Iran issues stark military warning to United States

Status
Not open for further replies.

model 25

New member
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/15/060415084241.xdv0o3w3.html


Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.



"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."


Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28.
-----------------------------------------------


So you guys ready?

25
 
Our troops aren't even supposed to be in Iraq and our troops should have never been sent there in the first place. We don't have enough money or firepower left to even defend ourselves if Iran decided to attack us. If Bush decides to launch an attack on Iran, it would be like sending the pigeons to the cats.
 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43956

Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons ? even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years.
------------------------------------------------------------
So is this the WMDs of Iran?

25
 
Food for Thought

Even Saddam Hussein fought them a long time and more or less bested them.
Now is not the time nor place, Iraq is not forming a Government that can get along and quell the terrorism and murder between the islamic sects. I am often wrong but I smell the odor of an Iraqi Civil War.

I do support the US troops there and my US Government but it is in my prayers that our troops can get their business done and get home safely. All of the miscreants hate Israel and dream of it's destruction but we must admit that after all these years of terrorism by muslims, Israel does know better than we how to deal with them.
 
Iran is not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's technical infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the world's lone superpower, say U.S. intelligence sources, top scientists and western missile industry experts.

The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.

Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons ? even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years.

Iran will have that capability ? at least theoretically ? as soon as it has one nuclear bomb ready to arm such a missile. North Korea, a strategic ally of Iran, already boasts such capability.

The stunning report was first published over the weekend in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by WND's founder.

Just last month, Congress heard testimony about the use of such weapons and the threat they pose from rogue regimes.

Iran has surprised intelligence analysts by describing the mid-flight detonations of missiles fired from ships on the Caspian Sea as "successful" tests. Even primitive Scud missiles could be used for this purpose. And top U.S. intelligence officials reminded members of Congress that there is a glut of these missiles on the world market. They are currently being bought and sold for about $100,000 apiece.

"A terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead 'on target' with a Scud, but it would be much easier to simply launch and detonate in the atmosphere," wrote Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., in the Washington Post a week ago. "No need for the risk and difficulty of trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon over the border or hit a particular city. Just launch a cheap missile from a freighter in international waters ? al-Qaida is believed to own about 80 such vessels ? and make sure to get it a few miles in the air."

The Iranian missile tests were more sophisticated and capable of detonation at higher elevations ? making them more dangerous.

Detonated at a height of 60 to 500 kilometers above the continental U.S., one nuclear warhead could cripple the country ? knocking out electrical power and circuit boards and rendering the U.S. domestic communications impotent.

While Iran still insists officially in talks currently underway with the European Union that it is only developing nuclear power for peaceful civilian purposes, the mid-flight detonation missile tests persuade U.S. military planners and intelligence agencies that Tehran can only be planning such an attack, which depends on the availability of at least one nuclear warhead.

Some analysts believe the stage of Iranian missile developments suggests Iranian scientists will move toward the production of weapons-grade nuclear material shortly as soon as its nuclear reactor in Busher is operative.

Jerome Corsi, author of "Atomic Iran," told WorldNetDaily the new findings about Iran's electromagnetic pulse experiments significantly raise the stakes of the mullah regime's bid to become a nuclear power.

"Up until now, I believed the nuclear threat to the U.S. from Iran was limited to the ability of terrorists to penetrate the borders or port security to deliver a device to a major city," he said. "While that threat should continue to be a grave concern for every American, these tests by Iran demonstrate just how devious the fanatical mullahs in Tehran are. We are facing a clever and unscrupulous adversary in Iran that could bring America to its knees."

Earlier this week, Iran's top nuclear official said Europe must heed an Iranian proposal on uranium enrichment or risk a collapse of the talks.

The warning by Hassan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, came as diplomats from Britain, France and Germany began talks with their Iranian counterparts in Geneva, ahead of a more senior-level meeting in London set for April 29. Enrichment produces fuel for nuclear reactors, which can also be used in the explosive core of nuclear bombs.

"The Europeans should tell us whether these ideas can work as the basis for continued negotiations or not," Rowhani said, referring to the Iranian proposal put forward last month that would allow some uranium enrichment. "If yes, fine. If not, then the negotiations cannot continue," he said.

Some analysts believe Iran is using the negotiations merely to buy time for further development of the nuclear program.

The U.S. plans, according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to allow the EU talks to continue before deciding this summer to push for United Nations sanctions against Iran.

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security chaired by Kyl, held a hearing on the electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, threat.

"An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the American homeland, said one of the distinguished scientists who testified at the hearing, is one of only a few ways that the United States could be defeated by its enemies ? terrorist or otherwise," wrote Kyl "And it is probably the easiest. A single Scud missile, carrying a single nuclear weapon, detonated at the appropriate altitude, would interact with the Earth's atmosphere, producing an electromagnetic pulse radiating down to the surface at the speed of light. Depending on the location and size of the blast, the effect would be to knock out already stressed power grids and other electrical systems across much or even all of the continental United States, for months if not years."

The purpose of an EMP attack, unlike a nuclear attack on land, is not to kill people, but "to kill electrons," as Graham explained. He serves as chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack and was director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and science adviser to the president during the Reagan administration.

Graham told WorldNetDaily he could think of no other reason for Iran to be experimenting with mid-air detonation of missiles than for the planning of an EMP-style attack.

"EMP offers a bigger bang for the buck," he said. He also suggested such an attack makes a U.S. nuclear response against a suspected enemy less likely than would the detonation of a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city.

A 2004 report by the commission found "several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapons-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication."

"EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences," the report said. "EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of U.S. society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power."

The major impact of EMP weapons is on electronics, "so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures," explained the report.

"Their effects on systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the nation," Lowell Wood, acting chairman of the commission, told members of Congress.

The commission report went so far as to suggest, in its opening sentence, that an EMP attack "might result in the defeat of our military forces."

"Briefly, a single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth's atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth," said the report. "EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that 'shocked' ? upset, damaged and destroyed ? electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects."

The EMP threat is not a new one considered by U.S. defense planners. The Soviet Union had experimented with the idea as a kind of super-weapon against the U.S.


25
 
only a matte of time

I personally think it is only a matter of time before we start large scale operations against Iran. I wish I was wrong on this one. I was in Iraq twice and Afghanistan and then I decided to get out (still got me on the hook for IRR till May 07) and I am only hoping that Bush waits till next summer, then I won't get called back up. Hopefully he will use an air campaign against the Iranians, because we don't have enough forces in place in Afghanistan and Iraq and the ones we do have are tied up by insurgent activites.

We need to get more troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and get the insurgent problem under control before we think of taking on Iran in a head on battle. Just my 2 cents from a vet that has been there done that and doesn't want to go back (heck I am 20% disable and they would still call me back up, just because of my specialty code). :barf:
 
continued

"What is different now is that some potential sources of EMP threats are difficult to deter ? they can be terrorist groups that have no state identity, have only one or a few weapons and are motivated to attack the U.S. without regard for their own safety," explains the commission report. "Rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran, may also be developing the capability to pose an EMP threat to the United States and may also be unpredictable and difficult to deter."

Graham describes the potential "cascading effect" of an EMP attack. If electrical power is knocked out and circuit boards fried, telecommunications are disrupted, energy deliveries are impeded, the financial system breaks down, food, water and gasoline become scarce.

As Kyl put it: "Few if any people would die right away. But the loss of power would have a cascading effect on all aspects of U.S. society. Communication would be largely impossible. Lack of refrigeration would leave food rotting in warehouses, exacerbated by a lack of transportation as those vehicles still working simply ran out of gas (which is pumped with electricity). The inability to sanitize and distribute water would quickly threaten public health, not to mention the safety of anyone in the path of the inevitable fires, which would rage unchecked. And as we have seen in areas of natural and other disasters, such circumstances often result in a fairly rapid breakdown of social order."

