Iran warns of pre-emptive military strike against U.S.

At least that’s the implication:

Iran warned Tuesday it would strike against an "enemy" threatening it if needed to protect its national interests -- even if the enemy didn't attack first.

Gen. Mohammad Hejazi, a deputy head of Iran's armed forces, said his country "will no more wait to see enemy action against us," according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.

"Given this strategy, we will make use of all our means to protect our national interests and hit a retaliatory blow at them whenever we feel that enemies want to endanger our national interests," Hejazi said.

Saddam Hussein’s biggest mistake was to allow the U.S. to build up a big invasion force and doing nothing about it, allowing the United States to get the initiative by attacking first. And he made this mistake twice.

I don’t think the people running Iran are going to make that mistake. As I’ve pointed out before, surface ships are sitting ducks against missiles, and the United States has a lot of ships in range of Iranian missiles. The issue here isn’t that the United States can’t defeat Iran in an all-out war, but that Iran can go down doing a lot more damage to U.S. forces than Saddam did.

I think that Obama is going to mess this up.

Comments

[outlaw josey wales]

I can't believe the big deal being made over a bunch of nuclear weapons. Iran would be crazy not to try to get nukes. The only way Iran could satisfy the US is to do everything the US wants, which is pretty much tantamount to surrender, and thus nationally unconscionable.

[HS: Or maybe Iran is crazy to antagonize the U.S., the world's biggest military power that has already taken over Iran's neighbor Iraq. All Iran needs to do is give up the nuclear weapons and we will leave them alone and even let them fund terrorists in Lebanon and stir up other mischief.]

[Boobaka]

"Saddam Hussein’s biggest mistake was to allow the U.S. to build up a big invasion force and doing nothing about it, allowing the United States to get the initiative by attacking first. And he made this mistake twice."

Saddam Hussein didn't make any mistake. Being a smart-ass and using elaborated strategies doesn't help if you don't even have one working radar to detect the F-117 Nighthawks entering your airspace.

When your country is far poorer, smaller and less intelligent than the country of your enemy, you have already lost. Period.

And it's why the Iranian leadership will never attack the USA first, unless they want to commit suicide and die as martyrs. Unlikely; the leadership will be toppled very quickly by the population in this case.

[Jay M]

Half Sigma, what do you think of this story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/monaco-prince-pulped_n_1289263.html

I think the problem stems from Pierre's false sense of entitlement and superiority just because of his lineage. While I don't condone or celebrate violence against any individuals, I will say that he probably asked for it.

"Attorney Richard Golub says Casiraghi's group did not 'instigate anything' or provoke the attack."

The lawyer is lying on behalf of the prince and, like a good little lawyer, pretending that his client is always right. Of course, reason tells us that Casiraghi did indeed instigate patrons, as people aren't usually attacked without provocation or motivation. If he thinks verbally abusing women or not treating his fellow human being as an equal is his "birthright" then naturally it stands to reason that any antagonized party would act accordingly. Yes, the former club owner could have taken more appropriate measures, but Pierre should bear some responsibility for his behavior.

[Conquistador]

And yet the armchair generals believe that US "countermeasures" will completely safeguard naval vessels. These systems have never been testing in combat of course and moreover are mostly a jobs program for white beta male engineers.

[Jay M]

As for the Iranian issue we haven't completely exhausted our diplomatic solutions and should keep up the negotiations so as to maximize security for both nations. Also, keep in mind that Iran has been saber rattling for years. They threaten attacks, but no attacks come, and anything that would happen was taken care of by covert American forces. Remember when Iranian ships docked in Egypt and Syria? Also take note of how aforementioned ships didn't attack Israel.

[Conquistador]

"All Iran needs to do is give up the nuclear weapons and we will leave them alone and even let them fund terrorists in Lebanon and stir up other mischief." - Half Sigma

Yes just look at what happened to Gaddafi! He made peace with the west and was sodomized before his death for good measure. Gaddafi's case proved (as if there was any doubt) the consequences of unilateral disarmament. Iran won't be so naive.

[HS: I was strongly opposed to idiot Obama's Gadaffi strategy, for exactly those reasons.]

