Iranian military warns U.S. against any attack

[sabra]

Source: Reuters/MSNBC

Comments come two days after U.N. imposed new sanctions on Tehran

TEHRAN, Iran - A senior Iranian military official warned the United States against launching any attack on the Islamic Republic, a news agency reported Monday, two days after the United Nations imposed new sanctions on Iran.

“If America starts a war against Iran, it won’t be the one who finishes it,” Morteza Saffari, naval forces commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

“Our people will not even allow one American soldier to enter our country,” Saffari said.

International tension over Iran’s disputed nuclear program has risen in recent days, sending oil and gold prices higher. The West suspects Iran is seeking to make atom bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17793323/

[BayCityProgressive]

1. Well

Iran COULD hit back pretty hard..but in the end..yes the US would finish the war. iran wouldn't stand a chance. An occupation is another thing...

[razorman]

3. I agree. Of course, it depends on whether the U.S. has the will

to do it. If we wanted to, we could put the Iranian navy on the bottom of the ocean in a matter of hours. It looks like the Brits might wind up doing it first, though. Hopefully, the Iranians will wake up and realize what a tightrope they are walking. With their defiance of the U.N. resolutions, Iran may not have much cover when the ball drops, asssuming the U.N. means it this time.

[Purveyor]

5. If the intel is correct, Iran posseses some pretty impressive "anti-ship" missiles. eom

[VegasWolf]

11. Should be a cake walk, we might be in Iran 6 days, or 6 weeks, but I doubt 6 months.

</sarcasm>

[NeoConsSuck]

14. Whoops! Didn't see the sarcasm tag

[soothsayer]

2. iran is pretty large, with lots o' rugged terrain. it would be a bear

unless you're thinking we just destroy their infrastructure, in which case china might get drawn in to protect its source of oil.

[Amonester]

4. Yep. WW3, and what Einstein said.

Good luck, everyone.

And Damn the neoconservative war criminal$.

[Seabiscuit]

6. Sure, the U.S. and Britain could bomb the hell out of Iran, but we could never

win a ground war there. Our troops are already overextended and exhausted and the Iranian army and militias outnumber us something like 10 to 1 on the ground.

So, if there's a U.S. land invasion, we'll get creamed, leaving only one option: nuclear warfare.

Total insanity.

[dogfacedboy]

7. None of these facts will stop puppet-president Bush, though. n/t

[anotherdrew]

16. well, of course there is the FACT that attacking their civilian infrastructure would be a war crime

not that it'll stop us, but if they do it again, I do hope to hell the rest of the world gangs up and teaches us a lesson in humility.

[peacetalksforall]

8. March 29, 60 days out from March 24, and April 6. Those are

the three dates that have been thrown out there - the April date is out of Russia.

How can the leaders of the United States be this mad?

We have no idea if any country of influence is attempting to stop the U.S.

It appears that many countries are complicit - including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, U.K., and especially Israel.

I hope Iran is saved from our leaders and their 30% followers. I hope to read an article some day after our leaders are stopped and Iran is saved - an article that explains how a, b, and c countries saved Iran and the planet.

[yava]

9. Its not that Iran can win, its the price to pay

I am sorry for the cold-blooded tone here but lets look at some facts and dangers:
Iran has no air force, only Russian missiles and copies of N. Korian and Chinese missiles. It is no threat to the US and the US armed forces can destroy the Iranian army in a few days just like Sadam's.
The problem is not there. The problem is that be it for military bases in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuweit or above all Iraq, the US has stationed soldiers well within the range of thousands of those unsophisticated but deadly missiles. Baghdad and its Green Zone and most of the US forces and facilities are within less than 100 miles from Iran's borders.
So the real question is if the US military whether the US would or should pay the high price to attempt to destroy the regime in Iran.
What are we talking about "acceptable" sacrifices here? In Iraq in the 4 years of war, the human losses have been some 3200 US soldiers dead, I estimated about 20,000 wounded, 800 western contactors and some 200 allied soldiers and that has resulted in the reshuffling of political cards in Washington and to some extent in Europe (Where is Secretary Rumsfeld?).
What will happen if taking on Iran results in the loss of 100 US soldiers? But what if it comes to 10,000 losses in Iraq in a matter of days? One big ship sinking in the Gulf could leads to more than 1000 lost. How will that affect citizens, politics now and in 2008?

[fshrink]

10. Yes. Mainly

the proximity of Baghdad from old missiles, by now probably sophisticated enough to do some serious, not totally random, damage in a matter of minutes. I'm not even talking about the possibility that large groups of US forces could be directly threatened by ground actions very quickly as well.

[yava]

13. point well taken

I didn't consider, given the proximity of the forces, that a relatively large pocket of US soldiers could be caught but I would assume that if there is military action agaist Iran, that some regroupings would occur just before. So still, and sadly, the main issue is how would great loss of life affect events and politics.

[hack89]

18. I question the threat of ground action.

Iran does not have the mobility to project a large mechanized force into Iraq and both defend it from US air power or to adequately supply it. Iran does not have a modern, well trained army. Their best forces are unconventional force - their only chance is to wage asymmetrical warfare - they cannot go head to head against US firepower.

[peacetalksforall]

12. I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that attacking Iran is

mad because there would be immediate harm and risk to all our soldiers in the surrounding countries? Or are you saying Iran must be taken out because of the risk they pose for attacking first?

If the latter, I cannot support your point.

We have no right to attack them. They are years away from nuclear. There is nothing to prove that they will attack our bases first.

The mad man Cheney and his mad friends must be stopped.

[yava]

15. I didn't

I didn't discuss the reasons for going to war. That is done enough by talking points, think tanks and politicians. What I am asking is who is prepared to pay the price and if so what price. A huge miscalculation (much bigger than in the case of Iraq) is possible and it is essential to bring it to light. That is irrespective of whether you are left or right, moralist, pragmatist, Zionist, petrolist, militarist, atheist, religious.... Having said that, I would have thought that if I bring this up, its an indication that I would rather have peace!

[peacetalksforall]

17. OK, we're together - I'm shaking your hand. Bombinb them would

be a travesty.

Sometimes I say things with so much sarcasm brought on be disrespect for those people who are trying to take us over.