world

Iran's Guard says ready for 'any scenario' amid U.S. standoff

51 Comments
By AMIR VAHDAT

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard is ready for combat 

Is Trump waiting as usual to see which side offers him the most money, or perhaps more trademarks for Ivanka Inc like those she and daddy arranged with the CCP?

*TRUMP HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD WHEN HE WAS DOING BUSINESS WITH ITS ASSOCIATES https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/trump-iran-revolutionary-guard-terrorist-organization*

I can't recall many leaders who've been as compromised as Trump. But then that's to be expected when a corrupt 'businessman' (given his numerous business failures that needs to be in quotes) becomes a corrupt politician. How much have his properties charged US taxpayers for his golf games paid for by the taxpayers? How many trademarks have Ivanka and daddy arranged with the CCP and other corrupt global politicians?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

First off, Iran's military have been gaming out and planning to react to, American attacks on the government, state, and/or population of Iran pretty much since the day they thwarted America's Saddam Hussein gambit.

And it is obvious that they didn't go for the very showy, but very expensive, cost plus, always running, American style of war readiness, but rather a 'rainy day' type approach.

Because Iran is physically large, resource rich, and able to rely on the willingness of its population to support the (democratically elected) government and make sacrifices to preserve their independence, it can actually take Mohammed Ali's 'rope a dope' approach, translated into the military venue.

And the US military is no longer Fraser in prime condition, able to keep throwing knockout punches round after round, after a week or two, it'll be down to jabs while gasping for breath ( the US has a limited stockpile of, and very limited production capacity for, it's absolute bleeding edge weapons that are better than what Iran can presently produce, but once those dry up, it'll be mostly shooting weapons that are only on par with Iran's present weapons until the stockpile of them is gone, and it goes rapidly downhill for American firepower from there, while the Iranian weapons get better and mass produced FAST)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Most people do not want this war. It is stupid. Over 100,000 dead Yemeni civilians are a testament to the consequences, which would only get worse. It is strange that there is so little outrage over the deaths of many tens of thousands of civilians, but there is a lot of outrage over an attack against petroleum refineries. Why is the U.S. threatening to go to war against Iran, instead of against Saudi Arabia?

Here in California there are ex-pat Iranians in every facet of life. They left Iran for a reason, but I think most of them do not want to see Iranians back home dying for no reason. For example, our extremely qualified personal physician is from Iran. He told me he left to get away from the crazy conditions imposed by mullahs. Still, he does not want to see his country bombed. Can't say I disagree with him.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Iran wants war. You can see that by where they've placed their country, right in the middle of a ring of US military bases!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Is there a Republican in the White House? Then they'll be a war in the Middle East - its a given.

A war with little planning on what to do after victory. A war that will result in many deaths on both sides. A war that will cost billions and drain our economy.

We are already engaged in two wars brought on by Republican Presidents - and can't extract ourselves from either.

Don't let this Republican President, who is also an imbecile, take us into another war.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Iran wants war. You can see that by where they've placed their country, right in the middle of a ring of US military bases!

And look at how much effort they've gone into getting their agreements ripped up, and having sanctions placed upon themselves.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's September, time for the new season of The White House. On this season, Trump faces difficulties selling his Iran war to a public still weary after Iraq and the ISIS debacle. President Trump knows however that war in Iran is a requirement to shore up his base by following through with his campaign promises, thereby promising himself another electoral win in 2020. How will he balance his own goals against the weary and angry public? This season, there are more nefarious plot twists, back-stabbery, winning, and scandalous fake news than in any other season. We present to you, The White House 2019: Trump Trumps Iran! Weeknights and weekends on everything you see anytime anywhere in the world on anything.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A war with little planning on what to do after victory

But the war made defense industries and their financial backers even richer. The chaos after the 'victory' (a victory most likely of the 'Mission accomplished' variety) ensures the sales of even more weapons, making the defense industries and their financial backers even richer.

And there's always another nation to fear, that's a 'threat', another place for the politicians who get huge donations from the defense industries to cry 'be afraid of the X's', thereby justifying to the ever fearful sheep that their tax dollars shouldn't be spent on healthcare, education, infrastructure, things that will help them, that it's the masters of war that need their money.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is the scheduled war a result of actions of the Deep State the right keeps talking about?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This all new coming war brought to you by the people who told us ISIS was defeated. Nobody wants to talk about the ISIS attack in Karbala. Where do you think they will go next?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is talk of a complete withdrawal of service to Iran's central bank. Cut it off from the world. Not sure which is going to cause more sufferings, an attack on key Iranian military facilities, or for the entire country to shrivel up and die a long slow death.

Bolton is gone, but his methods are still there, I think, finally, there is a setting to strangle Iran. What it takes now is for there to be an appearance of a strong replacement leader to take over once people have had enough of the mullahs and their obsession with nukes.

Sigh a country with vast wealth, but prefers to pursue nukes rather than enjoying wealth. Religious ideology strikes again!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The US is heel bent on starting another war in an attempt to flex its muscle and try to maintain its global dictatorship. Many nations are sick and tired of US global domination and are starting to push back and the US is prepared to take the world to WWIII in order to maintain its domination. The question is: will the nations of the world allow the US to start WWIII or will they start to contain the US? Many nations have already give up their sovereignty to the US, so it is up to the citizens of these nations to start protesting and taking control to their government, holding their elected politicians to account. If citizens don't act soon it will be too late and we will suffer the consequences of giving the US carte blanche.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sh1mon M4sada: "Sigh a country with vast wealth, but prefers to pursue nukes rather than enjoying wealth."

I assume your are referring to the US. Which nation started the nuclear race and which is the only nation to have used "nukes" against a civilian population?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Is the scheduled war a result of actions of the Deep State the right keeps talking about?

LOL, conspiracy theories don't stop wars.

Wars is an inevitable failure of diplomacy. In Iran's case, threats of annihiliation of its neighbours, threats to pursue nukes and actual records of developing nukes is their own failure in diplomacy. Don't blame anything or anyone else.

On the same day a visiting Japanese PM has talks with Iran, a Japanese tanker was attacked, and an Iranian patrol boat caught in the act on camera. That's a massive diplomacy fail, and that's being kind, because it's actually hostility doubled down face to face.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Sh1mon M4sada: "You completely ignored the fact USA's pursuit of nukes was not at the expense of pursueing wealth."

Tell this to the 10% homeless in the US or the people that cannot afford medical treatment.

"Your bias in every post". This is not bias it is history, the state of affairs. Why do you keep trying to ignore/rewrite history? Even the CIA state that Iran has not been chasing a "nuke" program but you continue to ignore this fact. Why? It doesn't fit your narrative?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Is there a Republican in the White House? Then they'll be a war in the Middle East - its a given.

Did Trump vote for or otherwise support the Iraq war? Nope.

Did Democrats Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden vote for the Iraq war? Yep.

Oh my. Guess you'll have to walk back that "it's a given" eh?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

You completely ignored the fact USA's pursuit of nukes was not at the expense of pursueing wealth. Whikst Iran's pursuit of nukes, in times of sanctions directly related to nukes is abhorrent, not to mention that the world now sees nuclear proliferation as a zero sum game.

What? Can you explain the fact again? The above is not clear at all. What exactly is the difference?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Is there a Republican in the White House? Then they'll be a war in the Middle East - its a given.

Did Trump vote for or otherwise support the Iraq war? Nope.

Did Democrats Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden vote for the Iraq war? Yep.

Oh my. Guess you'll have to walk back that "it's a given" eh?

I'll walk it back as soon as you prove Repub Bush Sr wasn't President in 1991 and Repub Bush Jr wasn't President n 2003....

And that Repub VP Cheney didn't have a rogue intel shop cheery-picking info supporting a war...or that Repub Bush Jr's CIA Director didn't say WMD was a "slam-dunk"...

We'll be waiting....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Years of Yemeni children being bombed by Saudi Arabia and America is silent. One Saudi oil pump destroyed and it's WWlll.

The Saudis have spent billions of dollars buying our fighter jets and missiles and all sorts of other equipment, so let them use the finest hardware in the world to defend themselves. Isn't that what they bought it for?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Iran's Revolutionary Guard may be "ready for any scenario", but I wonder how they'd actually go if faced with the multi-multi-billion dollar investment that is the US military. There was the same talking-up of Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard before the Iraq War, and they were shot to pieces in no time. Yet we still had to put up with the obscenity of US triumphalism over an outgunned and under-equipped Iraqi army.

This war shouldn't happen. Sure, Iran has upped the ante since Trump walked away from the nuclear deal of 2015. What do you expect a country to do if you effectively declare a Cold War on it? Just roll over?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Kuwait Flour mills and Bakeries Co. as saying that it has foodstuffs available for upward of eight months if necessary. 

So did Leningrad in 1941. The warehouse caught fire and a million Russians starved to death.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Saudis have purchased and been trained on the best US military technology. They can fight Iran without the USA sending in troops. We dont need middle eastern oil but Europe and Asia do, so let them help the Saudis.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What's keeping America from starting this war is NOT a war weary public (didn't stop the US from starting its second war on Iraq with the war on Afghanistan dragging on, and the ridiculous belief in the Nukers conspiracy theories is still high)

Nor is it Trump's character keeping him unwavering in his opposition to starting one because he made a campaign promise to (he's never sticked to his word on anything, and his base is stuck to him more firmly than stink to a pile of feces)

Nor is it the 'deep state' of oligarchs and corporate parasites (they make bigger profits from the US losing a war than they do from it winning one)

No, what's holding the US (and the Israeli regime, and it seems like the Sauds, too) back from starting a war with Iran are its military high command not wanting to go down in history as the commanders who lost a war disastrously despite all their (supposed) advantage.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

military high command not wanting to go down in history as the commanders who lost a war disastrously despite all their (supposed) advantage.

And how many times in a row now? Not so sure about your theory considering that. Oh, I am sure the military top brass does not want to, but they have a deal with and are part of the MIC. If Colon Bowel could turn on a dime over-night, I am sure they all can too.

Personally I think what is holding them back is the fear that ordinary Americans are about to wake up and get all 1960s on their butts again. Either that or so much faith lost in the establishment that people don't even bother with all that phony patriotism nonsense anymore. Too much apathy could also be bad for the MIC.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How's that new nuclear deal coming along?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A war will not keep American citizens safe (or those of any other allied country).

This was proven by 9/11. A few individuals - who ironically happened to be Saudis, citizens of the good guy - sadly killed thousands and wreaked havoc and chaos on the world economic stage while instilling an unprecedented grip of fear across the world. A handful.

A few, I repeat a few, lower tech missiles and drones hit and damaged the largest oil plant in the world, again freaking out the world - oh no how'm I gonna take the kids to soccer if there's no petrol (sarcasm).

How many low tech weapons in the hands of hell bent individuals are needed to paralyze the democratic world's livelihood. Just a few.

How many sleeper cells - individuals - exist anywhere at anytime with the potential to unleash destruction on unsuspecting targets. Just a few.

How many hi-tech rogue hackers are necessary to disable military or civil systems - like take out swathes of a power grid for example. Just a few.

If any simpleton in the 21st century, believes crushing a country with 19th C tactics will bring about calm and peace just isn't looking at the world as it is.

Yes - known individuals, groups and wannabe armies must be sought out and disabled in the least or destroyed completely, but for some to suggest Mass War against sovereign countries is the answer, is a folly overwhelmingly geared to failure.

The only winners will be War Machine Inc with their $Billions of blood money sales.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Did Trump vote for or otherwise support the Iraq war? Nope.

Trump sent out mixed messages about the Iraq war. It sounds like he supported it early on and then changed his mind.

The idea that he never expressed support for it is yet another lie from a pathological liar.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Is there a Republican in the White House? Then they'll be a war in the Middle East - its a given.

Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... democratic presidents.

Trump inherited the democrat toilet fodder. Quit blaming him for the crap democrats imbibed!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yes, I'm fully aware Bush n Co were Republicans, but let's face it, they were just democratic puppets, so same thing.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Is there a Republican in the White House? Then they'll be a war in the Middle East - its a given.

Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... democratic presidents.

Both started under Bush 2.

they were just democratic puppets

LOL. The worst attempt to cover for a ridiculous post I’ve ever read.

That was a beauty!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Let's face it, they were just democratic puppets, so same thing.

“What is the cost of lies? It’s not that we will mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that, if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.”

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard is ready for combat and "any scenario," its chief commander said Saturday,

You had better be ready Iran.

Since General Mattis departure as Centcom commander.

Ever notice since Obama took Mattis off the chess board. Iran has become more and more aggressive. No one wants a war with Iran. Not even Trump. Why? Nuclear program's plain and simple. In 2012 I firmly remember the U.S. being on record as (passive wimps on Iran).

My government and the U.S. stance and preference as well position was for diplomacy over military action, nearly three out of four respondents, including 69 percent of Republicans, said the U.S. should act primarily through the U.N. Security Council, rather than unilaterally, in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. Bad call as we see now.

Doubt much has changed now here in 2019. Do not care much about what the Democrats think. Worthless and spineless on a whole other level on the subject of Iran. With exception of Hillary Clinton on one rare occasion. When she running as a Presidential Candidate she reiterated a message directly to Tehran. That if she were president, the United States could “totally obliterate” Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel. I wonder if she meant it? Maybe stump talk. (blowhard). However, my antenna went up when I heard say that or read it somewhere.

I wonder if she was POTUS how her reaction would be over a few seized tankers and this oil refinery hit? Its just been seething blasts from her in Trumps direction about how incompetent my Republican President is. Same ole same ole.

Iran needs a serious wake up call. There will be no ground combat Iran.

Here is how I think a war with Iran would be like in beginning.

The U.S. strategy would almost certainly involve using overwhelming air and naval power to beat Iran into submission early on. (123 Tap out) “You don’t poke the beehive, you take the whole thing down,”The US military would bomb Iranian ships, parked warplanes, missile sites, nuclear facilities, and training grounds, as well as launch cyberattacks on much of the country’s military infrastructure. The goal would be to degrade Iran’s conventional forces within the first few days and weeks, making it even harder for Tehran to resist American strength.

So yes Iran. You had better be ready if war is a coming.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Another false flag like 9/11 and the US will get their war!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Is there a Republican in the White House? Then they'll be a war in the Middle East - its a given.

Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... democratic presidents.

Trump University grad....History Major.....

Trump inherited the democrat toilet fodder. Quit blaming him for the crap democrats imbibed!

Toilet fodder - a very accurate description of the Trump Crime Family....

Yes, I'm fully aware Bush n Co were Republicans,

Not according to your post above...

but let's face it, they were just democratic puppets, so same thing.

Really? Who said this in 2012...

As Obama was running for re-election, Trump called Clinton “terrific” again in an interview with Fox News, saying she performed well as Secretary of State.

“Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.

Donnie the Democrat!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

“What is the cost of lies? It’s not that we will mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that, if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.”

We're already there, imo. Have been for a long time. The current President has just legitimized the art of trashing the line between truth and lies as a respectable political philosophy, to be shouted out by uncritical supporters as an article of faith - with all the lack of rationality that the word 'faith' suggests.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The real danger is that, if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.”

We're already there, imo. 

I agree. Unfortunately, the rest of your post seems confirm it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yes, I'm fully aware Bush n Co were Republicans, but let's face it, they were just democratic puppets, so same thing.

The neo-cons and the neo-libs are all globalists.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes, I'm fully aware Bush n Co were Republicans, but let's face it, they were just democratic puppets, so same thing.

The neo-cons and the neo-libs are all globalists.

You know, like having global interests all over the word; hotels, golf courses, casinos.....

Even getting your clothing line made in China instead of in American factories!

Donnie the Globalist!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Unfortunately, the rest of your post seems confirm it.

Hmm... blinkers on?

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/10/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump

https://www.factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/

And so many more... Truth? Lies? Just MSM/Fake News to Trumpians, I guess.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Donnie the Globalist!

But, lincolnman, so many Trump haters say he's a nationalist. He can't be both. Which is it?