[Conquistador]

@ Boobaka

Saddam should have attacked Saudi Arabia before the west could build up a massive military presence. Saudi Arabia would have fallen pretty fast. Saddam's idiocy also cost him the Iran-Iraq war. The guy was a thug and not a military man.

[Fred]

"All Iran needs to do is give up the nuclear weapons and we will leave them alone"

Like we did to Qadaffi after he gave up his nuclear program?

[HS: We left him alone for a long time, but Obama messed that up. I can't wait until Obama is replaced by Romney.]

[Fiddlesticks]

Why does the media prefer the verb "warn" whenever IranVenezuelaNorthKorea are THREATENING this or that?

You "warn" someone about something you have no control over. A tornado, a hurricane, a rabid dog.

Is this general a meteorologist, helpfully cautioning us on things that are out of his control?

It only makes sense to say "warn" rather than "threaten" if you want to absolve the guy who seems eager to throw the first punch.

Check Google News Archives - according the journOlists, Bush "threatened" rather than "warned" 31 percent of the time. But Obama the Good "threatened" rather than "warned" just 8 percent of the time.

"Bush threatens": 1,380
"Bush warns": 3,040

"Obama threatens": 192
"Obama warns": 2,080

[Xoxo]

"[HS: I was strongly opposed to idiot Obama's Gadaffi strategy, for exactly those reasons"

Idiot Obama? I thought you said he was a genius with a 150 IQ? Or do you still believe he is using his genius to pursue an ant-Israel, I mean anti-American strategy?

[HS: No, I don't know what you mean. What do you think Obama has done that is anti-Israel but pro-America?]

[Frank Stein]

How dare Iran threaten to preemptively attack a country! That's our modus operandi.

Please, please let Iran get a functioning nuclear weapons system before Israel leads the US into another disastrous war.

[HS: Israel hasn't "led" the US into any wars. If, by some chance, Israel attacks Iran first, and that leads to us getting into a war with Iran, that would be the very first time ever that Israel would have led us into a war, but so far that hasn't happened, and if it does, it may be for our own good because a nuclear-armed Iran does NOT benefit the United States or the rest of the world.]

[MRM]

If it comes to a firefight & the euros can't come thru with us on Iran, it might be time to have the 'talk' with them about NATO. The post-WW2 alliance framework needs to be changed around, and we might need a clean break. Let them become a problem for the Russians.

[J1]

Unless they really are as crazy as they try to appear, I have to guess Iranian leaders are well aware their country will be little more than smoking rubble if they attack the US before November 6. Obama may be an idiot, but he wants to be re-elected.

[JP]

"Saddam Hussein didn't make any mistake."

That's why he lost two wars to the USA and one to Iran?

It was a mistake for him ever to let things get to the point where F-117s were entering his airspace. He had lots of opportunities to back off before the huge beatdown started. And of course, invading Kuwait in the first place was a mistake.

I agree Iran would be dumb to enrage us by attacking our ships.

[Kaz]

Saddam Hussein had no chance from the beginning, he had no nukes, the US military knew it, which is why we attacked in the first place.

[kawokmali]

Mmmmm... Yeah, Iran could be nasty, and an American general showed them how:
http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779

[MRM]

If one carrier is sunk or one destroyer goes down, we're talking thousands dead. The media made a horrible stink over the 5K dead over several years in Iraq. What do you think they'll do with a sunk destroyer or carrier and thousands dead in one day? People are underestimating teh Chinese and Russian desire to give America a gaping wound on the national stage. They have been supplying Iran quite a bit with missiles.

I too do not trust Obama to do the right thing. I actually think the recent leaks of the US trying to talk Israel out of a strike is a ploy to distance the US from Israel's action even though Obama & crew want it. When oil was under Iran's budget breakeven point, and they had nuke sites above ground, that was the time to strike. Instead, bama and company tried to soft talk the Iranians out of the nukes. They failed. Huge failure.

[Ken Hoop]

The American-Israeli side was to replace Saddam with a puppet, a pro-Israel puppet. In this respect Saddam did not win or lose. He trained the Baathist insurgency which tacked on some jihadist help and fought the occupiers to a draw. Of course Iran stepped in when the Shias took power. Maybe Ayatolah Sistani won, by vetoing the original Bush/Israeli phony election plan.

