Apr 15, 2006

Iran Issues Terse Military Warning to US

Share

(Tehran) Iranian leaders today said the country could defeat any American military action directed against its controversial nuclear progam, in one of the Islamic regime's most forceful challenges yet to the United States.

"Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted President Ahmadinejad as saying. "We won’t hold talks with anyone about the right of the Iranian nation (to enrich uranium),” he added.

The UN Security Council has called upon Iran to suspend all enrichment-related activity by the end of the month and could decide to implement sanctions when it meets after the deadline passes.

"Today, thank God, the Iranian nation is a powerful one and we are going to have a dialogue with the world from a position of power," said Ahmadinejad during a speech in northeast Iran.

In another address on Friday, Mr. Ahmadinejad described Israel as a “rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm,” and suggested that Israel was created as a tool to threaten the Middle East.

State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said that for the elected leader of one country to call for the destruction of a sovereign state is a source of grave concern.

"I think that when they do bring up this topic, of how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, that this kind of rhetoric - which we can only assume represents the true policy intentions of the Iranian regime - will provide impetus for the international community to act in a strong, diplomatic manner with respect to Iran, to force them through diplomatic leverage, to change their behavior," he said.

13 comments:

liberal_dem said...

It's too bad that Mr. Ahmadinejad has Bush and Cheney by the nuts. But then, when political leaders use testosterone rather than gray matter, they're bound to get kicked in the balls.

Dariush said...

"State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said that for the elected leader of one country to call for the destruction of a sovereign state is a source of grave concern."

Sometimes you just have to sit back and marvel at the grandeur... at the sheer size of the hypocrisy and hubris that the USraeli government displays with statements such as this.

Some related light reading from Billmon and Arthur Silber.

ToledoNative said...

We aren't going to attack them...yet. Our esteemed leaders have to drum up the support first; and I'm not talking international support either.

From what I've read in various places, Iran is at least a decade away from having a nuke. I think that doesn't exactly constitute an imminent threat, now does it?

Anonymous said...

"From what I've read in various places, Iran is at least a decade away from having a nuke. I think that doesn't exactly constitute an imminent threat, now does it"

No, we should wait until it does constitute a threat and THEN try to something about it.

Hooda Thunkit said...

We should take President Ahmadinejad's threats seriously, wait for Iran to do something threatening and see what Iran's neighbors do to stabilize the region first.

If necessary, we can utilize the "nuclear glass" option second, followed by serving Iran's neighbors a large warm cup of STFU coffee afterwards.

M A F said...

Sean McCormack is obviously unfamiliar with the invasion of Iraq, and or the repeated threats made by the US and Israel torward Iran.

I would be very interested to see just how effective an embargo against Iran would be if the Iranian government decided to sell oil in euros rather than dollars.

Mike, it looks like you were visited by the Blogger folks as I am not required to type a password before posting.

Dariush said...

An open letter from an Iranian patriot to a Zionist stooge.

Save your 'gift of democracy'

ToledoNative said...

'"From what I've read in various places, Iran is at least a decade away from having a nuke. I think that doesn't exactly constitute an imminent threat, now does it"

No, we should wait until it does constitute a threat and THEN try to something about it.'

Hello, Anonymous.

Such absolutism. This isn't a zero-sum equation. Not doing something NOW does not mean we wait until the last moment. A decade is an adequate amount of time to use diplomacy, not force. Hopefully we can avoid another 'intelligence failure' like in the run-up to Iraq(nam).

-Sepp said...

"A decade is an adequate amount of time to use diplomacy"

Wasn't Saddam ordered to disarm and comply with the UN security council as the terms for the gulf war ceasefire in 1991? 10 years of diplomacy and sanctions did nothing but starve the people and enrichen Saddam.
I don't think that 10 years down the line Iran will be any less beligerant than they are now.

ToledoNative said...

Sepp-
"Wasn't Saddam ordered to disarm and comply with the UN security council as the terms for the gulf war ceasefire in 1991? 10 years of diplomacy and sanctions did nothing but starve the people and enrichen Saddam."

And if Bush had seriously used diplomacy insted of jumping to war, we would have found Saddam to be mostly harmless, and unable to threaten any country.

-Sepp said...

The other side of the coin is if Saddam WAS in compliance and indeed harmless, why was he posturing as if he did indeed have bio and chemical weapons and a nuclear program? We can easily blame Bush for starting the war but, should Saddam bear some blame for NOT preventing it? Full compliance in 1991 probably would have seen the end of UN sanctions by 1995. Get rid of banned weapons and allow inspectors to verify his compliance? He'd be sitting in his palace counting money right now if he would have instead of sitting in abu ghraib counting days.

Peahippo said...

When will the United States finally act against the only state in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, a poor Human rights record, a long history of attacking neighbor nations, and a similarly long record of avoiding UN censure? Oh, yeah, that's ISRAEL ... I forgot that we can't say anything against them since that's "anti-Semitism".

Well, back to bashing the towelheads! -- who are also Semites, so there's irony in there somewhere. (Or do we consider Iranians primarily Persian?)

-Sepp said...

Semite on Semite crime?