"American society has grown so dependent on computer and other electrical systems that we have created our own Achilles' heel of vulnerability, ironically much greater than those of other, less developed nations," the senator wrote. "When deprived of power, we are in many ways helpless, as the New York City blackout made clear. In that case, power was restored quickly because adjacent areas could provide help. But a large-scale burnout caused by a broad EMP attack would create a much more difficult situation. Not only would there be nobody nearby to help, it could take years to replace destroyed equipment."

The commission said hardening key infrastructure systems and procuring vital backup equipment such as transformers is both feasible and ? compared with the threat ? relatively inexpensive.

"But it will take leadership by the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies, along with support from Congress, all of which have yet to materialize," wrote Kyl, so far the only elected official blowing the whistle this alarming development.

Kyl concluded in his report: "The Sept. 11 commission report stated that our biggest failure was one of 'imagination.' No one imagined that terrorists would do what they did on Sept. 11. Today few Americans can conceive of the possibility that terrorists could bring our society to its knees by destroying everything we rely on that runs on electricity. But this time we've been warned, and we'd better be prepared to respond."
--------------------------------

Got this from free republic

25
 
I find this EMP article to be a little extreme. I'm aware of EMP, but I thought a single warhead could only cause localized damage. I don't see how one or even several warheads could damage the whole nation's power grid. Maybe a couple of cities...but not the whole nation.

And I believe the grid had enough redundancy in it that repairing or replacing power to a few cities would not take more than a few weeks at most.

Can someone convince me that I'm wrong on that?
 
Hey didnt we invade Iraq to find those nuclear weapons that could be readied in 15 minutes and were a threat to our safety.

I think we just found em.
 
Ok they fire the nuclear missle at the US. and knock out our electronics. What will our submarine response be? A few dozen missles fired back at Iran? They aren't just going to sit in the water playing war games are they? If not a submarine resoponse then what about the surface fleet? Would we fire nuclear missles in response to a nuclear attack?
 
Ok they fire the nuclear missle at the US. and knock out our electronics. What will our submarine response be? A few dozen missles fired back at Iran?
That is probably the only reason that the cold war of the 60's remained cold. The Soviets understood the threat.

Other than being outright dangerous fanatics, the thing that scares me about Iran is that I don't think they really do understand the capabilities of the United States. Remember, this is a nation that is so out of touch with reality that they believe the Holocaust never happened. I really think they believe that they can win a war with us, with little or no damage to themselves.
 
hmmm... i don't know if they could actually get a missile over U.S. airspace unless they smuggle it REAL close by....to be launched from Iran and to fly all the way over here, our missile defense systems will kick in and bam...no more warhead, but if they smuggle one close enough, the damage will be done before the jets get off the ground. One thing that is for sure, we do not have the military or the economic backing for a third war in the Middle East, especially against Iran, they, I feel anyway, will not just run home and blend in the local population like the Iraqis did, they will probably retaliate and fight hard. This is one move that should not be made, should Iran have nuclear power? Probably not, but until the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are solved, which will be awhile, no other wars should be created. This administration says that the governments in these two countries are developing, but I don't see this, I see a failing government seperated by faction fighting in Iraq and not much out of the forgotten Afghanistan. I wish there was an easy answer, I would love to hear more from the soldiers on the ground, of anyone, they would know the most of what's going on I believe. One thing is for sure, Iran should not be taken on anytime soon. Just my 2 cents. -BamaXD
 
anyone who is potentially capable of launching nuclear weapons and makes direct threats against another country, ie israel, should be dealt with immediately. we know that dprk has nukes, but they aren't threatening anyone right now other than the US. dprk said they have the right to perform a pre-emptive strike against the US. they've also had issues with the training in south korea.

there are rogue countries that need to be dealt with one way or another. if we can do it democratically, then great. if not, there aren't many alternatives. it wouldn't take much to cripple iran. we took control of afghanistan pretty quickly when the russians couldn't do it in 10 years of fighting. part of that was because we were supplying the afghan rebels. same with iraq and iran. we were supporting iraq, otherwise iran would have overrun them. in the iran-iraq war, the iranian strategy was similar to the desperate japanese at the end of WWII. they sent waves of soldiers who were immediately cut down by iraqi forces. they just kept sending people until finally a couple of them got close enough to do some damage. we don't fight like they did in WWI where a soldier's life was worth little to nothing. to our benefit, some countries still do.
 