[DIO]

They threaten attacks, but no attacks come, and anything that would happen was taken care of by covert American forces. Remember when Iranian ships docked in Egypt and Syria? Also take note of how aforementioned ships didn't attack Israel.
-------------
Luckily, the US prevented the attack in Buenos Aires. And the aforementioned ships didn't attack Israel because they were delivering goodies to friends.

[not too late]

"I can't believe the big deal being made over a bunch of nuclear weapons. Iran would be crazy not to try to get nukes. The only way Iran could satisfy the US is to do everything the US wants, which is pretty much tantamount to surrender, and thus nationally unconscionable."

What? There are tons of countries with no nukes and we aren't looking to attack any of them. Stupid. We attack a-holes that attack us. And we attack some a-holes that are just a-holes. I wish we would quit that because it's expensive. In other words, there is no such thing as a preemptive attack against the USA. We always retaliate because they can't possibly keep us from attacking. We are too freakin' huge. Only an idiot with a death wish attacks the USA. It is a guaranteed losing strategy.

[Dr. Grzlickson]

"As I’ve pointed out before, surface ships are sitting ducks against missiles"

As you've *incorrectly* pointed out. Please stop the naval analysis. Geopolitics is fair game, but please just stop with the maritime stuff.

[John]

Please, please Iran attack one of our ships. It will give us the excuse to bomb them into the stone age. Forget nukes. They'll be lucky to have spears left.

[Chris]

I'd hate to bring out the old "it's all about the oil" cliche, but in this case I think it may well be true. The recent excalating tensions and sanctions with Iran seems coincident with the impending non-$US Iranian oil bourse. Messing with the petro-dollar is a good way to upset the US - particularly when the printing presses are running so hot.

Also, having the Strait of Hormuz choke point at their doorstep means the Iranians need not target the US Navy, just a few oil tankers. Send the oil price soaring.

[Albert magnus]

Driving a bunch of tanks and trucks into Kuwait/Saudi Arabia would make them extremely easy to blow up with the planes from an aircraft carrier. You would also need supply lines that would be easily blown to pieces by aircraft strikes. Also, you would have to coordinate all these things which the US would see coming all the way. Better just to play the political game and run away when the war comes,

[Izmash]

"Let them become a problem for the Russians."

Europe ain't no problem for the Russians now. Or back in 2009:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/08/russia-ukraine-cold-war-grips-europe/?page=all

That was for kicks in Moscow and a little lesson to Europe...

[AnotherDad]

Mandate flex-fuel for all new vehicles to be flex-fuel--should have been done 10 years ago--and then use our abundanant natural gas (and if necessary even coal) to make methanol.

Then we can step back from dealing with these retards, and let the petro-funded Islamo-nutters sink back into the sand.

[incredulous]

Half Sigma is the neocon of HBD.

[GGFiddle]

I also think the petro-dollar is the real issue here. Nukes are an problem too, but the Obama is using an issue the electorate is familiar with (nukes) to avoid mentioning the petro-dollar-inspired beat-downs in the middle east. The environmentalist-minded Dems are going to have to get behind fuel resources closer to home, as someone above said. Also, I really hope the recession has taught us that we can't live like decadent westerners (or at least not 99% of us) without footing the bill eventually. American lifestyles, along with low taxation, are causing a significant portion of the money problems. The answer is not however raise all the taxes so we can go back to sticking our thumbs up our asses.

[TGGP]

Are you sure the "enemy" is the U.S? We're not the ones who've been employing terrorist groups to carry out attacks in Iran.

[Olde English 800]

"The answer is not however raise all the taxes so we can go back to sticking our thumbs up our asses"

The answer is to stop supporting NAMs. No more WIC for Shaquinda and Leron. No mo' Section 8 for Jesus and Margarita. Public education? A waste. The only thing NAMs should get $ for is sterilization.

