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.

 

NEWS: Iran warns of Preemptive Strike against US Forces

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani - speaking in Farsi to Al-Jazeera TV - warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
 



AFP

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Diplomats said the IAEA board - due to deliver the report on Iran's nuclear activities during a meeting at the organization's headquarters in Vienna from September 13 - would not say in that report whether Iran's nuclear activities are of a military nature, nor will it recommend bringing the case before the UN Security Council

The situation have risen to a highly dangerous level with these latest threats by Iran.


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iran Threatens to Destroy Israel's Nuclear Reactor if Israel Attacks Iran's
Iran is going to improve Shahab-3
NEWS: Iran Develops New Missile To Counter Israel

[edit on 8-19-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Does any of this rhetoric remind anybody of the run up the the war in Iraq?



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Well,

Seems perfectly reasonable and possible to me. "My cousin is my enemy and my cousins enemy is my enemy'" seems logical that Iran would want to take us out now. They know we are stretched out. They have the Russians on there side as well as the Chinese and Koreans and Pakistan's. So what is to stop them, the Turks or NATO. We are corralled in downtown Baghdad a.k.a. Custer's Last Stand. Why not attack, are we going to use nukes

Sounds like a good scenario to me.
Hope those bastards don't see the same as I.

TUT



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has warned the United States that his country may launch a pre-emptive strike on American forces in the area with intentions of stopping an attack on Irans growing nuclear assets. With the announcement coming out of the blue, in a time of relative calm, this has confused many on both sides, with speculation that a pre-emptive strike by Israel is a matter of days away.
 



Y!News
Minister Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly,"

Ali Shamkhani speaking on Al-Jazeera TV

These comments come weeks after rumours that Israel was planning a pre-emptive strike on Irans fledgling nuclear program in an effort to dispose of it quickly. The Iranian administration did not take kindly to the rumours and tension was quickly increased overnight in the troubled region.


"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move,


In this blunt statement, The Minister makes it pefectly clear that Iran would respond with all its might to destroy the Dimona nuclear plant in the Negev desert, covering Israel in deadly radioactive fallout.

Iran continually insists that it's nuclear ambitions are peaceful, under times of criticism it points to the Israeli nuclear program, the existence of which is neither confirmed nor denied by the Israeli Government.



[edit on 19-8-2004 by Nerdling]



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Allready been posted

da link



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Ummmm...Nerdling: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Been away for a few days eh?



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I reported on the earlier Dimona threat on ATSNN here,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then about twelve hours later the Iranian Defence Minister made the threat against the U.S> forces in the gulf. (Iraq)

At the moment Ali Shamkhani is strongly reminding me of "Bagdad Bob" with his outlandish assertions. I think I'll start refering to Shamkhani as "Tehran Tommy" until such time that the Iranians actually back up his words with some kind of action.

He's making me have visions of plan "R" and watching Slim Pickens fall to his ultimate fate as in the movie Dr. Stangelove.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tututkamen
Well,

Seems perfectly reasonable and possible to me. "My cousin is my enemy and my cousins enemy is my enemy'" seems logical that Iran would want to take us out now. They know we are stretched out. They have the Russians on there side as well as the Chinese and Koreans and Pakistan's. So what is to stop them, the Turks or NATO. We are corralled in downtown Baghdad a.k.a. Custer's Last Stand. Why not attack, are we going to use nukes

Sounds like a good scenario to me.
Hope those bastards don't see the same as I.

TUT



huh?
South Korea is our ally but that makes no difference because there a ways away from Iran and they wouldn't do anything. I highly doubt China would be dumb enough to jion Iran and go to war with the United States, they have there own problem with taiwan, if anything I would think that if they are going to try and "Take" Taiwan they would do it when the US is busy with Afgan-Iraq-and Iran.

As for Russia joining the Iraniens to fight the Americans, I havn't seen or read that. Where did you get that info from?

and if they did a pre-emptive strike on us we would have the help of most off our other allies, hopfully Europe would step up to the plate this time around, and obliviously we would have full cooperation and help from Israel.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tututkamen
Well,

Seems perfectly reasonable and possible to me. "My cousin is my enemy and my cousins enemy is my enemy'" seems logical that Iran would want to take us out now. They know we are stretched out. They have the Russians on there side as well as the Chinese and Koreans and Pakistan's. So what is to stop them, the Turks or NATO. We are corralled in downtown Baghdad a.k.a. Custer's Last Stand. Why not attack, are we going to use nukes

Sounds like a good scenario to me.
Hope those bastards don't see the same as I.

TUT


You think Russia and China would risk destroying the whole world in a all out war with the US over a nuclear power plant in Iran? Russia likes to sell them military equipment but I doubt they would risk getting into a nuclear war to help Iran.China sells way more stuff too America then to Iran thats not a smart way to run a economy,Lets destroy our biggest costumers.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I realy wish they would attack just so we would have an excuse to get this crap over with once and for all. Guess what? Iran would lose badly. They are not stupid enough, unfortunately to actually attack America LMAO. At least not in any overt way. If I ran attacked, withen 72 hours there would be very few lights left on in Iran, the Iranian airforce pilots would become parachutist over night and any radar that was stupid enough to remain on would be a crater and after that well you know as well as I do. Can you say cave man days? You dont need troops to completely cripple and destroy an outdated vastly inferior military. We should be so lucky as to have them start it. Guess what? Bush wouldnt have to make up stuff for a war at that point hehe.





[edit on 19-8-2004 by Xeven]



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I'd agree,
PLEASE IRAN step out of line and expose your neck.

This is part of the larger regional strategy that Bush is using, and a piece of why we invaded Iraq....to put the region and those with similar ideologies on notice....we are watching you...we WILL take actions IF we think we need to reguardless of world opinion....

It is a method of "agressive containment".....before we were using "passive" means thru the UN and piles of paper sanctions and words to ASK for compliance...what happened? those countries continued in their defiance.....now rouge nations KNOW that there would be concequences for their actions. It makes it harder for them to "not accomodate" requests from the west/UN if they KNEW they would be busted, not just told to go to the corner for a time out.

Iran may just be saber ratteling, i also doubght that they would try a preemptive strike because it wouldnt even get off the ground so to speak before the US forces knew and were intterupting it, let alone the butt whipping that would follow. Sure they might be able to in the earliest phase, do something, but once we knew, the game would end poorly for Iran.

I also can see neither the russians or china doing much more than heavy diplomacy if this happened...they neither want a conflict nor is it in the long term best interests to try an get in the way of the USA IF Iran stepped out of the pack and tried a strike. Both of these countries understand that the cold war is over, and that the USA, even without Iran pulling a big stunt...wouldnt be comming after either russia or china by attacking Iran.
They also understand that as the cold war is over...some of the previously stabalized (polarized) areas could become less stable.....if the conflicts can be contained to regional areas, then there is no need to become involved more than to keep things contained.

Hey Iran...COME GET SOME IF YOUR FEELING BRAVE!
OR
Keep your country intact and play it safe. Dont become a problem.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 06:57 AM
link   
mabey there taking out Iran before iran takes out israel,
just a thought cos look there on bothe side to israel
and thay wonte whant Iran taking them out befoe the us dose



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Lovely thought, as the US *& the UK would make iran regret the day it decided that it could step up to the majors and play with the Big boys.

Iran's air force and army is out dated, poorely trained, under funded, with the amount of firepower currenlty in the gulf region, they would be very very silly to make a play at the US. but they are radicals and who knows what they sit down and talk about in their little meetings.

Do they seriously belive that they can fight america? without getting invaded,occupied within a matter of days.

As im sure isreal would just love an excuse to bomb tehran back to the stone age. and would be quite happy to let US forces use it bases( well they Might as well be US Bases)

Russia & china would keep out of it, because thier own ecomoys depend on the US for so much, and they wouldn't want to back iran, as if iran managed to get the better of the US, and that's a big IF, iran would occupy iraq in about a blink of an eye, then roll down to kuwait/sadui and see what that can do about bringing the middle east under one banner and stamp out all these modern idea's , and that would give iran too much power, too much oil, and too big an ego



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Could it be that Iran is sending a message aimed torward Israel and not the U.S. directly. I believe what they are saying is that if Israel attacks they will counter attack the U.S. and Israel combined. Israel will be targeted with a missle barrage and the U.S. with convential land forces.
At the present time U.S. forces in Iraq are tied down. If they have to defend themselves from Iranian militatry forces they will face a two front situation. This situation is similar to what the Germans faced in WWII.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
IMO there is a Coup or revolution waiting in the wings in Iran. Here is the plot.

Iran's leaders overstep their place in the world and "attempt" to launch an attack on American forces. But before the full attack plan can be completed the Iranian people (mostly students and some soliders) revolt and start an attack of their own on the Ruling and Command structure (prompted by deep seated CIA operators) they take over several key places of power and word is sent to NOT attack Iran's infrastructure as the Coup has been completed and the previous rulers of Iran have been "disposed" of.

US Forces move into Iran from Iraq to stabilize the area and to help mop up any resistance of the former leaders, which there is very little at this point seeing as the overwhelming majority of Iranian's welcome the change. With very little destruction of major infrastructure Iran then becomes the model that Iraqi's then want to work towards. Iranian people show the Iraqi's that they have more self control and are able to transition to self rule almost immediatly with no major loss of life. Order is restored quickly and this is the "wake up" call that the Iraqis need to help bring there own country in line.

So now you have Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan stabilized.

Leaving Syria, Lebannon, Yemen, Sudan and the 'Gaza' conflict to be resolved.

Once we have a clear picture of Syria's involvement with Iraq in regards to WMD, we will push Syria to come clean or face the consequences.

