Defiant Iran says it can 'easily' hit U.S. ships, works to counter sanctions

[rooster59]

Defiant Iran says it can 'easily' hit U.S. ships, works to counter sanctions

 

FILE PHOTO: Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif sits for an interview with Reuters in New York, New York, U.S. April 24, 2019. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/File Photo

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran said on Friday it could "easily" hit U.S. warships in the Gulf, the latest in days of saber rattling between Washington and Tehran, while its top diplomat worked to counter U.S. sanctions and salvage a nuclear deal denounced by President Donald Trump.

 

Tensions have risen in recent days, with concerns about a potential U.S.-Iran conflict. Earlier this week, the United States pulled some diplomatic staff from its embassy in Baghdad following weekend attacks on four oil tankers in the Gulf.

 

"Even our short-range missiles can easily reach (U.S.) warships in the Persian Gulf," Mohammad Saleh Jokar, the deputy for parliamentary affairs of the elite Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), was quoted by Fars news agency as saying.

 

"America cannot afford the costs of a new war, and the country is in a bad situation in terms of manpower and social conditions," he added.

 

Washington has increased economic sanctions and built up its military presence in the region, accusing Iran of threats to U.S. troops and interests. Tehran has described those steps as "psychological warfare" and a "political game".

 

In Washington, a senior administration official said the United States is "sitting by the phone" but has heard no message yet from Iran that it is willing to accept Trump's overtures for direct talks.

 

"We think they should de-escalate and come to negotiations," the official, who declined to be identified, told a small group of reporters.

 

Trump has urged Iran's leadership to hold talks over its nuclear programme and regional influence amid rising tensions between the two countries that has fanned fears of armed conflict after the United States deployed an aircraft carrier group to the region.

 

Iranian army chief Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi vowed: "If the enemy miscalculates and commits a strategic error, it will receive a response which will make it regret (its action)," the semi-official news agency Mehr reported.

 

Senior lawmaker Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh called on Twitter for an Iran-U.S. "red desk" to help prevent a war.

 

"Top authorities in Iran and America have rejected a war, but third parties are in a hurry to destroy a large part of the world. A red desk should be set up in Iraq or Qatar with officials from the two sides ... to manage tensions," said Falahatpisheh, head of parliament’s national security committee.

 

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said this week Tehran would not negotiate another nuclear deal after Washington last year quit a 2015 international pact that put curbs on Iran's potential pathway to build a nuclear bomb in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

 

Trump believes the economic pressure will force Tehran to accept tougher restrictions on its nuclear and missile programs and on its support for proxies in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. He has said publicly he wants to pursue diplomacy after withdrawing from the deal and moving to cut all Iranian oil exports.

 

'SUPPORTIVE STATEMENTS' NOT ENOUGH

 

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, on a visit to Japan and China, said the international community and remaining signatories of the nuclear deal should act to save the accord as "supportive statements" are not enough.

 

Last week, Iran notified the five remaining signatories that it would reduce some commitments under the accord.

Tehran has asked the other signatories, including Germany, Britain and France, to help protect its economy from U.S. sanctions.

 

"Safeguarding the (nuclear accord) is possible through practical measures, and not only through supportive statements," Zarif was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA.

 

"If the international community feels that this (nuclear) accord is a valuable achievement, then it should take practical steps just like Iran does," Zarif said on Iranian state television. "The meaning of practical steps is fully clear: Iran's economic relations should be normalised."

 

Iran's economy is expected to shrink for the second year running and inflation could reach 40 percent, an International Monetary Fund senior official said last month, as the country copes with the impact of tighter U.S. sanctions.

 

The curbs under the nuclear deal were aimed at extending the time Iran would need to produce a nuclear bomb, if it chose to, to a year from roughly 2-3 months.

 

The United States and the U.N. nuclear watchdog believe Iran had a nuclear weapons programme that it abandoned. Tehran denies ever having had one.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-18

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

Possibly so but in the long run not such a good idea let us all hope that doesent happen

[BestB]

Interesting to note the supposedly biggest Iran’s ally Russia has also been rather silent on the subject and less than supportive of Iran .

 

Irans statements and responses are of a mad dog locked in a tiny cage with no support from anyone.

 

While I do not see much support for US actions, I also do not see much opposition to it

 

 

[Longcut]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Iran said on Friday it could "easily" hit U.S. warships in the Gulf

And the U.S. could easily wipe Iran off the face of the earth. But let's hope it never comes to that.

[neeray]

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"Even our short-range missiles can easily reach (U.S.) warships in the Persian Gulf,"

Oh gee, like the USA generals never considered this possibility? Of course they could hit one ship. But better be ready to be annihilated in return, about an hour or two later. Bolton will see to that.

 

While I am no defender of America's war machine, it's not something to be challenged by a little country like Iran.

[ThaiFelix]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Trump has urged Iran's leadership to hold talks over its nuclear programme

What is the point of having talks when history has proven repeatedly that agreements mean nothing to the US??

