DOHA (AFP) - Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq (news - web sites)," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.
Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.
"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."
A commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the Iranian press earlier Wednesday as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's own burgeoning nuclear facilities.
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.
Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at its plant being built at Bushehr is seen by arch-enemies Israel and the United States as a cover for nuclear weapons development.
The latest comments mark an escalation in an exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks, leading to speculation that there may be a repeat of Israel's strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.
Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while pointing at its enemy's alleged nuclear arsenal, which Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing.
Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera it was not possible "from a practical standpoint" to destroy Iran's nuclear programs because they are the product of national skills "which cannot be eliminated by military means."
He also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of an attack.
"The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear installations) would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side, which (in turn) means that we would no longer be bound by any of our obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said. .................
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
*digs a hole and hides in it*
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yikes...
Well... hmmm... he does have a point.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*bump* because this is important!
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
This still seems largely contingent on US and Israeli hostile action that I sincerely doubt will occur. So get out of the hole, it's not Armageddon yet Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
No, I like the hole. There's no talk radio in here.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Not that I particularly want Iran to have nukes, but it is a sovereign nation. What gives anyone else the right to keep it from getting them?
Besides might, of course.
Posted by Khal Drogo (Member # 6786) on :
Iran attacks the U.S. That's a good one.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Awesome, we've been elevated to arch-enemy. I feel like we should all grow handlebar mustaches. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You know, if this whole thing blows up, I expect there will be a lot of fingers pointing at the U.S. saying it's all our fault for stirring up a hornet's nest.
*joins Annie in hole*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:What gives anyone else the right to keep it from getting them?
The nuclear nonproliferation treaty, of which it is a signatory.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
If Iraq deserves to be invaded, then Iran certainly has it coming to them.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Twinky, I'm fairly sure Bush has been backing out of/ignoring nuclear non-proliferation treaties. And seeing how the US is, by all accounts, the most aggressive, warlike power in the world right now, if we're allowed to develop nukes -- I can see why Iran would claim the right for itself as well.
Neoconservative policies are such bright ideas...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Even Bush realizes the ramifications of using Nukes.
I'm not sure the Ayotollah can claim the same.
Yet another reason why I dislike True Believers.
As to Iran moving pre-emptively, oy. It could be bad or really Bad, depending on how the commanders on the ground react.
-Trevor
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Gah.
Well, uh, this is definitly Not A Good Thing At All.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm fairly sure Bush has been backing out of/ignoring nuclear non-proliferation treaties.
When and where?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:If Iraq deserves to be invaded, then Iran certainly has it coming to them.
Do we have a big international tally board somewhere, assigning demerits to naughty nations and deciding who deserves to be invaded?
If that's the case, I'm sure we're right up there.
*returns to hole*
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:You know, if this whole thing blows up, I expect there will be a lot of fingers pointing at the U.S. saying it's all our fault for stirring up a hornet's nest.
*joins Annie in hole*
Well... yes. It won't be a case of hindsight, either - it will be one big fat I TOLD YOU SO.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
This sucks, as if the US doesn't have enough on its plate already. And I have so much family from Iran too. *Signs up for HoleCon*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I'm fairly sure Bush has been backing out of/ignoring nuclear non-proliferation treaties.
I'm very confident that this is not true.
But I'm perfectly willing to eat crow if I'm wrong.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*cooks you some roasted crow*
*could not resist*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You've got to show me that I'm wrong first. Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I don't think the Bush administration has backed out of treaties, at least I couldn't find any, but has refused to sign non-proliferation treaties. Which let's face it, is just as bad.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The US, if fallible memory serves, is developing 'bunker-buster' nukes in violation of one of the anti-proliferation treaties.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Claims do not proof make.
Has anyone found eveidence to back up claims of that?
Kwea
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"Bunker Buster" nukes?
Someone's been watching "Starship Troopers" again.
-Trevor
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Abrogating the ABM Treaty with StarWars and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with BunkerBusters
[ August 22, 2004, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I just hate it when countries make unilateral, pre-emptive strikes and defy recognized international agencies!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)