Iran threatens to target U.S. bases if attacked

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Iran has warned the United States not to resort to military action against it, saying U.S. bases in the region were vulnerable to the Islamic Republic's missiles, state media reported on Saturday.

The comments by a senior Iranian military commander were an apparent response to U.S. officials who have said Washington was ready to use military force to stop what it suspects is Iran's goal to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

World powers held talks with Iran in Baghdad on May 23-24 in an attempt to find a diplomatic solution to their concerns over its nuclear programme, which Tehran maintains is entirely peaceful. Another round was set for June 18-19 in Moscow.

"The politicians and the military men of the United States are well aware of the fact that all of their bases (in the region) are within the range of Iran's missiles and in any case ... are highly vulnerable," Press TV reported Brigadier-General Yahya Rahim Safavi as saying.

Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/02/uk-iran-usa-missiles-idUKBRE85106G20120602

[MrSlayer]

1. They'll fuck up our navy too.

When we do war games, the people playing the Iranians always win using small, fast bomb boats like what was done to the U.S.S. Cole. Going to war with these guys is a terrible idea on a good day. With our decimated military, it could be a disaster of epic proportions. We'll be so humiliated we will go nuclear.

[boppers]

13. "decimated military"? What?

We put more on our military than the next top 5 nations.

*Combined*.



The "weak military" is a RW myth, to line the pockets of their defense contractor supporters.

[Zorro]

2. They're beginning to sound like the North Koreans

[pennylane100]

7. The North Koreans usually threaten to strike first.

[htuttle]

3. "We'll shoot at you if you attack us!"

That's pretty much what we would expect if we attacked Iran, right?

Does anyone imagine that they wouldn't shoot back? Does Iran think that we don't think they'd shoot back?

[left on green only]

11. +1 That is exactly my line of thinking

And I also have to assume that the USA military intelligence already knows the locations of Iran's missile strike force, and that any first-strike action on the part of the USA would include the decimation of said locations, whether they be fixed or mobile.

[Flatulo]

12. Mobile launchers are notoriously difficult to find and destroy.

In the first Gulf War, we actually destroyed very few Iraqi mobile launchers. Thankfully those Scuds were terribly inaccurate.

[teddy51]

4. If it were that easy for either Israel or the US to attack Iran it would have happened by now.

Just like getting militarily involved in Syria, there may be extreme consequences for an attack on Iran. Who knows what will happen in the region, or what countries might become involved? This certainly could lead to unexpected consequences.

They had better think long and deep before taking that step. How many people will die, what will it do to the region, and what will it do to the world?

[boppers]

14. Oh, it's easy, just pointless.

What, we're going to take out centrifuges, and then what? Play whack a mole when they rebuild them?

Keep in mind that we built nuclear our weapons in dusty shacks in a freaking desert, fed by centrifuges scattered and hidden "in plain sight" all over the place.

[teddy51]

15. It's probably very easy to do, but it's what happens after that will be the problem. nt

[may3rd]

20. Perhaps a Persian spring will moot the point

hey,
it could happen if the iranian internet filters fail to protect the people from all the LIES happening in the world.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. Neah neah-neah neah neah booga booga booga. . .

More saber rattling (ie. c**k-wagging)

(yawn!)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. Why do we keep hearing about Iran, it's annoying

I'm not complaining about your post but the media are obsessed with it. Pakistan is more worrisome with its pile of nuclear weapons. They have even tested it! Any of these could travel a long way.

[Lasher]

17. Because Iran is next on the neocons' hit list, after Iraq.

The media, serving in their familiar role as MIC toadies, are drumming up support for this next disaster. This increased media obsession is an ominous sign.

Iran: Next Target of US Military Aggression dated February 2005

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. the old axis of evil

who is actually running this country? The media?

[woo me with science]

8. All the poking is having the desired effect.

Occupy now.

[pennylane100]

9. Obama is way to smart to attack Iran unless provoked.

The Iranians keep saber rattling to annoy Israel and Obama knows it. However, Romney is a whole different story. Let us hope that we never have to know what he would do, it may lead to world war III.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. Another valid reason to oppose a Romney Presidency.

Talk it up.

[bhikkhu]

16. I'd say they're nuts, but that's how too much of the media plays it

They have to know that an escalating conflict would wreck a bunch of stuff, but they'd lose their whole country before leaving much of a dent in ours. Most of what they can do doesn't really matter.

So maybe its just asshattery, or maybe its a trumped up line of questioning to a guy who was unprepared - played for all its worth by the media outlet for the sake of ratings.

[solarman350]

18. What Would bush do...again?

[may3rd]

19. What do you need to disrupt nuclear facilities of your enemy? ? ? A thumb drive !

Iran, US: Cyber missiles mean war without bloodshed

....
“You’re seeing an evolution of warfare that’s really intriguing,” said Phil Lieberman, a security consultant and chief executive of Lieberman Software in Los Angeles. “Warfare where no one is dying.”
...
http://www.yalibnan.com/2012/06/02/iran-us-cyber-missiles-mean-war-without-bloodshed/