Hint: Those Trump haters in this one case are correct!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'd first like to point out that there is a world of difference between being a military commander who successfully eliminated the army of a country, removed the government of a country, but wasn't able to secure the whole country, and one who attacked a country and did none of those things, and was forced to retreat not just wait for orders to go elsewhere. The first is not considered a military failure, the second is.

And yes, the US is almost certainly going to try the 'shock and awe' tactic and a 'war at a distance' if it attacks Iran, but the problem with that is that Iran has lots of factories spread across a large country, and as a space capable, resource rich, industrialized country, it's defences against incoming attacks won't quickly fade away to nothing, but will start out fairly strong, and IMPROVE over time (a large and productive scientific community, like Iran has, will see to that)

Same thing will happen with its counterattacks with offensive distance weapons (attack drones, missiles, rockets, cruise missiles) that, if you believe the American and Saud claims that the successful attack on a key Saud and American resource protected by serious air defences was done with Iranian built drones and cruise missiles, are already capable of hitting defended targets.

(Almost totally absent from the coverage of the attacks, and the coverage of the claims that Iran carried them out, is that the Yemeni opposition, which includes the bulk of the Yemeni army, recently made major progress in upgrading the drones they were able to make domestically, going from inefficient propeller driven drones to jet engine drones)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Donnie the Globalist!

But, lincolnman, so many Trump haters say he's a nationalist. He can't be both. Which is it?

Hint: Those Trump haters in this one case are correct!

Nationalist? As in White Nationalist? Oh yea, definitely.

He's a White Nationalist who is also a globalist and a former Democrat....

Ans we can't forget Moron....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Years of Yemeni children being bombed by Saudi Arabia and America is silent. One Saudi oil pump destroyed and it's WWlll.

No, but it would seem that’s what the Iranians want.

The Saudis have spent billions of dollars buying our fighter jets and missiles and all sorts of other equipment, so let them use the finest hardware in the world to defend themselves. Isn't that what they bought it for?

They can, they should, hope so, but what they do need now is a missile shield defense system, that will solve all their problems.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

it would seem that’s what the Iranians want.

We don’t need to guess about what Iran wants. We know. They want to sign an agreement with the rest of the world whereby they become members of the world community, instead of in conflict with it.

Trump decided that wasn’t a very good attitude.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

He's a White Nationalist who is also a globalist and a former Democrat..

Nothing wrong with being a nationalist/patriot, doesn't matter if you're white, black or whatever.

Doing business in other countries doesn't make you a globalist in the context of being a globalist like the Bushes and the Clintons are. Yeah, he was a Democrat long ago when the Democrats were still sane.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Doing business in other countries doesn't make you a globalist in the context of being a globalist like the Bushes and the Clintons are.

What is that context? I'm not clear on how the Bushes and Clintons are globalist. I'm not even clear on what exactly globalist is. Can you please explain more about what globalism is, how the Bushes and Clintons are said globalists, and how Trump is not also a globalist even though he does business internationally, which would seem to be what the word would mean.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So no one can tell me who the globalists are, or what their agenda is? People are always going on about them, and someone even mentioned the other day that I'm gullible and brainwashed by the said globalist's agenda, but no one seems to be able to explain who they are and what that is.

Am I just misunderstanding it? Is it 'globalist' just the modern day term for the boogeyman? Someone/something to blame all of society's ills on, without having to actually deal with the reality of them?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So no one can tell me who the globalists are, or what their agenda is?

Have a look at this, Strangerland.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Globalism

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Can you just summarize it for me?

I’m trying to figure out if the people you refer to as globalists are the same people others are referring to as globalists.

So who are the globalists to you? Can you name some names? And which parts of their agenda do you personally find the most appalling?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hmm so many posters here go on and and on about globalists, yet none of them can tell me who they are or what their agenda is. I’m starting to think that ‘globalist’ is just a new word for ‘boogeyman’. A mythological being for which they can blame anything they don’t like. Mommy, I think there’s a globalist in my closet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So who are the globalists to you? Can you name some names?

H.W. Bush. GWB. The Clintons. Merkel.

And which parts of their agenda do you personally find the most appalling?

Their quest for power and control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites