Iran Warns Of Pre-emptive Strike On US Forces

Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has warned that Iran might launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

english.aljazeera.net...

Things are heating up.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by Samiralfey]

Well don�t you think it is about time that the Americans realise that Iranian government is a major threat to the region and the money, arms and the forces in Iraq and Palestine is being supplied by the Iranian regime?

The difference is... we KNOW the US has WMD and supports terrorism!

Originally posted by Corinthas
The difference is... we KNOW the US has WMD and supports terrorism!

Yes, true and is actively developing new WMD's too. The world is funny sometimes, ain't it?

i assume that iran would be justified, in the eyes of the world, in a pre-emtive strike since the country that iran would conduct a pre-emptive strike on has said that it reserves the right to conduct pre-emtive strikes. what a tangled web our elected officials have woven for its sheeples.
iran is almost as wacko as n. korea...so iran may just do it.....

Atomic bombs that US is making now are 25 times stronger than the one they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they are currently working on mini NUKES and they are telling other countries not to make atomic bomb. What a joke huh?

Anyone with any military knowledge whatsoever would instantly recognize the absolute folly of this. The Iranians would be committing an act of suicide by doing so. The reality is, The war in Iraq is being waged between the West and primarily Iran. This news flash is evidence of Iranian desperation in a war in which they are losing.

Atomic bombs that US is making now are 25 times stronger than the one they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they are currently working on mini NUKES and they are telling other countries not to make atomic bomb. What a joke huh?

Yes, and antagonizing such a foe is akin to stabbing a dragon in the toe with a fork.... It's just not a good idea.

It's just another ratchet in the rhetoric though....I wouldn't pay it any mind.

Iran would not want to tangle with the US with Bush in the White House. You can bet that Iran will wait until after the elections until they considered any attack. Just look at history, The Iranians attacked the US embassy with a Democrate in the White House. He tried to appease them, Just like Kerry would do. Only when Regan took office did the Iranians let the prisioners go. You know that the Iranians do not want to tangle with Bush. He has shown that he will walk the walk and talk the talk.

Originally posted by Corinthas
The difference is... we KNOW the US has WMD and supports terrorism!

But thanks to the NPT treaty the US, Russia , China , France and England get to have nukes and thats it. Oh and Iran and N Korea both signed that saying they wouldnt get nukes. Some countries didnt sign it but most did, Some examples that did not sign it India ,Isreal ,Cuba so they really didnt break the rules because they decided not to play the game.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
Anyone with any military knowledge whatsoever would instantly recognize the absolute folly of this. The Iranians would be committing an act of suicide by doing so. The reality is, The war in Iraq is being waged between the West and primarily Iran. This news flash is evidence of Iranian desperation in a war in which they are losing.

The accuracy of this statement is very heavily contingent on the idea that America will not soon begin aggression on Iran. It is widely known that America does intend to occupy Iran though.
All you've got to do is look at a map. If I walk up to three guys and shoot the one on the right, then i shoot the one on the left, what do you think happens next?

Iran should consider war imminent and do everything in their power to win. In my opinion, this means an invasion of Iraq designed to cause massive casualties before the US can bring reinforcements.
This should be coordinated with a series of assymetrical (aka guerilla/terrorist) operations against the US homeland which will hinder American response.
A good example would be to arm non-iranian civilian aircraft and boats with cruise missiles, torpedos, or explosives for kamikaze missions and attack American ships as they are being prepared to bring reinforcements to Iraq/Iran.
The sabotage of rail systems is also a good way to slow the deployment of armor, because most of our tanks are not right next to the port and ready to be loaded up.
Attacks to demoralize American troops should also be considered. Terrorist attacks on DFAS offices can cut off the pay to their families. Arson on base housing can cause serious concerns for their families. Bombings, mortar attacks, or simple drive by shootings against bases, training centers, or even recruiting stations could perhaps lead to long-term manpower issues, and perhaps force a draft which would create enormous potential for civil unrest in America.
The assassination of American generals in Washington could hurt the quality of planning for retaliation, and the assassination of politicians could both confuse broader national policy relating to the war and serve as a warning to those who may side with the US.

Last but not least, the extensive use of chemical weapons against American troops BEFORE they enter the country, especially at home, foreign bases, in transport, and in neighboring countries could be a key part of a winning strategy. MOPP gear is intended for short term use. Under near-constant chemical attack it would not be sufficient.

Iran would probably lose, but whatever nation finally loses it's head and stands up to America that ferociously will probably go down in history as the one who broke America. We'd lose a lot more than the enemy did, even if we nuked them into oblivion- they just have so much less to lose to begin with.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Last but not least, the extensive use of chemical weapons against American troops BEFORE they enter the country, especially at home, foreign bases, in transport, and in neighboring countries could be a key part of a winning strategy. MOPP gear is intended for short term use. Under near-constant chemical attack it would not be sufficient.

Iran would probably lose, but whatever nation finally loses it's head and stands up to America that ferociously will probably go down in history as the one who broke America. We'd lose a lot more than the enemy did, even if we nuked them into oblivion- they just have so much less to lose to begin with.

