Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Iran threatens double retaliation if US attacks
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, April 26, 2006

This isn't a particular surprise, but it is from a different and more authoritative voice:
US interests around the word will be harmed if America launches an attack against Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said.

"The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity," he added, in comments reported on TV.

Iran has been referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions of over its nuclear programme. The West fears Iran is seeking atomic weapons.

The US is seeking a diplomatic solution but has not ruled out military action.
Two points. Khameni speaking carries more weight than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khameni is the "Supreme Leader" which is the defacto head of state in Iran. It is an appointive post he's held since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. So you can say the rhetoric has been elevated a notch. To this point, Iran has been satisfied to use Ahmadinejad to issue their threats.

Secondly, it is important to keep the "stick" on the table. I'm not sure it will do any good in the negotiations, but taking it off the table will certainly ensure failure in negotiations. All that being said, a military option, even as a last resort, is a poor option. If, worst case, they are as close as 3 years from nuclear weapons or as far as 10 years (best case), we have time to work against the regime through dissident factions. The best outcome for everyone would be for Iran to change it's government, not some outside country. And politically, regardless of who the president of the US might be, a military action against Iran before we're out of Iraq, would be a disaster.

As many have said, few good options in this particular case. But to me the best is vigorously supporting internal change while continuing negotiations with the present regime and keeping the stick firmly on the table.

UPDATE: Meanwhile Russia plays both sides of the conflict:
Russia launched a satellite for Israel on Tuesday that the Israelis say will be used to monitor Iran's nuclear activities.


The satellite is intended to help Israel gather information on Iran's nuclear program and its long-range missiles, which are capable of striking Israel, said an Israeli military official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
UPDATE II: Zbigniew Brzezinski gives four reasons why unilateral military action by the US is not a good idea:


I'm not, nor have I ever been a big fan of Brzezinskis, but in this case I think his reasoning is quite sound. It is important that we find a way, other than direct military intervention, to settle the Iranian problem. His 4 reasons for not intervening militarily are as good as anyones.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

To get Iran to change its government is going to be almost impossible without outside intervention. Iran can afford a totalitarian police state for as long as oil prices remain high, making internal dissent impossible. Oil prices will remain high for at least 10 years (unless someone invents cold fusion) and after that Iran will have the bomb.
Written By: unaha-closp
Imminent threat ? I got news for you, unless we have someone on the inside in Iran (no chance whatsoever), the only evidence we’ll have of an imminent threat will be a mushroom cloud somewhere. That has to be the absolute most ridiculous statement ever. To wait for Iran to become a real live, imminent threat is to show absolutely no balls whatsoever, AND to risk the death of hundreds of thousands of people just on the chance we might be wrong. Thanks, but I’d rather be on the safe side than the risky side.
Written By: Sherard
URL: http://
Well Sherard you’re in for a LONG day here, from some at least... the altenative position so often advanced, is to provide "iron-clad guarantees of US retaliation IF Iran attacks its neighbors with nuclear weapons..."... that’ll show those Mullahs we’re serious, by Jimminey.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
With the caveat that the stuff declaimed from podiums in that part of the world is 99% hollow bluster, there’s always that 1%. I don’t think there’s any dispute among rational people that A) Iran Is A Problem and B) Iran With Nukes Would Be A Really Big Problem. The only relevant arguments are what to do about A and how to prevent B.
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president.
Nope. It is not unconstitutional for the president to deploy troops without congressional approval. It has been done many many times in the past. Under the War Powers Resolution deploying troops can be done by the president for limited periods of time even without congressional approval. In fact every President since its enactment in 1973 has held that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement on presidential authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
This is the comparison, listed in other blogs, of the present Iran crisis to that of France in the Rhineland crisis of 1936. France was isolated deliberately by Germany and ended up doing nothing, leading to World War II. Don’t think the Iranians don’t read history. The US is politically isolated by the Europeans, and the Chinese who are petrified at the loss of oil and by the Russians who want to destabalize the region for no good reason whatsoever.
Written By: Orlando Armaswalker
URL: http://
Golly, those mullahs sure don’t want us to attack them, do they?

What’s that sound? It sounds almost like fiddle music playing to the tick of a clock...

Written By: Peter Jackson
Of BigZ’s list only 2 and 3 are really relevant.

3) He is right about oil prices.

2) He is right and wrong. This will happen no matter.
Once Iran has a "device" it will try to expand it’s
influence over the region, starting with Iraq.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Z’s number 1 is correct in that it will indeed be a unilateral declaration of war (we made if formal after Pearl Harbor, but there was no question that the attack there was an act of war).

The consquences politially are neither here nor there, but it would be considered an act of war by Iran and they would respond accordingly. I’m not sure how anyone can deny that.
Written By: McQ
The White House recently reported that it was not aware of any letter that was sent from the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Tony Blair stated that ruling out an invasion of Iran and declaring a nuclear strike is weird. He said that Iran is a strong country but that would not lead the U.S. Intelligence to rule out an invasion. Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani warned the West his country would not prove a pushover like Iraq.

Whenever the White House is asked whether the United States is planning on a tactical nuclear strike on Iran, Bush would always reply that all options are on the table.

Turks.US - Daily News
Written By: Tracy
Iran will exercise its right to nuclear energy as that is the will of the Iranian people. US and its friends can say and do what they want, but Iran is an independent State and will act in its self interest. If they US wants to open up multiple fronts of conflict in the ME then its welcome to attack Iran, but it needs to realise that it tried to attack Iran before (through Iraq) and failed. If they want to do it again they will have to use their own solders (instead of Iraqi) and there is very little appetite in the US for thousands upon thousands of of US solders coming back in body bags. Iran is not Iraq, the people of Iran will fight to support their country and their leadership, which was not the case with Iraq (where Saddam (a US backed dictator) was hated by everyone but a few.

Yes, Iran is no match for US might but it can certainly give the US a bloody nose, and we all not that then the US gets a bloody nose, its pack up its bags and leaves!

Finally, if the title of a rogue nation was to be given should it not go to the US itself, a nation which has put in place and backed some of the most ruthless dictators, brought down democratically elected government in foreign nations, which have back terrorist groups, attacked nations based on false information, is the only nation to have use an Atomic weapon for no justificable reason. A nation which have its roots embedded in the great slavery trade, a genocide of the native people of America have no right to call another other nation a rogue state. The greatest source of innocent lives being taken in the past 50 years have been the aggressive US foregin policy, 9/11 is a merely a drop in the ocean when compared to the death and distruction caused around the world by the evil regime that is the US.

People in glass houses.......

Written By: Hem
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks