Iran Rattles Saber at Israel, US

From Israel-National-News 

H/T Richard.

Speculation in Israel’s press about a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran has warned of counter-punching in ‘a surprising way’

By Gavriel Queenann

First Publish: 11/2/2011, 4:23 PM


Ayatollah Ali Khameini

Ayatollah Ali Khameini


Iran would cause serious damage to the United States and Israel should Jewish state strike the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, Iran’s top military official said on Wednesday.

The “Zionist regime’s military attack against Iran would lead to heavy damages to the US as well as [to the] Zionist regime,” Iran’s Chief of Staff Maj.-Gen. Hassan Fayrouz Abadi said.

Iran would attack Israel in a “surprising” way, he was quoted by Army Radio as saying.

Iran’s bellicose rhetoric comes as senior ministers in Jerusalem took Israel’s media to task for discussing a potential strike on Iran, which commentators have suggested may be near.

Israel Radio also announced the successful launch of a rocket propulsion system on Wednesday, which it described as a “ballistic missile.” Foreign media reports speculate the new Israeli system could be fitted with a nuclear warhead.

The reports in Israel’s media, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman said, “have no relation to the truth” adding that 99% of the media’s speculations were “false.”

While Israel has remained on message warning of the military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program in recent years, security officials generally remain silent on any plans they may have for exercising a “military option” vis-a-vis Iran.

Officials say media reports about potential military operations, irrespective of their truth value, do “tremendous damage” policy makers’ ability to make critical decisions while guiding the ship of state.

Meanwhile, Iran also struck out at the United States saying Washington’s contradictory and goalless policies “reveal US helplessness.” Tehran also warned the United States against maintaining a long-term presence in neighboring Afghanistan, and said it would release hundreds of documents proving Washington was a “state-sponsor of terrorism.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, said Wednesday the Obama administration was trying to “divert attention from the Wall Street Protests.”

Regional observers, however, say Iran’s loud, aggressive posture is likely  a sign of insecurity in the wake of two Iranian nationals allegedly linked to its covert Quds Force being indicted in a US court for a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s envoy to Washington.

US officials have been moving to isolate Iran and to undermine its strategic partners in the wake of the incident, while Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have said they will respond to Tehran’s aggression in their own time.


About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

8 Replies to “Iran Rattles Saber at Israel, US”

  1. A ballistic missile a missile that you fire and forget, once fired you have lost all control over what it does. Bullets are small ballistic missiles, you aim the firearm, shoot and then have no control over the bullet. Large ballistic missiles are the same way, once fired you have no control over them.

    Having said that, how can they strike us in a surprise way? Every conceivable method of attack has been looked at and discussed.

  2. I think one of the reasons we are losing a war with Islam world wide, and this is only one of the reasons, is because so many of us are stuck in a WW2 paradigm. It is typical that the winner of one war is the loser of the next. This is often because the loser tends to adjust his tactics while the winner does not. Why change what worked the last time, right?
    Well let’s see, how many ways can they surprise us.
    Iran probably has dozens of Hizb’allah agents in every major city. Some, even posing as friends of the counter jihad. Each prepared to take advantage of whatever posts they hold to do damage in sectors we wouldn’t consider typical targets of war. Iran is not constrained by any ethic. They are perfectly happy to see all the death destruction and mayhem happen to all and any of us and themselves in the process. How could they surprise us? I am reluctant to be specific as I don’t want to offer any new ideas. But if you imagine yourself as full of sociopathic loathing for our entire race, culture, civilization and history, and then imagine your self in any kind of job from university prof, to chef, to janitor at a public school and are willing to die in the process, it isn’t hard to think of lots and lots of ugly surprises.

    I wish I never thought of, or wrote the comment here. But not writing it would have been worse.

  3. True, but that is actually a tactic of the Cold War, during the 90s there were several explosions in Europe as hidden Soviet guerrilla dumps were found and booby traps killed the people (usually criminals) that were entering the weapons caches. We know there are suppose to be a large number of Iranian commandos and Hezbollah agents in the US and Europe (Probably Canada as well) so any attack would be a small scale surprise, not a large scale surprise. The way the man was talking they have found some way to hit us we have never considered.

    Remember that military surprise occurs when we are seeing what we want to see, not what is really there. The movement you see is thought to be civilians rather then a major infantry attack ect.

  4. Don’t make the mistake of just thinking nuclear. They could hit us in any way possible. poising our fresh water supplies would kill many millions of people only. That would therefore be way more effective than using nukes.

  5. True, but the things mentioned have all been discussed since 2001, the wording implied strategic surprise, not tactical. 9-11 was both, Pearl Harbor was both, D Day was tactical, Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave new meaning to strategic surprise. As far as think outside the box any form of bio or chemical attack would be a tactical surprise, now using a meteor as a kinetic bomb would be both tactical and strategic.

  6. The more you care to write on that the more I will read. I think about that distinction a great deal but still don’t see it as clearly as I would like to.

  7. Here is a good example, you ask a woman out on a date, you praise her looks, buy her a good meal with fine wine, those are strategy, then you go to your house, after that what happens is tactics. Strategic surprise is when something totally unexpected happens, example when a rose spits on you, tactical surprise is when you misread the situation and decide the enemy forces are really picnickers. The problem is that the two are very close together in appearance, it took me a long time before I really understood the difference.

    One great General (I can’t remember his name) said that surprise (tactical surprise) is what happens in the mind of the enemy commander.

    In the Russo-Japanese war the Russians refused to prepare for the war because according to their commander a brown nation would never attack a white nation. This resulted in both strategic surprise and tactical surprise. The attack destroyed the Russian fleet and this let the Russian Jew that used the name Sidney Rielly to sell Russia a German fleet and send photos of all the blue prints to the Brits.

    I will think more on the subject and see what other examples and explanations I can come up with.

  8. Strategic surprise is achieved by the leaders (usually political) ignoring reality and deciding that certain things weren’t going to happen. Because of this willful blindness or arrogance precautions aren’t taken and moves aren’t made that will prevent a coming war.

    Tactical surprise usually occurs because the enemy is fooled into thinking you are going to do X when you are planning on doing Y. The successful plan to convince Hitler and the German High Command the allies were going to hit Calais when we were going to hit Normandy is a good example. (FYI, if Hitler had turned the Panzer division in Paris over to the High Command during the first 72 hours of the invasion they would have probably kicked us back into the sea) Another one is the successful plan to keep Saddam’s attention on his left flank in Kuwait while we built up the forces on his right flank to win the war. The Marines and the Arab Armies (usually with large number of Green Beret and SAS advisers) made a spoiling attack to keep his attention there (they grabbed him by his nose) and the US, Brits and French looped around his right flank (that he had left swinging in the wind) and kicked him in the butt.

    I hope this makes it clearer, I don’t often lecture so I have to take time to stop jumping from point A to point D or further down, the connections are so clear to me I forget that others haven’t spent as much time as I have reading up on the matters.

Leave a Reply to Richard Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *