Iran tests Missiles Capable of Hitting Israel, U.S. Bases
Iran tested nine long and medium-range missiles Wednesday during drills that officials said was geared to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack. The drill was conducted in the Strait of Hormuz, which is a waterway that approximately 40% of the world’s oil passes through.
Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, said the exercise would “demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language,” the TV report said.
Footage showed at least six missiles firing simultaneously, and said the barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead. That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan within striking distance.
“The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity,” said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council.
Throughout this entire thing, I still find it comical that presidential hopeful Barack Obama claims he would sit down and talk with Iran without any preexisting conditions. I am not sure what would be said at a meeting with Obama and Ahmadinejad. Let’s not forget this is the same man that said Israel will be wiped off the map in the coming years. Can someone please explain to me how their conversation would begin?
If anything, there should be even more sanctions against Iran from the rest of the world. It seems to me the only way to get through to leaders of the Mid East is through force. It really seems to be the only thing they truly understand.
9 Responses to “Iran tests Missiles Capable of Hitting Israel, U.S. Bases”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Basically we would negotiate trade agreements with them. If they give up nuke aspirations we would give them trade credits. As many know I am an Obama supporter, however I think he is naive on this matter Iran is dangerous and must be dealt with firmly.
Personally I thinks it great to talk to countries that oppose us. Nothing bad can come from talking with them. Worst case, we don’t agree on things, and the only thing lost is time. The Paris Hilton approach of diplomacy practiced by Bush and company (”I won’t talk to her, she knows what she did!”) clearly doesn’t work.
As for the rest… Ahmadinejad never said “Israel will be wiped off the map”. That was a complete mis-translation, which was retracted by the AP once they realized the translator was a wing-nut. His actual words translated more directly to “Israel will make themselves a footnote in history” Again, not at all pro-Israel, but not as aggressive as the other phrase would make it seem.
Make no mistake, Israel will attack and destroy Irans nuke plants. Israel’s national security is at stake. When Israel attacks, Iran will not respond. Despite yesterday’s little Iranian “fireworks” show, Iran doesn’t have the means to respond and they know that any attempt to respond would quickly be squashed by Israel and the U.S. I expect this attack by Israel to happen within the next 60 - 90 days. Simply put, Israel and the U.S. will never allow Iran to have nukes. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is probably voting for Obama.
Woody
Thats the ambiguity of his language. You are falling for it. Corporal Klinger of Iran wants to get both messages across.
Nothing bad can come from talking with them? That’s what Neville Chamberlain thought in 1938 when he waived an agreement with Hitler and said “Peace in our time” Don’t be a 1938er.
@TheExDemocrat:
Really? So talking to anyone is a bad idea? We should just, what? Nuke them all, or invade them maybe? Or should we require them to do something before talking to them? How would they know what we want them to do? We’re not talking to them! What if they find out, and are happy to do whatever we want them to, if we give them something in return? How does that happen if we’re not talking to them?
I’m not saying we need to sign a treaty or a trade agreement. This isn’t 1938, and Iran is no Germany. Your argument is really stupid and weak. It’s like saying you’ve driven a car for 30 years, and then had an accident, so nobody should ever drive a car again. People have talked and negotiated things for centuries. The fact that you have to go back 70 years to find one example of it going horribly wrong speaks to how critical it is to use such a vital tool.
I’m staying we need to open the lines of communications. Re-establish diplomatic ties where we have embassies, and actual contact points where we can express what we communicate clearly with these people. We have that with the Saudi’s still, and 15 of the 18 highjackers from 9/11 were Saudi nationals. We’re still talking to them!
As for the whole “Iran could make nukes!” thing… If they wanted nukes they have the money and the wherewithal to buy all the nukes and material they need on the black market in Russia. Thanks to Bush outing Plame (who was working with groups that were securing Russian nukes after the collapse) there are plenty of loose nukes out there to be had for a price.