[GGFiddle]

@ Olde English 800:

I disagree with affirmative action programs, and diversity hires, and people exploiting basic welfare provisions like housing and food stamps.
However, I can't agree that public education is a waste, or that we need to get rid of these welfare programs based on race. Poor whites take up a lot of welfare spending too. I think the issue is more the "everything's fine", self-esteem-based attitudes.

"Failed at school in a bunch of subjects? That's fine son, all us parents are complaining that kids are smart and need easier grading, so no sweat."

"Want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars studying horseshit? No problem son."

I'll agree black culture is messed up, and doesn't set black people up for good things the way Asian culture does. But there is a general okay-with-ineptness, race-to-the-bottom attitude I see everywhere around me, even among white people. Even among the people who run important shit. Poor-ass white people and rich-ass white people also suck up government money, undeniably.

I think a first step in fixing a lot of culture issues which lead to bad spending, waste is the acceptance of HBD. We need an intellectual framework in which to say, "No, not everyone is as good as everyone else." and even within races to say, "You're a fuck up, and your ineptitude is offensive to me. Statistically, our race isn't the smartest, but fuck you you're dragging me down so stop it."

You can get rid of the NAMs, but it still won't fix everything. The A's (Asians) have a strong work ethic and respect for learning and civil society instilled by thousands of years of developing culture. A lot of other NAMs have, if not millenia of developing culture, the first two traits. I think Americans once shared these traits. The problem today is not only the culture of minorities. It's the culture of this new America.

[GGFiddle]

Sorry, to tie my rant together. HBD gives us a science-grounded, albeit not fully understood, means of saying "No not everyone is as good as everyone else." This is an important truth we all need to admit and reflect in our voting / drafting legislation. It's also important because once you can say this, you also have an atmosphere where we don't have to pretend all ideas are equally valid or good or useful. That last part is very important, I think.

[whiskey]

Obama might just apologize and grovel if Iran sank a carrier. That's just the way he, and his backers, are built. Lots of people, including White liberals, celebrated 9/11: Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, Michael Moore, to name a few. That these folk were not given a mob treatment shows the deep division in America -- at least half of the population would like to see America defeated massively with lots of dead Americans.

Obama could use an attack to simply institute Martial Law and rule for life. He's itching to do that anyway. Its not like he is a real American -- he was born in Hawaii, and raised in Indonesia as a Muslim as a boy. He does not look to Superman and the Six Million Dollar Man and George Washington as heroes -- but Suharto and Mohammed. Give me the boy and I will give you the man, etc. That's how he's built.

Obama WANTS an American defeat, since he's done his best to arrange one. That way he can use a crisis to basically set himself up as a Castro, rule for life. Or a phony election followed by eight years of Michelle Obama followed by another 8 years of himself again, ala Putin.

The people around Obama who actually run the government are clown shows: Valerie Jarrett (raised in Iran, speaks Persian, hates Whites and the military, hates America); Michelle Obama aka Marie Antoinette version 2.0; and Samantha Power and Susan Rice (two lunatic White feminists). [Obama has a MAJOR problem with White guys, almost none in his Cabinet or advisors are close to him. That's fairly common for a lot of Black pols -- they can't get along/trust White men. See: Dinkins, Patrick, Wilder, Kwame Fitzpatrick, etc.]

The way to figure Obama, is to think "What would Louis Farrakhan do?" After all Louis is an Obama pal, neighbor, and frequent visitor to the White House. That's basically Obama to a T.

[Jay M]

"Obama might just apologize and grovel if Iran sank a carrier."

And try doing it in a way that won't offend Israel.

"At least half of the population would like to see America defeated massively with lots of dead Americans."

Even 1/10 would be a very general estimation of which Americans want to see America destroyed.

"He does not look to Superman and the Six Million Dollar Man and George Washington as heroes"

Six Million Dollar Man... Was that a nickname for a certain 19th century captain of industry? Six million dollars in 1880 would translate into over $130,000,000 today as far as purchasing power is concerned, and six million is even approximately $8.4 billion in terms of economic power. This also demonstrates the absurd devaluation of the dollar since then.

Also, how can we infer that he doesn't view George Washington as a hero? Despite owning slaves, Washington was against slavery and is documented as such. He was a strong Episcopalian and an active Freemason.