Tehran Times: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/511...-response-amid

Exclusive: Iran has readied missiles for potential response amid Trump's escalating threats

TEHRAN - The Tehran Times has learned that Iran's armed forces have readied missiles with the capability to strike US-related positions, amid ongoing threats of military action from President Donald Trump if Tehran does not agree to a new nuclear agreement on his terms.

A significant number of these launch-ready missiles are located in underground facilities scattered across the country, designed to withstand airstrikes.

Since his inauguration in January, Trump has repeatedly stated that he would bomb Iran if the country does not make the concessions he wants. Reports indicate these concessions include the complete dismantling of its nuclear program, ties with Resistance groups, and aspects of its missiles and drones program.

Iranians have refused to negotiate with the U.S. under the current circumstances, stating they are ready to respond to any aggression decisively.


https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/511...ront-to-global

Trump’s open threat to ‘bomb’ Iran is a shocking affront to global peace, Tehran warns

TEHRAN - U.S. President Donald Trump’s open threat of “bombing” Iran is an “affront” to global peace and security, the Iranian Foreign Ministry warned on Monday.

“An open threat of ‘bombing’ by a Head of State against Iran is a shocking _affront_ to the very essence of International Peace and Security,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei wrote in a post on X.

On Saturday, Trump said Iran will be bombed if it does not make a nuclear deal with the United States.

“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” he said in an interview with NBC News. He also threatened to punish Iran with what he called “secondary tariffs.”

Baghaei said such threats are in violation of the UN Charter and a betrayal of Safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Trump's approach toward Iran is full of contradictions.

The Foreign Ministry spokesman warned, “Violence breeds violence, peace begets peace. The US can choose the course...; and concede to CONSEQUENCES.”

Put the boot on the other foot. How would you expect the US react if Iran threatened to flatten Washington if it did not do as Iran directed, for example cease all support for Israel?

A major airlift by the U.S. Air Force’s Air Mobility Command (AMC) appears to be ongoing between Osan Air Base in South Korea and Isa Air Base in Bahrain; with several C-17s over the last few days observed flying between the bases, likely transporting MIM-104 “Patriot” surface-to-air missile batteries as well as other air-defense systems and munitions to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

Only just yesterday, Iran threatened to attack the U.S-U.K joint base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, as well as military bases in Turkey and Middle East, if the United States launches an attack against Iran.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b890a41f52.png
​​​​​​​

VideoIRGC Aerospace Force Commander Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh warns the U.S.: “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The Americans have at least 10 bases and 50,000 troops in the region—they’re sitting in a glass room.”

With merriment. That threat isn't credible.

I suspect that any number of folks in the Pentagon will respond to that, privately, with "Bring it, if you think you can."
Not sure what the public response will be, if any.

That was not quite the point though, was it? Imagine the threat was credible and try again. Would US resolve weaken or strengthen? Why should Iran be different?

Yes, it is.
If a threat isn't credible, why are you even talking about it?
You are delving into the land of fairies and dragons, of elves and hobbits, when you ask one to embark onto a journey of imagination.
No. I'll stick with reality. Suggest you do likewise.

Within the last year, Iran made some threats towards Israel that were certainly credible, and they demonstrated that credibility (even if they pulled a few punches for political reasons).
What you are indulging in is sheer fantasy.

What I would expect Iran to do, if they felt a need to back up the Supreme Leader's rhetoric, is attack various places where there are Americans in the Middle East.
They have the means to do that within the region.

What I was suggesting is that you put yourself in the position of the Iranian government. They are a sovereign nation trying to project power and influence in the region. A distant foreign government, that supports a state they regard as an enemy, is telling them what they can or cannot do and is threatening to attack them if they do comply. If you were them, how would you react to this threat? How would you feel about it? I am not defending their position, I am asking you to consider what the likely outcome of the current threat made by the US will be? Personally, I think it will strengthen Iranian resolve and achieve the very opposite of what the US wants. The statements coming from Iran suggest I am right. In which case an attack by the US will only make the situation in the ME worse than it already is.

I am reminded if the Life of Brian and a nice bit of halibut….

​​​​​​​

I can and did. The Ayatollah, unlike you, has smarts. He is an experienced political leader. He knows not to make empty threats, and not to make threats he can't carry out, so him threatening to flatten Washington serves him not at all. The threat that he did make (in response to Mr. Trump's threat) was (intelligently) quite vague, and he can fulfill it in a variety of ways locally since there are plenty of Americans in the area, as well as American allies. He can pick and choose how he wants to respond, and he'll do so with his home audience, and perhaps others, in his calculations on what that response is.

Since you seem to have missed it the first time, and why I don't have to imagine anything, this is his counter threat:
Well phrased, and within his capacity to carry out credibly.

For him to threaten to flatten Washington, as not-so-clever-you suggested, is risible.
You are free to go back to your fairy tales, and your pearl clutching. You have let DJ Trump get inside your head, rent free. (That's on you).

I don't do that. I'll tell you why.

His most consistent character trait, in politics, for the last ten years (since he began his run in the GOP primaries in 2015) is bombast and hyperbole.
I am pretty sure that the Ayatollah recognizes the same traits that I do, and also appreciates that Mr. Trump has a consistently displayed a negative attitude about Iran and its political leadership. That the Ayatollah chooses to retain the "no direct talks" position (which has been consistent for any number of years regardless of who our President is) is well within his discretion to do.

It's an explicitly hostile attitude to take when the offers of direct communications are made (and they have been over the years) but the Iranian leadership have their own reasons that they are satisfied with so far.

Lonewolf, I think you are on your own here.

No-one suggested they could attack Washington, well, not this year anyway. That wasn't even the point. But if you want to talk about present capabilities, they have already had some success with missile salvos onto US bases in Iraq, causing some rather nasty brain injuries to US servicemen for a start. Not to mention mass attacks on Israel, shooting down Reaper drones, attacking and commandeering shipping into the Gulf, attacking Saudi oil facilities, using intel ships to direct Houthi fire, etc. Do we really want to stir that Republican Guard hornets' nest further by giving them a good whump?

In response to the last large attack on Israel, Iran got whumped pretty hard - in fact the word was their air defenses were largely knocked out in a manner that left them highly vulnerable to follow-on attacks if they didn't behave.
Now, I'm unsure that a pre-emptive attack from the US would be wise move (and could well prove to be counter productive). But Trump's wants their attention, and he's motivated to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, and pretty much everyone is fed up with the agressive actions of their proxies - especially the attacks on shipping.

Agreed. They've probably rebuilt those air defenses to some degree by now, but Israel could be requesting some heavy ordnance on certain other targets.
If the US has 'no friends' as some folks like to state recently, then by the same token they should have no reason to create eternally resentful enemies either.

I am reminded of the IRA quote when Maggie Thatcher survived the Brighton bombing attempt on her life in 1984. 'Maggie, you got lucky today. But you need to be lucky every time. We only need to be lucky once!'

I suspect the IRGC approach to USA troops in the region is not dissimilar.

Bull. Ninthace did. Go back and read Ninthace's post that I replied to in the first place. That is what I am raking him over the coals about. Read and comprehend his silly words.
I am not obliged to play silly games, nor will I, but you go ahead and do so if that's what amuses you.
That is NOT a credible threat. That is my point. Not A Credible Threat. (As of this morning).

Iran's political leadership did three things of note in their recent strikes on Israel.
1. They telegraphed them, and to a certain extent pulled their punches. For Political Reasons.
2. They publicly demonstrated the capacity and will to do it.
3. They were able to play to the home crowd and showed them that they would strike.

BANANAS:
Yes, that's the hand they have been playing since about 2004. In other news, fish swim in the ocean.
Sometimes that approach has bitten them (they lost a leader over that) while at other times they've gotten to enjoy counting coup here and there.
Play is continuous. Nothing is over. This game has been going on for a long time.
You remember Ernest and Will?

My concern over President Trump's latest bluster is that he may have, or may feel that he has, rhetorically backed himself into a corner. Having been very overt about stuff moving into theater, he may believe that unless he does something (and who knows what that ultimately is?) he's harmed his Maximum Pressure policy on Iran.

I will guess - based on my own experiences - that one of the courses of action that has been offered to him from the pol/mil planning team is to lay waste to a large portion of Houthi stuff in Yemen sometime soon as a demonstration aimed at Iran. Demonstrations are a tool in the political box. That will play a bit to the home crowd, and will get the news media to take lots of pics of stuff blowing up and burning, and will satisfy his urge to make a spectacle.

But that's a guess. I will take no money to Vegas on that bet.
Further that though, though, I have no confidence in the coherence of his decision making.

Smart move if you mean Soleimani. He was as effective against ISIS as the US was; makes complete sense to get rid of him. Not.

It still frustrates me that a variety of chances to work with others (be it Assad, Iran, or Russia) against the DAESH / ISIS crew as a means of finding common ground were lost.
Obama, Trump, Biden: all missed the chance to use that opportunity.
With the nuclear deal that Obama ultimately ended up signing up to with Iran, along with a number of our allies, that was certainly an opportune moment.

Ninthace did not. Read it again, it was couched hypothetically, the US is threatening Iran, I was asking you to consider what the US reaction would be if such a threat existed in order to get you to consider how Iran is feeling and may react to the threat. Not, to speculate how Iran might retaliate to an attack. You do not seem to be able or want to do that in any of the responses you have made to date,