Ahmadinejad warns Europe it will pay for backing Israel

Robert Tait in Tehran
Friday October 20, 2006

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran added a threatening edge to his verbal onslaught on Israel today by warning European governments to withdraw their support or face getting "hurt" in a storm of retaliation.

He also called Britain and the United States "enemies of Iran" whose attempts to block the country's nuclear programme at the UN security council were "illegitimate".

Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking in Tehran at the annual Qods [Jerusalem] day rally, staged by Iran's Islamic regime to propagate its ideological opposition to Israel. He repeated predictions that Israel would soon disappear but, in a fresh warning, said European countries could pay a much higher price than the US for their backing.

"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region," he said. "We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals ... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

Mr Ahmadinejad, who last year called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and dismissed the holocaust as a "myth", has not previously made such a clear distinction between US and European support for Israel.

Full story

Interesting statement, though, not too impressive. In my opinion Iran's intention is probably to prevent Europe from joining an Israeli-US joint coalition should it eventually come to war [are they expecting anything to happen?]. I personally wonder whether his threat will be taken very serious, as an attack of any kind on Europe would mean war. In addition, the US would inevitably regard such an attack as an act of war.

What I wonder, did other leaders make similar radical statements after world war II? I am a student and thus not that old, but I cannot remember for instance Saddam being so radical.

Has Israel plans Ahmedinejad knows about, since he suddenly starts threatening Israel -- and now Europe?

"You should believe that this regime (Israel) cannot last and has no more benefit to you. What benefit have you got in supporting this regime, except the hatred of the nations?" he said in nationally broadcast speech Friday.

Source

For the records, Ahmadinejad's statements was in response to the threat Olmert made lately:

Jerusalem, Oct. 20 (AP): Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned that Iran would have "a price to pay" if it does not back down from its nuclear ambitions, hinting broadly that Israel might be forced to take action -- his strongest words yet about the Iranian threat.

Talking to reporters yesterday on his way home from a three-day trip to Moscow, Olmert did not specifically threaten to cripple Iran's nuclear programme in a military strike, as it did 25 years ago in Iraq when it sent combat planes to destroy an unfinished nuclear reactor there. But he repeated what he said a day earlier after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow -- the Iranians "have to be afraid" of the consequences of their intransigence.

"They have to understand that if they object to every compromise, there will be a price to pay," Olmert said.

The Hindu

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Mdv2]

Wow Mdv2, I don't understand the logic of him saying this...he doesn't want sanctions, yet threatens Europe. Where is the logic?

All I know is, that people in the United States will have a huge news fiasco when this finally hits air. And Bush will use the rhetoric "He threatens our allies".

Who knows anything about these sort of things? I really don't.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Wow Mdv2, I don't understand the logic of him saying this...he doesn't want sanctions, yet threatens Europe. Where is the logic?

All I know is, that people in the United States will have a huge news fiasco when this finally hits air. And Bush will use the rhetoric "He threatens our allies".

Who knows anything about these sort of things? I really don't.

Apparently, it is a last attempt to prevent the EU from supporting sanctions on Iran, and thus from preventing the UN to apply them. This is what I've found, Iranian official Larijani made just two days ago:

"If the other side (the EU) yields to American pressure, it is natural that the situation will become radical. The world will not end but it will affect all our cooperation, in which I think the other side will lose more," Larijani said.

He did not specify what cooperation would be affected, but Iran has in the past threatened, if pushed, to review dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. watchdog that routinely inspects Iranian atomic facilities.

Reuters

This is of course a great move in the interest of the Bush Administration, which as you said, will surely use it for its propaganda campaign against Iran.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Mdv2]

President Armeknrqwkrnwekjhjad is a freakin IDIOT.

Could it be that LiL' Kim is getting all the attention right now?

Or could it be that he does in fact have something up his sleeve that has not already come to light? A new set of allies perhaps.

Mdv2, you live in Europe. How do you feel about this?

What the iran madmans threats to europe and US are i think terrorist attacks(as iran itself to cowardly 2 openly attack),and or oil cutoff.The threat to euro.meaning they are more accesible 2 iran backed terrorists.

Or perhaps his intelligence has provided him with solid evidence that other EU countries other than France are beginning to get tired of all the mess that their support for israel has created. And hearing this news he is trying to push their already doubtful minds. Listen, Israel will always be in conflict as long at it sits in the middle of all its adversaries with a gun pointed in the air.

You remember the story of Armegeddon from the bible, the final wear that takes place around jeruselem? Well I see that war taking place and I see a strapped EU sitting by and allowing it to happen. This is my prediction, I could be wrong.

AAC

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Mdv2, you live in Europe. How do you feel about this?

To be honest, I personally don't take his statement too serious (yet). I am convinced that Ahmadinejad is not looking for self-destruction, nor for the the destruction of Iran, and therefore would not commit an attack on Europe any time soon.

However, I remember Ahmadinejad saying that he would not sit down and wait like Saddam Hussein did after sanctions had been applied. Nevertheless, should he stick to his words and respond by military force, then we should carefully consider his words as threatening.

