issue that you're looking at needing a decade+ to negotiate something both parties will agree to, and a more short term solution is required.


I suppose you could make an arguement that the US backed out, from Iran's point of view.

From the current administrations perspective, however, it was a terrible deal that was not ratified by congress, as any "binding" treaty or agreement with a foriegn government, as required.


It is what it is, at this point, anyway. Hindsight is not going to change either party's position.

edit on 6232019 by Mach2 because: Sp



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join