Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

Iran Forum

Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.


But the United States and its European allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to seek Security Council action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.

The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.

"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to hurricane-affected states in the Gulf Coast. "And the international community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do."

John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, said Iran's comments showed how much of a menace it was.

"Their threats show why leaving a country like that with a nuclear weapon is so dangerous," he told The Associated Press in a phone call from Washington.

Bolton classified the Iranian comments as "reflecting their determination to acquire weapons."

Wednesday's meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council begins considering Iran's nuclear activities and international fears they could be misused to make weapons. It began with both Iran and the nations opposing its enrichment plans sticking to their positions.

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a senior Iranian delegate to the IAEA. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

He did not elaborate but suggested Iran was awaiting additional American moves.

But diplomats accredited to the meeting and in contact with the Iranians said the statement could be a veiled threat to use oil as an economic weapon.

Iran is the second-largest producer within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and a boycott could target Europe, China or India.

At an OPEC meeting in Vienna, Iran petroleum minister Sayed Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh deflected questions about Iran's threat, saying: "Ask the one who said that."

He later sought to ease worries about Iran's oil plans, telling reporters: "So far there's no reason to reduce exports. Iran has no intention whatsoever of reducing its oil exports."

Oil supplies are tight worldwide and prices already are high. Although the United States does not buy oil directly from Iran, any Iranian effort to tighten world supplies would effect oil prices in the United States.

Iran also has leverage with extremists in Iraq, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Islamic militant group Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in January. Both groups are classified by the U.S. State Department as terrorist organizations.

On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq.

Iran's statement was unusually harsh, reflecting Tehran's frustration at failing to deflect the threat of Security Council action against it in the coming weeks. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity.

"Our nation has made its decision to fully use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and all have to give in to this decision made by the Iranian nation," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in Iran. "We have made our choice."

Iran also attacked "warmongers in Washington" for what it said was an unjust accusation that Tehran's nuclear intentions were mainly for military use. It also suggested America was vulnerable, despite its strength.

"Surely we are not naive about the United States' ... intention to flex muscles," the statement said. "But we also see the bone fractures underneath."

It also threatened broader retaliation, without being specific, saying Iran "will adapt our policy and adjust our approach to conform with the new exigencies."

Earlier, U.S. delegate Gregory Schulte insisted in comments to the board that "the time has now come for the Security Council to act." He said the 85 tons of feedstock uranium gas already produced by Iran could produce enough material for about 10 nuclear weapons if enriched.

He ticked off Iran's decision to curtail agency inspections, its expanding uranium enrichment program and worrying conclusions by IAEA inspectors that suggest at least past interest in nuclear arms as contributing to "mounting international concerns" about Tehran's nuclear intentions.

Schulte listed Tehran's possession of plans that could only be used to make nuclear warheads, links between its nuclear programs and the military, and its determination to develop a large-scale enrichment program that could be misused to make nuclear arms.

"IAEA inspectors have no doubt this information was expressly intended for the fabrication of nuclear weapons components," Schulte said of documents showing how to form fissile material into warheads.

Separately, France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution clearing the path for Security Council action, warned that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg."

"We believe that the time has ... come for the U.N. Security Council to reinforce the authority" of the IAEA and its board, the European statement said.

Russia and China, which have Security Council vetoes, may use them to foil any resolution in that chamber that would meaningfully increase pressure on Iran, their political and economic ally. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing appealed Tuesday for more negotiations and suggested Security Council involvement was not needed.

The Chinese and Russian statements to the board were relatively moderate, said delegates inside the closed meeting. China urged "more time for diplomacy" before any Security Council action, one delegate said on condition of anonymity, quoting from the Chinese statement.
-------

-HECK!

Iran has been all bark and no bite for 20 years. It is how they negociate. Very much like N Korea.

USA1- forgive me if I'm incorrect, but didn't you mention elsewhere that you were in favor of the U.S. engaging Iran?

-HECK!

Right up until the bomb drops on this knucklehead, he will continue just as Saddam did. Defy the world with threats.
It's OK to believe Iran will start a conflict. It's also very dangerous to think they won't.
I truely believe that nothing will happen with this and that they will continue to build whatever it is they are building. Time will tell if it is a bomb or not.
It doesn't really matter what he says. It what they do and don't do that counts.

Frankly, I don't care if they have a bomb or not. Chances are it won't reach the US anyway. It's Europe and israel who have to worry. The US should jsut stay out of this and let those who are at risk handle it.
When Saddam threaten the US and sent his assasins, we dealt with it. Until then, we should stay out of it and let the Europeans handle it.

We are fighting Iran right now in Iraq.

Iran’s interest is diametrically opposed to the U.S., so it they certainly have the motivation to thwart us practically in Iraq, their adjoining neighbor. I have heard that Iran is importing its military expertise to Iraq to oppose our effort there on behalf of the Iraqi opposition. There was a TV news report two nights ago showing how the newest type of I.E.D.s are manufactured in Iran. They are much more advanced than the crude pipe bombs that were used when the offensive began.