Sudan will become a ward of the UN and be faced with embargo's in hopes to end the rebel conflict.

Lebannon and Yemen will be the end to end all battles with the "terrorists". Seeing as China and Russia along with the US now control the Region due to hand shake deals and co-operative agreements between the three superpowers, taking military action to Yemen and Lebannon will be comprised of all three superpowers in a massive show of force. GIVE UP the Terrorists or suffer the massive combined firepower. They will rule those two countries until there is no more religious fanatisim.

And finally 'Gaza' faced with the extinction of the radical Arab component in the region Palestine and Isreal will finally come to an agreement. Isreal may be forced to open its policy to palestinians only if they agree to drop the fight for their "own" country and the drop the fatawah to detroy Isreal.

And maybe then the world will see that we are Nations of peoples, all human, not Nations of any specific Religion bent on destroying any one who does not pracitice the same "religion" as them. Humans, just like every other human in every other Nation. Religion is not something to kill people over, its a personal experience with GOD that no one else can take away from you.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The last thring anyone in the Pentagon or Whitehall could possibly dream of in a million years would be the extension of conflict over the border in Iran. Then you would start seeing the draft introduced, the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, and a massive polarisation of the international diplomatic scene. Iran is NOT Iraq. With all the western/Russian munitions/nerve gas etc they could afford (or were given) Saddam couldnt defeat Iran... and he mobilised a LOT of people. Of course it would be different if it was NATO and the US... but it would still be protracted and would quickly escalate with Israel involved. Turkey's polticial elites definately could not weather a large scale conflict on their borders...

it would all be very Dr Strangelove-tastic.

and last time i looked.. Iraq nor Afghanistan is particularly 'stablised'

[edit on 20-8-2004 by Qoelet]



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I didn't think that we were ever trying to actually stabilize that region. In fact, it makes more sense to keep the Middle East in a state of chaos so that they are more easily controlled. Given time, I imagine that the Arab countries would finally unite under a single governing body making them signifigantly more powerful... and more dangerous. The last thing that the world needs right now is a powerful nation or confederation who's laws and policies are based on a religion in which the primary "prophet" was a RAIDER(for those of you who think Oakland when I say Raider... think... Bandit) who lived for conquest and ruled with fear... not to mention the fact that they'd be sitting on ridiculous amounts of oil. There is archeological evidence that speaks more about this "prophet" than any religious interpretation written by fanatically biased men. Anyone who thinks that the supreme law of the land should be based on one religious interprtation or another needs to either evolve a bit or wait for one of the more evolved humans on this rock to invent a time machine. That way they could jump back say... 1500 years, to a time more welcoming of such ideas. Beliefs are dangerous!

"Believe nothing, yet remain open to everything!"



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
robertfenix - few mistakes I notices in your post.

Iraq is not stabalized, its in the process but its still a couple a years away. We didn't make Libya give up on there nuke plan, their president did, hes been in power there for a long time and he is doing what old people do - get weaker and softer. But I respect him for giving up on his nuclear ambitions.

Also you forgot about North Korea.

3 SuperPowers? Ummm No. Russia is no longer a superpower and China never was/is/or will be a superpower.

And your analysis or prediction or what ever it is, is way to optimistic thinking. and if we went to war with Iran it would be very different then Iraq. For starters I doubt that we would use our army since there allready busy, It would probably be done buy the Navy and Airforce only.

We wont attack Iran unless they attack us first.
But I think that we might make them do a pre-emptive strike, because that way we would have the support off more allies. We would do things near Iran and they would think its for a attack, So then they attack us first, and we get support from our allies and backed by american people. (Think of it like dangling fresh meat in front of a wolve, the wolve would then attack you, and let it get one bite and then shoot it.)



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
This is hilarious! Iran make a pre-emtive strike on the US. HAHA! That would be a great way to ensure the safty of their country and its nuclear capabilities. They would get steam rolled!



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
IRNA, the Iranian news agency has reported a counter to the news we in the West were receiving regarding this item -

Beirut, Aug 22, Itar-Tass/ACSNA/IRNA -- Iranian Defense Minister Ali
Shamkhani has denied mass media reports saying his country might
deliver a preventive strike on potential aggressors, Foreign Ministry
spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.
Asefi quoted Shamkhani as saying, "Tehran will never allow anyone
to invade Iran. If anyone is trying to attack us, we`ll resist and
defend the interests of our country."
According to Asefi, Shamkhani stressed that Iran is ready to
defend its territorial integrity and its national interests.
On Friday, certain mass media, including American and Israeli
ones, quoted the Iranian minister as saying, "Whether anyone threaten
Iran`s nuclear reactor in Bushehr, we can deliver a preventive
strike."


Original

I expect some people will retort with a '...well they would say that..' type of statement, but this, for me, highlights a fundamental problem we have of who to believe!




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join