Iran threatens retaliation against US, Tel Aviv
posted at 8:30 am on July 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The mullahs are hearing footsteps. The Iranians issued a threat today in response to reports that Israel and/or the US has prepared an attack on their nuclear facilities. Any such attack would prompt retaliation against Tel Aviv and US ships in the Gulf, Tehran warned, saying that they would be “burned”:
“The first bullet fired by America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests around the globe,” the students news agency ISNA quoted Ali Shirazi as saying in a speech to Revolutionary Guards. …
“The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran’s first targets and they will be burned,” Shirazi was quoted as saying.
Shirazi, a mid-level cleric, is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s representative to the Revolutionary Guards.
“The Iranian nation will never accept bullying. The Iranian nation is a nation of believers which believes in jihad and martyrdom. No army in the world can confront it,” he added.
Well, they can certainly try. The point of a pre-emptive attack would be to take out Iran’s first-strike and retaliatory capability, but that would require massive forces that neither Israel nor the US has within striking distance. Undoubtedly, an attack on Iran would take out some of these capabilities, as well as command and control. The question would be whether it could take out enough, and that seems unlikely.
However, this does point out some vulnerabilities for anyone hoping to successfully attack Iran. First, Iran has a functioning military, unlike Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003. They could close the Straits of Hormuz, which would make $140-per-barrel oil prices look like a K-Mart Blue Light Special. We can’t launch operations from Iraq for obvious political reasons, and Kuwait and Qatar might not agree to it, either. That would require us to launch attacks from the Gulf, which would disrupt oil shipments even if we managed to keep the Straits open. This doesn’t even consider the fact that we could bomb Iran all day long, but if we don’t know where to aim, we won’t knock out their nuclear program.
That doesn’t mean we should take the military option off of the table, but it does mean we should be realistic about the chances of its success and the consequences of its failure. The only real chance for success would be a decapitating strike that would kill off the Guardian Council and the military leadership of Iran. We tried that in Iraq twice in the opening hours of the 2003 invasion, when we had better intel and open skies, and failed both times.
The best option we have is to get the Iranians to throw out the mullahcracy on their own. If we can’t do that, then we have few choices left — and we cannot afford to have a nuclear-armed Iran that sponsors terrorism around the world.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Why not just give the Persians the time and date that Israel will attack since everyone keeps talking about it? So much for the element of surprise. Anyway the vain, incompetent, corrupt, insolent and cowardly nonentity of a political hack named Ehud Olmert will not do anything. He is afraid of Hamas in Gaza.
Doesn’t Israel have Arrow missiles?
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 8:37 AM
They know what is coming and are drawing Saddams line in the sand promising us their version of the mother of all battles. Iran probably wont even put up half the fight Saddams Iraq did.
doriangrey on July 8, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Cute. Iran’s feeling its oats and talking smack to the last remaining superpower. The problem with this is that it makes for great PR for the jihadi world, who will see us as powerless to stop Iran. At this point, we need to either break Iran in the most thorough, humiliating and visible way possible, or give up any notions of being able to maintain any kind of order in the world. Time to put up, or shut up, and if we back down from this, there will be hell to pay for a long time to come.
morganfrost on July 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Come January 20, they will be awed and inspired by the sheer magnetism of Baracky and all will be well in the world.
JammieWearingFool on July 8, 2008 at 8:46 AM
It’s hard to believe you mean what you wrote. I suppose you mean the only real chance for success without substantial retaliation. And I suppose by any failure we might have, you mean failure of political will.
As for decapitation, I think it’s immoral to commit the military before an attempt has been made to eliminate the enemy’s leadership.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM
I would say a little NUKE test of our own on Iranian soil ought to get the mullahs to reconsider their options in this matter. But then again, maybe not. But if they shoot off 1 missle, all bets are off. Light them up like the fourth of JULY!!!
relpayme on July 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Why should the lessons of Iraq and Saddam have no effect on the Jihadi world. Why shouldn’t the destruction of Al-Qaeda in Iraq leave no impression on the jihadi world.
Yesterday, in the Iraq thread, America was said to have proven itself to be the strong horse. Today, we are just a rabbit again? How did that happen?