The Iranian IEDs are manufactured with sophisticated, high production machine tools, and are engineered to be lethal enough to destroy any type of armored vehicle that we have. They discharge a slug of molten copper that can penetrate anything in its path. They said that truckloads of these IEDs coming into Iraq from Iran have been intercepted at the border recently. They said that the devices bear a manufacturing signature that proves they were produced in Iran.

I saw the same news report, but I don't know how that proves Iran is directly involved. Many extremists in the Middle East use the same argument when it comes to attack the US because weapons that kill people in their countries are manufactured in the US. I understand the logic, but it call comes down to whether you accept "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." It may be a sexual idiom, but I think it applies.

I wonder what influence the Kurds in north Iraq have on the Kurds in southern Turkey. I think it's obvious that the Shiite groups in Iran have some influence in Iraq. They definitely did in the past election there. Whatever comes out of Iraq will align itself with Iran.

Iran is certainly annoyed with the US however I would be more cautious of fighting Iran that Iraq for two reason 1. nearly all Iranians support the leader and 2. Iran actually has an army and more worringly an air force, when was the last time the RAF and USAF actually were involved in air to air combat?

Pretty sure the US will have to assit in this war unless you want to be branded the biggest hypcrites in recent history, remember waht you said about all these countries that stayed out the Iraq war, I assume Freedom Fries will be off the menu.

As for IED's sophisticated my ass, once you have the parts it's realitivly simple to put together, like most bombs easy to get parts, easy to make and easy to kill people. i would pretty much guarntee that the majority are made with pride in Iraq.

Hopefully Bush gets the intel now so he can do something about it next year.

Don't mess with Texas.


-HECK!

[QUOTE]USA1 said this in post #14 :
[B]

We are stopping them, how do you think we know about them in the first place?
The issue is Iran not why can't we prevent it or are we capable of preventing it? It's not that we can't stop it all, it's why should we have to?

Well if you are implying that nearly every IED in Iraq came from Iran then it's obvious there are problems with the border controls. From what has been said here it would appear that at most 2 trucks have been stopped that have had IEDs in them. The fact is that not enough are being stopped and that's a problem with the way the borders are controlled. Fact is that with all these apparent terroists and IEDS coming across the borders, border does not seem to be a big worry for the coaliotnor the Iraqi's.

There is actually rumours that these particular IED's are not financed by the Iranian government. If the IED blasts molten copper at very fast speeds and can penetrate Abraham tanks then it is not an Iranian designed bomb.

Back in the late 80's early 90's the UK Ministry of Defence designed an IED that does what I have stated, the molten copper made big holes in challenger tanks which was pretty surprising. These IED's were made and given to the SAS and Marines with the instructions to use to solve " problems" in Ireland. In the 90's an MI6 agent had a copy of the plans that he was to take to Ireland the agent never made it as he was killed by the Real IRA, the plans were obviously taken and were sold/ gifted to international terror organizations ETA, Al Queda definitely got these plans as did groups in Africa and we many terror groups either received or shared the plans. the British did the only viable thing which was to make a counter measure to the IED's. If Iranian groups have got the plans and are making our bombs that would mean they would need no government help and you have to remember that at this point in time nobody has any evidence that the Iranian government are directly involved.

Now I admit the story is a little far fetched but think back 3 - 4 months the UK charged the Iranian with flooding Iraq with IED's and that accusation stopped as soon as it started want to know why? because those IEDs the British found looked rather familiar and the British did not want to go through the embarrassment of bringing back up something we have tried to forget in the last 10 - 20 years.

It is clear that Iran is involved. It is clear they are sending weapons and IEDs. Does it matter if it is one truckload or two?
If Iran stayed out, there would be no need for 2000 security guards on the border would there? This isn't Iraqs fault or the coalitions fault. It is Irans fault. Just the same as it is for Syria allowing insurgents to enter from their border.

I don't see how you can put the blame on anyone other than Iran.

So the bombs came on a truck from Iran but there is n o evidence no smoking gun that the Iranian government was directly involved. If you have the plans you can make these things in a small hanger and nobdy would have to know what you are up to. Come on insurgents make the little brother of these things in Iraq without anybody knowing is it even possible that this is what is happening in Iraq.

I admit that I am open to the other side that the Iranian government may be involved it's just a shame that certain indviduals won't attempt to look at the other possabilities.

This story has been updated. Iran is sending trained "Revolutionary Guard" units in civilian clothes into Iraq. This is known and acknowleged by the US military. Invasion of Iran IMO is imminent.

First off it seems rather unlikely that the US is knowingly letting the Pasdaran wander into Iraq. Secondly if it is true you are telling us that the US is letting armed civlians come into the country. Thirdly is there the possibility that if this is true they are on a scouting mission? I can guarntee that US and UK troops will have scouted Iran.

Do you have a link to this story please.