Iran Nuclear Watch: If Attacked Iran Would Strike United States Interests Around the World
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in Tehran, January 8, 2007. Khamenei said on Thursday the Islamic Republic would target U.S. interests around the world if it came under attack, state television reported.
AP: Iran to hit U.S. interests if attacked
Iran’s supreme leader said Thursday that if the United States were to attack Iran, the country would respond by striking U.S. interests all over the world — the latest sharp exchange in an escalating standoff between the two countries.
The comments by Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came on the same day that another top official, Tehran’s ambassador to the
United Nations, Javad Zarif, warned in a column in The New York Times that efforts to isolate Iran would backfire on the United States, increasing sectarian tensions in the volatile Middle East, including Iraq.
And this bloviating threat means something to the United States and Israel?
Is Khamenei naive enough to believe that should there be ANY attack by Iran on the United States that we would be at WAR against Iran. And war mean the uses of America’s nuclear arsenal.
Flap thinks Khamenei wishes to stir up the Iranian people to encourage them to fight “The Great Satan.”
What Mr. Supreme Leader is actually accomplishing is their death and destruction.
Tick Tock Tick Tock
The “NUCLEAR POINT OF NO RETURN” is here and another American Aircraft Carrier Strike Group will be arriving soon.
Stay tuned……
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Sets Up 328 Uranium Enrichment Centrifuges
Iran Nuclear Watch: Chirac – OK If Iran Has One or Two Nukes?
Iran Watch: Bush Warns Iran Against Action in Iraq
Iran Nuclear Watch:: Boasts of Nuclear Program Propaganda?
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Currently Installing 3,000 Uranium Enrichment Centrifuges
Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Continuing Uranium enrichment
The Natanz uranium enrichment complex in Natanz is pictured in this January 2, 2006 satellite image.
Technorati Tags: Iran, Ahmadinejad AliLarijani, Israel
2 Comments
Edward Nashton
Iranian threats ought to, especially when one considers the position we find ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would suggest that you read up a bit more on the Iranians sir. Attacking them is not going to be a “cakewalk” al la Iraq. Moreover, the unilateral use of nuclear weapons is something that will not make this world a safer place. How do you think Russia and China would react if the U.S. unilaterally used nuclear weapons in a preventive war?…Actually, turn it around for a moment. How do you think the U.S. would react if the Russians used nuclear weapons on Ukraine or Georgia? What about China with Taiwan?
The goal of U.S. foreign policy is to protect American lives, not endager them through feckless sabre-rattling or impulsive displays of finite power (the U.S. is certainly not all powerful considering what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan). The reason why this situation has continued to deteriorate is because of individuals like yourself that have constantly miscalculated:
1. U.S. Power
2. The willingness (not the capability) of other people (read: Iraqis and Afghanis) to behave in a fashion that suits U.S. interests
I don’t know about you, but being flippant (“Tick Tock Tick Tock”) about the possibility of thousands of human beings losing their (on both sides), is not exactly a sign of maturity. Perhaps you should heed the advice of Dwight Eisenhower, one of our Country’s greatest Presidents: “Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.”
Flap
So, you would rather Iran have a nuclear weapon?
And, who today is doing the sabre-rattling? Uhhhhhh….Iran.
The United States will not allow Iran to posses a nuclear weapon.
Tell me why that is not good policy?
Also, calling me names will not engender you to my site. Please read my comments policy.