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 8:51 AM
“Bullying”? They are helping insurgents kills American troops. If we bomb Iran, it will be retaliatory (& preemptive), not bullying.
jgapinoy on July 8, 2008 at 8:54 AM
The one thing I have confidence in…if we take military action, it will be complete and successful, not sure about the political aspects, but the military function will be perfect.
That should be one lesson we have learned, our military leaders knows what it is doing…more so then our political leaders.
I am not worried about the military action, I am worried about our leadership at home.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 8:58 AM
The mullahs would like nothing more than to get us to strike prematurely, re-energizing the antiwar movement they have spent so long funding and cultivating, and screwing up any chance McCain has to win the White House.
Sekhmet on July 8, 2008 at 8:58 AM
“The first bullet” and they will light up all their gear? I don’t think so.
This nonsense rhetoric is for the MSM to decorate with a nice ribbon and dutifully deliver to the American public.
Message to Iran: think carefully about what happens when you try to test your weapon.
shaken on July 8, 2008 at 8:59 AM
We will drop a few bombs over Iran in the next 6 months.
Iran will do nothing.
Yawn.
faraway on July 8, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Wait, wait…I thought when Fred Thompson made a crack about those Iranians who rushed a US ship “getting their 72 virgins”, every lefty in America mentioned in outrage how they were not jihadis.
…so what’s this all about, then?
MadisonConservative on July 8, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Proxy
tomas on July 8, 2008 at 9:08 AM
We could give Israel say 4 Los Angeles class subs so the mullahs know that regardless of what they do to Israel the dirty Jews will have a massive retaliatory capability lurking somewhere in the sea or we could let Israel go ahead and nuke Iran’s suspected sites, or just Tehran, or try and catch their maniacal leaders in the air or maybe we can just sit and wait.
manfriend on July 8, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Just think if we had stepped up to the plate back in the Carter days, or anytime after? Do we wait for them to try to reach military parity so it’s a fair fight?
I hope they blink first so we can get this done and over with. It is inevitable, and defeating this regime will result in peace globally.
Hening on July 8, 2008 at 9:14 AM
“The first bullet fired by America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests around the globe,”
Yeah, and in 1991, Saddam was gonna send us home “in an endless line of body bags”. Typical. All talk.
Tony737 on July 8, 2008 at 9:16 AM
What does “prematurely” mean? Before they have the bomb? Afterward will be a little late, I’m afraid.
a capella on July 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM
We can’t launch operations from Iraq for obvious political reasons, and Kuwait and Qatar might not agree to it, either.
Well, we COULD launch a few STEALTH bombers at night and Maliki could have plausible deniability.
Kuwait on the other hand should be doing ANYTHING we ask ‘em for. “Iraq’s 18th province” owes us their free … well, ok, their liber … um, you know, their *independence*.
Tony737 on July 8, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Attacks on U.S. ships? That’s a good one. I didn’t know that Iranians could throw rocks that far!
orlandocajun on July 8, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Really? It’d be a good start, but… really?
Beo on July 8, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Worst. President. Ever.
Del Dolemonte on July 8, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Those fly out of Missouri, so no worries there. The issue isn’t where or how we muster our forces, it’s where do we aim them? If we don’t know exactly where their nuclear capabilities lie, we can’t decapitate them with a single strike. The problem is – politically – we might not get a second chance.
Make no mistake, Iran is terrified of the US military. And I don’t think they have any grand fantasies of survival against a couple of carrier task forces, B2s, B52s, and submarine launched TLAMs. They have to bluff and bluff boldly at this point, not because they have nothing to lose, but because they stand to lose everything. Their best chance of defeating us and surviving an American attack doesn’t lie in the hands of the Revolutionary Guard – it lies in the hands of the U.S. Congress and the American media.
God help us.
Beo on July 8, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Invasion is out of the question. The bulk of this work will be Air Force and Navy and we will have only two choices if we want to win;
1. Bomb them all the way back to Jurassic Park and hope for regime change.
2. Bomb them all the way back to the Big Bang.
right2bright was right-on-the-money. It is all about resolve. Political resolve. I don’t believe we have it…..yet.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Don’t forget the consequences of our presidential election. Iran’s candidate of choice hasn’t been defeated yet.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM
“The question would be whether it could take out enough…”
Enough for what?
JDPerren on July 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM
tick, tock, tick, tock.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 9:37 AM
The threat of vaporization speaks to a 7th century mindset.
If they see we have the power of “Allah” and can use it to brighten up their world, they have lots of desert that would be perfect for the Mid-East Nuke Trials, maybe they won’t be so bothersome anymore.
Make them feel like the “Flea Circus” they really are!!
relpayme on July 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Why are we afriad of a little bug called Iran??? The only reason why mullahs is in power is because Iran people believe Allah is on their side. If we bomb them for several days straight the Iran people will realize Allah is not on their side and will throw out their government.
BroncosRock on July 8, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Prematurely is before we have enough forces in place to achieve our goals, and while the Presidential election is still undecided, and the polls are so close.
Sekhmet on July 8, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Iran can’t shoot missiles because we now have planes that will shoot down those missiles. AP had a blog about this early this year.
BroncosRock on July 8, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Yakko77 on July 8, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Well, we should consider it a little more seriously.
Congress examines EMP threat: Iran believed to test missiles for attack on U.S.
One nuke detonated in the atmosphere, and we could be crippled in an instant.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 8, 2008 at 9:58 AM
An Israeli strike pulls us in no matter what they hit or how they hit it. Iran just doesn’t have the command and control in place that will be able to keep field commanders from firing willy-nilly around the gulf. One of those fellas is going to send a rocket towards a ship or our forces in Iraq on his own authority.
Yesterday, James Baker, was part of a group that is proposing a change to the War Powers Act. From what I’ve read it does little to handcuff the President. The initial committment of troops is actually extended from 2 to 7 days, but the authorization for further action is cut from 60 to 30 days without congressional approval. It retains one cruicial element, the ‘in-case-of-emergency’ catch all that frees up Command Authority to shoot first and report later. Contrary to what some believe it doesn’t restrict us to waiting on the enemy to fire the first shot.
Israel is faced with two choices, fight today while her forces and country are intact, or fight tomorrow with her forces and country shattered by a couple of atomic explosions. I know what I would choose.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 10:11 AM
You know, I don’t subscribe to the apocalyptic theology of some Evangelicals. The concrete events in Israel tell me nothing about whether the end times are imminent. Frankly, I think we have our hands full with the far more alarming and very real recrudescence of Marxism, with it’s threat to immanentize the eschaton, as the commies would say, which means: bring on the utopia, the new man, here, now!
However, having said this: it would be a smart move for the islamists if they would quit reading directly from the end times playbook. Threatening to destroy Israel fuels the fire of opinion against them, and pretty much ensures that the Crusade they are in fact provoking will be fought with — how do you say? — extreme prejudice.
jeff_from_mpls on July 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Ocarter will bring civility to the region by sending them a crate of carrots, with a note (with all the “i” dotted with frowny faces) threatening to send a crate of sticks.
At least, that’s what I took away from the first Dem debate of this cycle.
ynot4tony2 on July 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I would be surprised if we don’t have adequate forces and an action plan already in place. I fail to see the upside of waiting for election polls to drive foreign policy in this particular case. Iran isn’t going to budge, it has to be done,..it won’t get done with Obama at the helm.
a capella on July 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Islamophobe!
Grafted on July 8, 2008 at 10:24 AM
The attack begins 5 minutes after Bibi gets the Prime Minister job.
Sharon was a great man, Olmert is a pale imitation that has squandered his legacy and left Isreal vulnerable.
Benjamin Netanyahu is the right leader for right now in Israel and he will be their next PM. Then we can get down to business dealing with Iran.
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 8, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I wonder if Supreme Court Justice Laurence Tribe would make all wars illegal forever?
We’ll find out!
jeff_from_mpls on July 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I’ll remind you that Saddam’s military in 1991 was very much functional, the largest in the region as a matter of fact, and they still got slapped around like a red-headed stepchild.
Oh they can, Ed? Just like that? Is that so? With us just sitting idly by doing nothing, helpless and weak as a kitten that we are?
Sometimes it sounds to me like Western pundits have even more faith in the religious fanatics’ abilities than the religious fanatics themselves.
Misha I on July 8, 2008 at 10:47 AM
If Iran does something stupid that sends oil to $300 a barrel, the American people will demand that we start bombing the crap out of Tehran.
rockmom on July 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I’m glad Ed is not our Commander in Chief. Yikes. How can you win a race by dropping out? And all is based on price of oil? I miss Bryan.
redrock on July 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM
I should have typed “Peace globally against Jihad”…at least temporarily since Islam couldn’t exist for long without killing innocents for their god.
Hening on July 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM
True enough from our perspective but not from the Israeli’s.
As I have previously stated, “As to Israeli’s intelligence about Iran, when in doubt I always trust the Israelis. They, unlike the rest of the world, ourselves included, have their lives/nation on the line. It’s not a theoretical/philosophical tree hugging debate that they wage.”
That said, while we may talk to them, cajole and attempt to persuade, they will be pulling the trigger with or without us. Assuming Iran is not huffing and puffing and they do lash out, I have a feeling we are going to take a small hit first, a ship/installation/base/tanker/something of note, before we remove the top 20% of the country.
Despite any faux tears the world will party behind closed doors. Everyone that is, except for Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Sadr. Ms. Walters will have the opportunity to return and interview the apparently charming, intelligent murdering Mr. Assad to get his views on that sinking feeling he is now experiencing.
patrick neid on July 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Iran has no shot at defeating America militarily, but they wouldn’t really need to. What they’d likely do is take a good shot at choking the Strait of Hormuz. Were they able to do that, the result would be global economic distress.
Congress doesn’t need to do anything further to hobble us versus Iran. By refusing to enable us to supply ourselves with energy, they have effectively handed the Iranians a sort of “economic ICBM”.
SlimyBill on July 8, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I think Iran can only do that in three ways:
a) physically blocking the Strait, or
b) threatening to do so, backed by nukes, or
c) charging for passage, backed by nukes.
What an awful position we have gotten ourselves into.
SlimyBill on July 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I read an article about a year ago which I can’t find now about the pipelines being built from the Gulf across Arabia to the red sea to carry oil, thus bypassing the Straits of Hormuz.
I wonder if any of that exists, or how soon it could be made to work?
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
We made murder illegal: how’s that working out???
landlines on July 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Oh well, another glowing, glass parking lot!
byteshredder on July 8, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Isn’t that special? I’m pretty terrified when Iran threatens me…NOT! I think it’s about time that someone goes in and biatch slaps these punks and the Israelis might just be the guys to get the job done! Our military would take about 3 days to obliterate these light-weights. They deserve a better adversary and also a better mission!
sabbott on July 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Blockading the straits works both ways. Take out their sole refinery and blockade gasoline, and it’d only be a matter of time.
cthulhu on July 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM
This is all just huffing and puffing by Iran to get the price of oil back up.
Oil has dropped something like $10 a barrel this week and Iran is trying to scare the price back up by creating supply jitters.
crosspatch on July 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
The problem Iran has is that their economy is more dependent on oil than we are. If they close the straits, they are almost instantly bankrupt. And out of gasoline, because they don’t produce anywhere close to enough to supply their own gas. Are they crazed enough to do that? I don’t think so.
I think a more likely scenario would be terrorist attacks against Israel and the U.S.
exhelodrvr on July 8, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Misha,
“Oh they can, Ed? Just like that? Is that so? With us just sitting idly by doing nothing, helpless and weak as a kitten that we are?”
If they really wanted to actually close the Straits, and not just threaten to, it wouldn’t be hard for them to scuttle a few tankers in strategic spots that would effectively shut down the flow of oil.
And what is perceived as a real threat of missiles would send insurance rates sky-high for the tankers, which at a minimum decrease the amount of oil going through that area.
They have plenty of options that do not require them to actually defeat the U.S. Navy; the question is whether or not they would be willing to take the hit on their own economy that would ensue.
exhelodrvr on July 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Just a question, but do you all think that Russia will stand by idly through any attack on Iran? I do not.
mimi1220 on July 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
“The first bullet fired by America at Iran will be followed
by Iran burning down its vital interests around the globe”
Well,Iran now is issuing threats daily,and if America fires
first,
Say what,the Iranian’s played that card when they stormed the American Embassy in Tehran,and at gunpoint,kidnapped
American’s in which they were then held hostage!
The U.S.S. Stark was attacked,so lets cut the first strike,
first shot crap out,and the more I think about it,knowing
now of their suicidal deathwish,as martyrs,I think they
deliberately sent their passenger airliner on a direct
route towards an American warship,and at the same time,
the Iranian’s were busy playing Russian roulette with their
speed boats!