This action would most likely cause a retaliatory nuclear strike. What a great legacy to have when your country is nuked off the planet.

vagabond you and i have agreed much in the past but i must say your last post is way off. i understand the man on the left and man on the right scenario, but it doesn't apply in this case. afghanistan was taken to oust the taliban. iraq was taken because bush wanted saddam gone. now with the very serious threat iran poses, i doubt any president would just go in and invade their country. everyone would exhaust all possible non-violent methods to get through to iran before even thinking about attacking them. and i disagree that it is widely known the u.s. wants to take iran. what is widely known is we consider them a potential hositle and are keeping an eye on them.

....wow Vagabond, you got it all planned out don't you?

In my opinion, this means an invasion of Iraq designed to cause massive casualties before the US can bring reinforcements.

Massive casualties to who? The Iraqis? Haven't they been through enough? Now you want another country to invade them. Wow.

This should be coordinated with a series of assymetrical (aka guerilla/terrorist) operations against the US homeland which will hinder American response.

Amazing. You don't realize that attacks against the US homeland will only cause an IMMEDIATE and MASSIVE response? Why would we be hindered? Not only will the US population support the response but the world would be with us.

Last but not least, the extensive use of chemical weapons against American troops BEFORE they enter the country, especially at home, foreign bases, in transport, and in neighboring countries could be a key part of a winning strategy.

There wouldn't be "extensive use" of chemical weapons, because the first time would be their last. A nuculear response would be swift and overwhelming.

The rest of the stuff...assasinating generals, demoralizing troops and their families, etc. I'm not even sure why you're thinking of doing stuff like that but doing that would only hurt the Iranian army and their people as our country's retaliation would be too much to bear.

Just wanted opinions would it be possible for cruise missiles to destroy Iran's nuclear facility or does such an attack need to come from an aircraft? A war with Iran without world financial aid would cripple the US and in turn world economy for decades to come. Our surplus was already spent on tax cuts and our credit limit maxed out on Iraq. I was thinking we could either simply launch cruise missiles to destroy the reactor or have Israel take it out on a bombing run. Both very cheap options. Any thoughts?

There are different types of cruise missiles, and each differs from its mass to its speed. The different types of cruise missiles include ground-launched, sea-launched, and air-launched cruise missiles. Some have relatively short ranges while some were made to travel long distances and have long ranges. The ranges of cruise missiles vary from 105 km to 3,000 km.

So a cruise missile could really hit any target in Iran so yes it could be done. Another option could be Israels F-16I which has enough unrefueled range to hit targets in Iran.

Originally posted by jrsdls
Iran would not want to tangle with the US with Bush in the White House. You can bet that Iran will wait until after the elections until they considered any attack. Just look at history, The Iranians attacked the US embassy with a Democrate in the White House. He tried to appease them, Just like Kerry would do. Only when Regan took office did the Iranians let the prisioners go. You know that the Iranians do not want to tangle with Bush. He has shown that he will walk the walk and talk the talk.

OK... I can't let this one slide. Learn some history! You want to know why the hostages were released when Reagan came to power, and not before? Look up "arms for hostages" and "Iran/Contra".

-koji K.

Originally posted by mrdependable
Just wanted opinions would it be possible for cruise missiles to destroy Iran's nuclear facility or does such an attack need to come from an aircraft? A war with Iran without world financial aid would cripple the US and in turn world economy for decades to come. Our surplus was already spent on tax cuts and our credit limit maxed out on Iraq. I was thinking we could either simply launch cruise missiles to destroy the reactor or have Israel take it out on a bombing run. Both very cheap options. Any thoughts?

read link

It basically says that if the US or Isreal take out their nuke facility they will respond with overwhelming force.

So you cant plan on using a few missiles or bombs and have all the USA Vs. Iran tension relieved.

I think if the Iranian use any non-conventional weapons against such as chemical weapons. We should nuke them off the planet, but know this once a country either the US or Israel uses nukes. You can forget about arms control. Every nation will be running scare to build the biggest stockpiles they can. This is the grand rubric we have built for generations which will end regardless who ever uses atomic weapons. A few more points, withdrawal of troops from Iraq to avoid fall out, and the death of perhaps millions of people in the surrounding area. GWB should have learned from his father in his dealing with the Moselm world, and never invaded. The US army is a blunt instrument design to punish those that dare attack America. It is not designed to nation build or impose democracy.

Originally posted by persian
Atomic bombs that US is making now are 25 times stronger than the one they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they are currently working on mini NUKES and they are telling other countries not to make atomic bomb. What a joke huh?

Actualy, if I'm not mistaken, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the 12-18KT range or 12.000-18.000 TONS of TNT.
Both US and Russia have "officialy" developed bombs up to 100MT, that is 100.000.000 Tons of TNT. The biggest bomb tested was a 50-60 MT weapons tested by the russians in Syberia.

Thats a bomb between 5600 and 8400 times stronger ...

EDIT: for the americans, before you say I'm wrong, belgian notation of numbers is 100.000,00
In other words, the "," is used for decimals, not the ".", so my notation is correct.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by thematrix]