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:

What is the point of having talks when history has proven repeatedly that agreements mean nothing to the US??

 

Would going to war be preferable, then?

[Morch]

Quote

"America cannot afford the costs of a new war, and the country is in a bad situation in terms of manpower and social conditions," he added.

 

Whereas Iran...?

 

 

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"Even our short-range missiles can easily reach (U.S.) warships in the Persian Gulf,"

This is one of the political conundrums for the US.

Foreign fully loaded and armed warships are free to navigate the Hormuz Strait.

That includes Iran's right to sail Iranian-flagged missile-armed ships (regardless of whether the ships are designed as warships or commercial carriers) through the strait. Further complications might arise with unflagged or surrogate-flagged armed ships. One attack by any vessel and the US will assume the high-ground for quick retribution against Iran, ie., destruction of its naval sea ports. The "shoot first and ask questions later" policy that I'm sure Bolton would favor.

What's needed is a multi-nation treaty to demilitarize the strait (aside from some provision to protect against legitimate piracy). But with the US engaged in a policy of economic blockade and regime change in Iran, that's not going to happen.

[roquefort]

5 hours ago, neeray said:

Oh gee, like the USA generals never considered this possibility? Of course they could hit one ship. But better be ready to be annihilated in return, about an hour or two later. Bolton will see to that.

 

While I am no defender of America's war machine, it's not something to be challenged by a little country like Iran.

A little country? You mean like Vietnam?

 

Iran has 500,000 under arms and the 14th strongest military in the world. Hardly little.

 

First rule of war. Never underestimate your enemy.

[55Jay]

26 minutes ago, roquefort said:

A little country? You mean like Vietnam?

 

Iran has 500,000 under arms and the 14th strongest military in the world. Hardly little.

 

First rule of war. Never underestimate your enemy. 

Indeed.  Another cool adage is, "That which inhibits me also inhibits my enemy".

 

Iran's forces, gear, capabilities and limitations, are well documented by the US, and others.

 

[Odysseus123]

3 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Indeed.  Another cool adage is, "That which inhibits me also inhibits my enemy".

 

Iran's forces, gear, capabilities and limitations, are well documented by the US, and others.

 

Another cool adage is "always have an exit plan" or at least acknowledging the Clausewitzian wisdom that "War is a continuation of politics by other means."

[BestB]

4 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:

What is the point of having talks when history has proven repeatedly that agreements mean nothing to the US??

Point would be willingness to deescalate 

[MickeyDelux]

the vast majority of Iranians despise their repressive and corrupt government and view their countries leaders as despots promoting a failed ideology based on lies, bigotry, prejudice and ignorance, which happen to be the same principles of the American democratic party. 

[geoffbezoz]

Well in the recent past hasn't US warships actually hit other ships in 2017/18 ?  Didn't need the Iranians to help them ????

[Traubert]

1 hour ago, geoffbezoz said:

Well in the recent past hasn't US warships actually hit other ships in 2017/18 ?  Didn't need the Iranians to help them ????

Yup, container ships, oil tankers, each other.

 

.There's nothing so big that they cant fail to see it.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

This is one of the political conundrums for the US.

Foreign fully loaded and armed warships are free to navigate the Hormuz Strait.

That includes Iran's right to sail Iranian-flagged missile-armed ships (regardless of whether the ships are designed as warships or commercial carriers) through the strait. Further complications might arise with unflagged or surrogate-flagged armed ships. One attack by any vessel and the US will assume the high-ground for quick retribution against Iran, ie., destruction of its naval sea ports. The "shoot first and ask questions later" policy that I'm sure Bolton would favor.

What's needed is a multi-nation treaty to demilitarize the strait (aside from some provision to protect against legitimate piracy). But with the US engaged in a policy of economic blockade and regime change in Iran, that's not going to happen.

 

Considering ongoing issues and tensions between local countries and governments, not much likelihood that such a hypothetical agreement could be achieved or maintained - regardless of the USA's actions.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, roquefort said:

A little country? You mean like Vietnam?

 

Iran has 500,000 under arms and the 14th strongest military in the world. Hardly little.

 

First rule of war. Never underestimate your enemy.

 

People seem to forget Vietnam didn't come out unscathed from the war. Or that the country was ravaged by war for years. Doubt that's something Iranians are much into, and for what?

 

A country's military might isn't measured solely by the nominal number of soldiers in its army, or by army ranking in this or that list. May want to look up similar "assessments" regarding Iraq's forces prior to them being routed. That's not underestimating Iran, rather being realistic. Iranian posturing aside, I'm sure they know the score.

[bristolboy]

10 hours ago, neeray said:

Oh gee, like the USA generals never considered this possibility? Of course they could hit one ship. But better be ready to be annihilated in return, about an hour or two later. Bolton will see to that.