Lets Just Give Them Ideas!!!!!!

"A terrorist organization might have trouble putting a nuclear warhead 'on target' with a Scud, but it would be much easier to simply launch and detonate in the atmosphere," wrote Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., in the Washington Post a week ago. "No need for the risk and difficulty of trying to smuggle a nuclear weapon over the border or hit a particular city. Just launch a cheap missile from a freighter in international waters ? al-Qaida is believed to own about 80 such vessels ? and make sure to get it a few miles in the air."

Am I the only one noticing the increasing amount of statements like this? :confused: Why do we feel the need to broadcast our countrys' weaknesses? I find it increasingly disturbing that the media takes every chance they get to broadcast a segment on potential weakness here at home.:mad: :mad:

Rest assured friends that the forms of media over seas sure as **** aren't broadcasting their weaknesses for our benefit.:(

I very strongly beleive it is better to fight the enemy on their door than ours.
However, I do not beleive in suicide missions for our military personnel...fight from 40,000 feet and solve the problem.
 
I removed the part that says EMPs do anything.

I think everyone is right. The power will be back on in no time, nothing to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Our troops aren't even supposed to be in Iraq and our troops should have never been sent there in the first place. We don't have enough money or firepower left to even defend ourselves if Iran decided to attack us. If Bush decides to launch an attack on Iran, it would be like sending the pigeons to the cats.
You've got to be joking. **Redacted by Antipitas** We haven't even unleashed 1/3 or our firepower in 60+ years and you're telling me that Iran would stand half a chance? I remember your kind before we went into Afghanistan "Squawk, the Russians couldn't do it in 10 years, they'll cut us to shreds, squawk." Then I hear it all again when we go into Iraq. I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of our troops. The truth of the matter is the world would shake if we unleased the dogs of war.
 
Hey didnt we invade Iraq to find those nuclear weapons that could be readied in 15 minutes and were a threat to our safety.

Really, we went into Iraq because they had nuclear weapons. Where do you get your information? Ehh Gads.
 
As for what the Military does, Iran just tested a new torpedo that goes really really fast. So I would doubt that the Navy will want to come close. As I said before Iran does not care if they get nuked or not, any region (as in place) that has people that will blow themselves up to kill a few people. What do you think they care about? Nothing

most everything they have is older russian surplus. they don't have anything that we can't easily defeat. their latest training exercise was nothing more than them flexing their muscles, but they don't have any to speak of. imagine our technologically advanced troops fighting an army from WWII. that's a decent comparison.
 
There was an article over at military.com that talked about Iran buying up used American commercial airliners....price was not a problem.

"That sounds like the plot of one of my novels. But according to a well-placed source of mine, it's exactly what the Iranian government has been trying to do for more than a year now. Commercial aircraft brokers on at least two continents have received shadowy inquiries they believe originate in Tehran to buy eight-year-old or younger B737 new generation airplanes, and B747-400 aircraft of the same vintage, price no object.

The fact that Iran may be trying to buy American made jet aircraft clandestinely and is willing to pay sky's-the-limit prices is hugely worrisome. According to Joshua R. EDKINS [pseudonym], a retired supergrade CIA clandestine service operative, ?Buying aircraft is very competitive and the first question usually asked is, ?How much.?' When price doesn't matter, something's wrong. Such is the case here. If Iran buys these aircraft, what better way to deliver a nuke??

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,93964,00.html

CPT Charlie got it right.....we are dealing with rabid Islamofacists here. Consequences are not an issue for these guys as they wouldnt care who gets killed in the response from America...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top