So,Iran started this war back in 79!
This daily ranting and raving of death to all who oppose
them on their so-called “peaceful uranium enrichment”,
is telling!
The message from Iran is cystal clear,stand in our way,and
we will push you,try and stop us,and we will kill you!
Oh ya,and Iran keeps talking about the first shot,and at the
same time,the Iranian’s are itching and spoiling for a fight
as they proved in kidnapping the British,all the support,
and direct killing of American Forces in Iraq,as well as the
goon operation near the Iraq/Iran border when the Iranian
thugs got a hold of coalition uniforms,or the missisle attack on the Israeli gunboat during the Lebanon crisis!
And the Iranian attacks just seem to never end!
canopfor on July 8, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Isn’t that special?
sabbott on July 8,2008 at 1:41PM.
sabbott: Three days? A few Ballistic Missisle Subs,can get
the job done in less than an hour after getting
orders!
canopfor on July 8, 2008 at 3:44 PM
“o you all think that Russia will stand by idly through any attack on Iran?”
Iran has mutual defense treaties with Russia, China, and Syria. In fact, there is a Russian military delegation in Tehran right this very minute. They arrived yesterday, I believe.
crosspatch on July 8, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Do a google search on “Iran-Russia joint Defense Cooperation Commission” and you will find lots.
crosspatch on July 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Russia will use Iran to drain us just like we drained them in Afghanistan when we funded the jihadists against the Soviets. Seems like Russia is reading Sun Tzu, while our foreign policy advisors are too preoccupied with Plato and Machiavelli.
LevStrauss on July 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM
JiangxiDad
Good question. I don’t think we’re just a rabbit again, but I do think we are (and will continue to be) judged by how much we let Iran and its ilk get away with. If a Muslim fundamentalist power can get away with standing up to the Great Satan, then their power, influence and reputation increases in the Muslim world. If they get treated like Rome treated Carthage, then the Muslim world learns from that too.
morganfrost on July 8, 2008 at 4:48 PM
If I remember correctly, Operation Preying Mantis took only a couple of days to complete. That was back in the late 80’s when the Iranians attempted to close down the Gulf. It was the largest naval operation for the US Navy since WW2. They lost, we won. Simple as that.
So maybe the mullahs should remember that before they start thumping their chests and trash talking.
Terrye on July 8, 2008 at 4:52 PM
As long as we have a Junkboat Navy, there will be no blocking the Straits.
You’d be surprised what an ARS and a few navy divers can do.
dingbat on July 8, 2008 at 5:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Strait_of_hormuz_full.jpg
It is one thing to close the strait for a few days but it is a whole other affair to keep it closed. I would imagine that Tanker insurance rates alone would keep all the ships out until such time, a couple of weeks perhaps, there is no Iranian capability within 100 miles.
As to Russia, China or Syria doing anything you have got to be kidding. Iran is the one country I believe that we would be happy to ferment a civil war and watch it on TV. If shooting starts, Mr Assad in Syria should be looking for a hole to crawl into.
But again, if McCain somehow pulls ahead in the campaign I think all plans by Israel/US get delayed.
patrick neid on July 8, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Ya know Doc., I find it fascinating that no one commented on your post .
The only response was more bs bravado crap…
I’ve known about this threat for a very long time…from active duty days in fact.
It IS their goal…
jerrytbg on July 8, 2008 at 5:59 PM
eh, some chemical weapons most likely if they raise a hand quick enough before we pounce their asses.
johnnyU on July 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM
U.S. to Iran: So how many pieces would you like us to smash you into?
argos on July 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM
I will alert the Girl Scouts.
TheSitRep on July 8, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Bring it on dirt bags. They will be sitting in the dark, drinking water out of streams and using pork and bean cans with strings to talk on the “phone”.
We owe them big time, going all the way back to 1979. I say pay back time has arrived.
Zorro on July 8, 2008 at 8:24 PM
We should threaten to cutoff all shipments of Just for Men. They’ll fold faster than Superman on laundry day.
pc on July 8, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Iran threatens US and Israel
Next day, Iran launches 9 ballistic missiles, and
MSNBC blames Israel and US for sabre rattling
1+1=3?
scottm on July 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Comment pages: