Iran Issues Stark Military Warning to USA

Source

Iran issues stark military warning to United States
Apr 15 4:42 AM US/Eastern


Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.



"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

This sounds pretty ominous. I pray we do not take any nuclear action.

This sounds pretty ominous. I pray we do not take any nuclear action.

Ever heard of the saying, speak softly but carry a big stick? What’s coming out of Iran is just rhetoric, that all. Kind of like Saddam promising the “mother of all battles”.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

This sounds pretty ominous. I pray we do not take any nuclear action.

Ever heard of the saying, speak softly but carry a big stick? What’s coming out of Iran is just rhetoric, that all. Kind of like Saddam promising the “mother of all battles”.

Westy, there is a fundamental (pardon the pun... ) difference between Iraq and Iran. Iran will stand up and fight, is well equipped, well trained and has good morale.

Iran will be no pushover, I guarantee it.

Victory will come, but at what cost and for what purpose?

[edit on 15/4/06 by stumason]

Iran stands absolutely no chance of having its conventional military survive a US invasion. Iraq was one of hte great regional miliatry powers in teh middle east, and it's conventional military was defeated utterly and completely and permanently.

Iran could have a more powerful and better organized resistance to the occupation, but it can't prevent the occupation.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Iran stands absolutely no chance of having its conventional military survive a US invasion. Iraq was one of hte great regional miliatry powers in teh middle east, and it's conventional military was defeated utterly and completely and permanently.

Iran could have a more powerful and better organized resistance to the occupation, but it can't prevent the occupation.

I couldn't agree more with you Nygdan...

P.S. Whoooaa Nice avatar!!!!!!

NICE avatar dgtempe!

Oh and as for the thread, well yeah I think that although irans having a large part in the resistance in iraq, a war face to face with the USA would wipe their convential forces out real quick.

As for occupation of Iran, well that would be like sitting in a bee's nest with no clothes on: You'd end up getting stung to death from a million hits. Wipe them out, destroy their infrastrucure to make weapons, and then leave. Hit them every six months or so with cruise missles ect and never again let them grow a self sufficiency in weapons production. ( Oh, but do occupy the oil fields and drive all iranians from them)

Nygdan i couldnt agree more. Iran wouldnt be able to stand up to a direct assualt by the US...but they would defintally put up a more cohesive fight then the iraqis did. The Insurgency is what IRAN needs to learn from. Small guerilla war fare and a force such as ours cannot cope or react fast enough. Couple that with a nuclear strike somewhere either in the US or the middle east and you have just made it one costly occupation.

I hope that Churchill's phrase holds true. Saber rattling generally means nothing but every now again its just prewar mumbo jumbo preparing for the battle.

El senor pom pom rides again

A MOAB on the Mullahs hideout, a MOAB or two on El Nutcase - also known as the president, let the country sit for a while and the populace or Army or both will install a reasonable government.

If not, trundle another MOAB or two out until they get the message.

No need to invade or occupy the country.

I'm sure they would get the message sooner or later....

what is a MOAB again? I know stupid question but id rather ask than assume?

El senor pom pom rides again

I disagree Nydgan, Iran Will survive an Invasion of the US what will not be able to defend is from an Air assault.

But if they have any military power they will use everything they have to cause as much damage to the US as they can.

But on the ground that is going to be another story, Iran will fight and will fight to the death US will face many casualties on the ground.

If that is what you mean occurs when you mention by Invasion

Originally posted by Nygdan
Iran stands absolutely no chance of having its conventional military survive a US invasion. Iraq was one of hte great regional miliatry powers in teh middle east, and it's conventional military was defeated utterly and completely and permanently.

Iran could have a more powerful and better organized resistance to the occupation, but it can't prevent the occupation.

no chance eh?, well why dont you come right in? oh wait my bad you havent yet, why is that? why would you be so scared of attacking Iran with all its useless weapons?. Across from that we have much more better trained troops and better air defence not to mention we have better airforce, did you ever heard of iran-iraq war and how we did an ass whoopin to the Iraqi air force despite all of their modern soviet/french aircrafts?, but thats of course you wouldnt want to see Shahab-3 and Fajr-3 ballistic missiles flying all around Iraq and Afghanistan now wouldn't you?.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Mehran]

Originally posted by Elsenorpompom
what is a MOAB again? I know stupid question but id rather ask than assume?

El senor pom pom rides again

MOAB = mother of all bombs or really known as Massive Ordnance Air Blast

www.cnn.com...

thanks that what i thought but i wasnt sure. There was this guy on CNN either this morning or yesterday heres the link to the transcript.

transcripts.cnn.com...

His name is retired Colonel Sam Gardiner he taught at National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and also particpated in War games last year in regards to an assualt on Iran.


He was essentially saying that there are atleast 20 nuclear sites that would have to be hit and that doesnt include any of ther other priority targets that would need to be hit to lower the probability of a massive retaliation against US forces in Iraq and our pain in the arse allies the isrealies.

So...would MOAB's really be a viable option. Ive never seen a MOAB explosion so im not including intimidation in the equation.

El senor pom pom rides again

Theres a video available on the link I provided.

but thats of course you wouldnt want to see Shahab-3 and Fajr-3 ballistic missiles flying all around Iraq and Afghanistan now wouldn't you?.

obviously this would be the most logical strategy that iran could adopt if our military invades. but don't think for one second that all the bases wouldn't be covered. think of all the us navy ships positioned in the gulf as well as the mediterranean sea, the usaf is tops in the world when it comes to air strikes, and we also have 2, count em, 2 branches of military trained in ground assault. don't get me wrong tho, i am hoping for a peaceful solution, but i think if it came down to it, it would be on helluva fight. but what's going on right now more than proves the fact that our technology far exceeds your own. your country is just now starting to develop nuclear power, possibly nuclear weapons. we are decades ahead of your country pal. if the us does decide to invade, take my advice: gather your family, all of you get on your knees and pray to allah to save you. the reason i say this, is because the united states of america has never, and will never surrender. and comparing past airstrikes on iraq to what may possibly happen betwwen the us and iran is foolhardy at best. saddam's troops surrendered for food and water. i doubt any of our boys would ever do that, it just wouldn't be necessary.

yeah im at work right now so im on dialup and trying to watch streaming video on dialup is just god awful but i will make sure to watch it when i get home to my broadband connection.

Pom pom rides agian

The US Government is making a very big mistake to attack Iran militarily IMHO. Better to leave them. The Ayatollahs lack popularity and Nejad presidency would lose legitimacy. Instead we give these guys something to run on. As for nukes, I don't believe Iran has any, and is making any because I don't believe they can. If they do have some, someonr gave it to them, which is something that could happen anyway. If they do want to make them they won't have them anytime soon.

Originally posted by Mehran

Originally posted by Nygdan
Iran stands absolutely no chance of having its conventional military survive a US invasion. Iraq was one of hte great regional miliatry powers in teh middle east, and it's conventional military was defeated utterly and completely and permanently.

Iran could have a more powerful and better organized resistance to the occupation, but it can't prevent the occupation.

no chance eh?, well why dont you come right in? oh wait my bad you havent yet, why is that? why would you be so scared of attacking Iran with all its useless weapons?. Across from that we have much more better trained troops and better air defence not to mention we have better airforce, did you ever heard of iran-iraq war and how we did an ass whoopin to the Iraqi air force despite all of their modern soviet/french aircrafts?, but thats of course you wouldnt want to see Shahab-3 and Fajr-3 ballistic missiles flying all around Iraq and Afghanistan now wouldn't you?.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Mehran]

I think you'll find that fighting an armed force with weapons superior to what you have completely different from killing unarmed and unaware civilians during your state sponsored terrorist attacks.

How can you have pride in a country that spends so much money to export terror?

MOAB information:

usmilitary.about.com...

With the ordinance we have at our disposal, I don't think nuclear will be required.

But on the ground that is going to be another story, Iran will fight and will fight to the death US will face many casualties on the ground.

Marge, if the US invades, which I don't think we will, but if we do then Iran’s conventional military will fare no better then Iraq’s did in 91 or 03. Now, the area in which they can cause problems is in the occupation phase. If they mount a large, well trained, well funded, and coordinated insurgency campaign then the US will have major problems. This is one of the many reason I would not support an invasion of Iran over the Nuclear issue.

Now, if the US conducts Air Strikes over Iran you can bet you behind that the things listed below will be destroyed to not only stop them from building a nuclear weapon but also from retaliating.

1. Nuclear Power Plants, and all major Nuclear facilities.
2. Long/Short range missile sites.
3. Aircraft bases and or facilities.
4. Naval ports and costal bases, and also any ships in or near the Straight of Hormuz.
5. Command and control facilities and systems.

Now, there are several more sub categories but those are the major ones.

The only option that will be left for Iran afterwards will be to fund, arm, and influence the insurgency in Iraq even more so than they are currently doing. Any direct action against the US will not be viable.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by WestPoint23]