And really, wheres the incentive to NOT get them? We told India they couldn’t have them, and beat them with an economic stick the whole time they developed them. Then, as soon as they made a few and tested one, we opened negotiations and started trade with them again. The US treats non-nuke countries like crap, invades them, and lays sanctions on them. But as soon as they get nukes it all changes. We suddenly start negotiating with them, and treat them nicely. Show me one instance where that hasn’t happened. You can’t, because there aren’t any.
So yeah, lets piss off a country that exports a huge chunk of the worlds oil, and could cripple a key waterway that most of our oil comes through. Lets attack them (directly, or by proxy), and see where things go from there. Hope you like walking, because you’ll be doing a lot more of it if they do get attacked and oil shoots up past $300 a barrel.
Woody,
Sorry I see similarities between Iran and Nazi Germany. Both are devoted to the destruction of the Jewish people. Both have brutal dictators threatening their neighbors. Both are very deceptive in their so called diplomacy.
ExDemocrat did not say, do not talk to them, his point seems to be that the Iranian dictator talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Today is very similar to 1938, we have fanatics that are killing people and we see our President who is trying to stop them as the bad guy. Liberals hatred of Bush is so great they refuse to see the danger and evil that is right in front of their faces.
Do you speak Farci? Did you hear the many original statements? He sure has made so many comments and performed actions that you cant blame them on bad translation.
As for diplomatic ties with Iran you can thank Jimmy Carter for cutting them. Now the Democrats want to bring another naive leader into the Whitehouse.
Woody
Its interesting, Obama makes a dumb comment, that he will speak unconditionally to Iran. Iran is a sponsor of terrorism, prolonging a war with another evil man that was honorable but terribly mismanaged. So Obama instead of backing off starts the nuance and the rest of the democratic lapdogs round the wagons and agree even though they know better.
We should talk to him like a police officer and judge talks to a murderer. I believe we are talking to them, and what we are saying is “do not build nuclear weapons.” If you want to have pleasant conversations stop promoting terrorism, stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map.
Please don’t give me some lame explanation that he was mis-translated. He has said enough things like that to be sure it was not a mistake. He has sponsored enough groups like Hamas (watch this video as Hamas uses children as human shields) and Hezbollah to make no doubt his goals are the extermination of Israel and the U.S. if he could do it.
“How would they know what we want them to do? We’re not talking to them! What if they find out, and are happy to do whatever we want them to, if we give them something in return?”
No offense Mr. Woody, this is pehaps one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever read.
Anyone else think Iran already has a bit of a clue that we don’t want them to be doing this?
And that they don’t really give a crap that we and Israel feel this way?
@Curious: That’s what’s being advocated though, the “let’s not talk to them” routine is exactly that. Do they know we don’t want them to develop nuclear bombs? Sure… We’ve communicated it in speeches at the UN and such. Did that work with N. Korea? No. It only started working when we re-established talks with them, and began to really negotiate with them vs preaching to them.
@tiberius: Show me any politician that doesn’t speak out of both sides of his mouth… It’s a given for any politician. And I’m not saying he’s “Israel friendly”, or that they’re not dangerious. I’m sure they are, which is all the more reason to talk to them.
My big issue here is that it’s wrong to repeat an incorrect translation that’s been retracted and corrected by the agency that put it out. It’s like continuing to say “Al Gore claims he created the internet”, when reality is his claim was that he was co-author on laws that helped expand the internet from the private military system it was into the public network we know today. (This is a good article on what he said, and how it was spun, in case you still believe that btw.)
Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Iran is a good country, or has good intentions. I’m saying starting a war with another country that we’ve already got pretty well isolated and have well under thumb is a bad idea. Doubly so when we’re in the middle of two other wars (Afghanistan and Iraq are both heating up again), and we don’t have international support. Bombing them ourselves, or allowing our lap-dog in the region to do so, could result in our economy plummeting even farther.