 

While I am no defender of America's war machine, it's not something to be challenged by a little country like Iran.

That little country sure helped inflict some big hurt on the USA in Iraq.

[rabas]

3 hours ago, MickeyDelux said:

the vast majority of Iranians despise their repressive and corrupt government and view their countries leaders as despots promoting a failed ideology based on lies, bigotry, prejudice and ignorance, which happen to be the same principles of the American democratic party. 

Maybe not a vast majority, but  more significant sectors of society yes. When you go there, they often talk about which officials carry razors for when the Islamic theocracy falls. One quick visit to the bathroom and they come out clean shaven on the other side.

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Whereas Iran...?

 

 

If the mullahs are backed into a corner where they judge that they have nothing to lose...

[rabas]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That little country sure helped inflict some big hurt on the USA in Iraq.

Unfortunately most of the hurt was inflicted on Iraqi.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If the mullahs are backed into a corner where they judge that they have nothing to lose...

 

Which is it, then? Iran's leaders are perfectly rational or Iran's leaders are a bunch of diehard zealots? But regardless, lets go back to the comment quoted:

 

Quote

"America cannot afford the costs of a new war, and the country is in a bad situation in terms of manpower and social conditions," he added.

 

So again, whereas Iran....?

 

The Iranian regime (or elements of) bears at least partial accountability for the situation the country is in. Being in that corner is not something which happened independent of Iranian  leadership's actions and policies. 

 

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Which is it, then? Iran's leaders are perfectly rational or Iran's leaders are a bunch of diehard zealots? But regardless, lets go back to the comment quoted:

 

 

So again, whereas Iran....?

 

The Iranian regime (or elements of) bears at least partial accountability for the situation the country is in. Being in that corner is not something which happened independent of Iranian  leadership's actions and policies. 

 

"Iran's leaders are perfectly rational or Iran's leaders are a bunch of diehard zealots?" So it's an either/or thing, is it? If one is not perfectly rational, (or at least not according to your values), then the only other possibility is that one is a zealot. And if the Iranians do provoke the US into a shooting war, by, say instigating attacks on US troops in Iraq, maybe their not entirely irrational calculation would be that American electoral politics won't be kind to Trump and the Republicans. And that all they have to do is hold on until Trump is gone.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

"Iran's leaders are perfectly rational or Iran's leaders are a bunch of diehard zealots?" So it's an either/or thing, is it? If one is not perfectly rational, (or at least not according to your values), then the only other possibility is that one is a zealot. And if the Iranians do provoke the US into a shooting war, by, say instigating attacks on US troops in Iraq, maybe their not entirely irrational calculation is that American electoral politics won't be kind to Trump and the Republicans. And that all they have to do is hold on until Trump is gone.

 

No, it isn't. And you should be well aware by now that sort of thing is alien to my way of thinking. Been over this numerous times in different contexts. Most of what you've posted as "interpretation" is utter nonsense, leading to some faulty imagined conclusions.

 

The two propositions in my post appear on many topics referencing Iran's leadership and/or it's decision making. The same is true with regard to other international situations - say, North Korea. As far as I recall, your own position usually asserts the supposed rationality of such leaders, and in my opinion, doing so by disregarding elements which fall outside of the norm in the West.

 

I've no idea what the muddled bit about what the Iranians may or may not do in Iraq was about.

 

 

 

[sammieuk1]

Looks like another pile of sand and rubble in the middle east soon then????

[Psimbo]

I don't know how Bennie the Thug zips up his trousers in the morning at the moment with the raging hard on he has for Trump.  The biggest problem in the Middle East at the moment is the Saudis and Israelis as they know they can (literally) get away with murder. Bolton (another Draft Dodger) is fostering this threat. Bear in mind the Iranians WERE complying with the  guidelines before the Orange Muppet pulled out- purely because it was another Obama Gov't thing he hates (the white supremacist that he is as demonstrated by his latest immigration announcement giving precedence to English speaking migrants. Good luck to that when he realises how many Indians and Philippinos speka da linga) . The Iranians are far better at  brinkmanship, as the Iraqis did with Bush, and are can play the long game.

[bristolboy]

Oh, please, cashing in that get-out-of-jail-card-free again? Who cares about your way of thinking? Maybe you've changed your mind since then. Who knows? Anyway, thanks for clearing up that you don't stand by your simplistic rhetorical question.

 

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy

 

Nobody is "cashing" on anything, certainly not "again". And yes, despite you pretending otherwise, regular participants of topics are aware of other posters' views. Many of these so called discussions been going on for years (literally). So the whole "who knows?" bit is contrived (you have no issues referencing posters' standing view when it suits). The "stand by" part is, again, a fake product of your own "interpretation".

Same old, on so many topics.

[puipuitom]

What was the name of that Iraqi minister of Information, who even told the Americans were in defeat, with the sound of Abraham tanks in Bagdad at the background ?