Since I just returned home from my holiday in Egypt I might have missed something, but I am not aware of Europe being a great supporter of Israel. I do, however, remember Europe's condemnation of the Israeli attack on Lebanon to name an example.

Anyhow, a (false flag?) attack in the name of Iran - for instance a dirty bomb attack in Israeli cities - would immediately change the situation, and thus the stand points of European leaders.

Originally posted by Mdv2

Anyhow, a (false flag?) attack in the name of Iran - for instance a dirty bomb attack in Israeli cities - would immediately change the situation, and thus the stand points of European leaders.

Mdv2, this is my problem with false flag attacks. If there was such a thing in the name of Iran, wouldn't you think Iran would call for a UN investigation, saying it wasn't them, comdemning it, etc.?

If there was a false flag attack, there would need to be a lot of evidence pointing to Iran and the Iranian government not sitting there and denying it.

I would think the action he is thinking of is sanctions against the EU and US (the other way around ) take there business elsewhere.

To be quite honest This is nothing that the US hasn't done already, Bush threatens contrys every day and people don't turn much of an eye, someone else (labeled evil by the US) does the same and everyone thinks the worst.

Well, one thing is for sure - the French will be totally helpless. After sucking up to the Iranians for years, they'll be lost sheep when Ahmi starts hurling missiles at them (and everyone else). Of course, the 'Persians' will start with Israel, but then;

As the old story goes,

Question: "Will the French help get the Iranians out of Tel Aviv?"
Answer: "Why would they - they didn't help get the Germans out of Paris!".

Let's be reasonable. Iran will not start hurling missiles at Europe and Israel. That would just be dumb.

When i was a child in school there was a bully. Well, at least he called himself a bully. The fact of the matter is that he was smaller than everyone else and couldn't hurt anyone. However, everyday he would tell a few kids that he was gonna beat them up at recess. When he first made these threats, it scared me a little bit. And after time, AS THE THREATS KEPT COMING AND COMING and he never beat anyone up, everyone began laughing at the so called "bully".

The A-man is nothing more than a wannabe bully. He is weak, but he projects himself as being strong. Crazy Kim is the same way. These guys are pitiful and pathetic. Hitler was a real bully. These guys, on the global political scene, are simply not.

Nothing here. As some have pointed out Bush threatens countries daily, and in order for a threat to be credible they must have seem means of carrying out the threat. If not, then it isn't a threat, it is flapping your gums.

Besides, everything I hear from this guy seems reasonable. You hear he says this or that outragous thing, and when you check it out for yourself it is either taken way out of context or is (Intentionally?)misquoted.

Originally posted by Kwintz
The A-man is nothing more than a wannabe bully. He is weak, but he projects himself as being strong. Crazy Kim is the same way. These guys are pitiful and pathetic. Hitler was a real bully. These guys, on the global political scene, are simply not.

Its a shame but Israel has been threatening Iran for a lot longer then the A-man has been around. They have been actively making claims that Iran is close to having the bomb since 1990's and as well threatening to do as they did to Iraq with Osirak, so who is the bully here?

Recently PM Olmert of Israel stated that "Iran has targetted itself for annihilation"

The Israeli provacative fly-over of President Assads summer residence when they thought that the kidnapped soldiers were there is just an example of their tactics and methods with their neighboring countries. If that not Bullying then I dunno what to tell you.

The difference Pie Man is that Israel has been threatening to get rid of the nuclear program in Iran just as they did in Iraq. They are not threatening the existence of the entire country nor have they said Iranians should be wiped off the map etc. The threats you speak of are not comparing apples to apples.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The difference Pie Man is that Israel has been threatening to get rid of the nuclear program in Iran just as they did in Iraq. They are not threatening the existence of the entire country nor have they said Iranians should be wiped off the map etc. The threats you speak of are not comparing apples to apples.

If they want to get rid of a Nucelar program or threaten to get rid of one, it should be their own first LOL Not someone elses in another country that isn't even proven to have nuclear weaponry.

So "Targetting Iran for Annihilation" is not threatening the existence of a country?

They are not apples to apples because you see no wrong in what Israel says or does. Not everyone is blind to what Israel says or does.

I enjoy Irans leadership, they've pushed buttons in ways many other leaders have nay been able to and that through words and abbrasive strategy. Unlike the U.S who still recognizes in legal officated documents the extent of their war mongering as appropiate and thus willingly acts out upon, Iran has never acted upon words but uses them in a mere defencive stance -- I think this is important.

Iran is well aware of European conscious regarding the Middle East and it's otherwise peacefull strategy to aquire oil to further perpetuate economic progress whilst the U.S would rather take full fledged control and prevent economic perpetuation of the EU, China, India and Russia through what we've seen come to light the last few decades, thus they have issued a statement warning any regional power contemplating U.S strategy.

Luxifero

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Luxifero]

I think the fact that Israel has had nukes for 30 years and is surrounded by enemies and has been attacked more than several times and still has not used them proves that they are a "responsible" nuclear power. In NO WAY is Iran showing they are worthy of such devices.

Iran is not surrounded by enemies but Israel is. Why does Iran need such weapons?

By the way...Israel taking out Iraq's Osirak reactor and setting their nuclear program back was hardly annihilation.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by princeofpeace]