Iran's Rouhani warns Trump about 'mother of all wars'

Why do situations seem to get worse when Trump gets involved?

Gotta have that war somewhere! The Great Satan wants an 80s revival and all this meddling and upping the rhetoric should have the desired effect.

It will please terrorist allies Saudi Arabia and Israel no end.

America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars

Expect incoming trash on twitter for that one.

Kinda reminds me of the mother of all battles rhetoric by Saddam Hussein. See how that turned out for him. And warn Trump about the dangers of war? Seriously bad move IMO. Is Iran getting desperate or something?

Trump.

That is all.

Calm down Mr. Rouhani. Please wait until next US president election, Trump won't have anymore supports from Russia, it was wrong direction to help him to be president.

'mother of all wars'

Saddam's Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, anyone?

Super: "Why do situations seem to get worse when Trump gets involved?"

Lessee... U.S. economy doing great, unemployment for still minorities blacks and Hispanics at record low... risk of nuclear war with N.Korea and Russia less than it was during any time during Barack Nobel Peace Prize Obama's presidency... oh my...

From the article:

"The enemy's behaviour is unpredictable," military chief of staff General Mohammad Baqeri said, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported.

I just don’t understand why the Pentagon doesn’t get in touch with General Baqeri and just give him all contingency plans.

Toasted Heretic wrote:

It will please terrorist allies Saudi Arabia and Israel no end.

From an article of 23 April 2018 on alaraby.co.uk titled “Iranian commander threatens to destroy Israel within 25 years”:

Ali Shirazi, an aide to Iran's supreme leader, was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying Iran is capable of destroying Israel. If you provide an excuse for Iran, Tel Aviv and Haifa will be razed to the ground," he said.

I suppose trying to secure its borders makes Israel a terrorist state in your eyes. Threats by Iran to kill thousands of Jews and non-Jews alike makes the Iranian leadership terrorists in my eyes.

And remember, the authoritarian Iranian regime is capable of manufacturing an excuse itself.

Gotta have that war somewhere! The Great Satan wants an 80s revival and all this meddling and upping the rhetoric should have the desired effect.

So the US said specifically, they want a war?

It will please terrorist allies Saudi Arabia and Israel no end.

And you know this because?

Are the "Leaders" of the world BOUND and DETERMINED to DISTROY it ?

U.S. economy doing great

Is it a bubble like with GWB? I'm thinking I should sell my stocks. Should I? Trump has made me richer because my 401ks are up so much. Much more than presidents Obama or Hillary. But can I trust it?

Do you know why, out of the blue, when there is really nothing outwardly going on between Iran and the USA, Rouhani makes such a statement. Iran has been backed by Russia since the fall of the Shah. Now that Trump and Putin are friendly... Trump has given Putin what he wants in that the USA will not interfere in Eastern Europe and Trump will cooperate with Russia in Syria. What does Trump get... he can now attack Iran without Russia getting involved. Which I'm quite sure the Israeli's are very happy about too. This is why Rouhani is now making the statement about War.

Iran wouldn't even make the short list in regards to countries that had the power to wager a viable war against the U.S.

Iran has pretty much been left alone to develop nuclear weapons at will and when someone steps up the game (in this case President Trump) to try and stop it people say nasty stuff about him, I can assure you that Iran is one of the last countries that the world wants to have nukes.

The relationship between the USA and Iran isn't simple.

Iran was a very modern, prosperous, country. Then the religious fundamentalists took over the govt and things have never been the same.

Taking and holding 52 US hostages for 444 days didn't help.

Then Iran invaded Iraq.

Clinton setup the first strong sanctions blocking any trade with Iraq by US companies. Congress expanded this to include companies wanting to do business with the USA and Iran of over $20M - 7 penalties are outlines, but over 10,000 exceptions have been made.

Being #1 on the state-sponsored terrorists list isn't good.

Active cyber warfare efforts, sponsored by Iran.

Nuclear aspirations aren't helping either. Iran hasn't met the conditions outline previously to have sanctions removed due to their nuclear enrichment program(s).

@theFu, You are 100 percent correct and still got a down vote. Go figure JT posters.

Then Iran invaded Iraq.

Did it now? Getting your N's & Q's mixed up I fear, Iraq invaded Iran as we all know

@theFu, You are 100 percent correct

@yakayak, you are 100% wrong.

Impoverishing & antogonising Iran (or Iraq) is unlikely to help stability in the region. It might make Trump's base feel better though. Now if they could only find either country on a map.

To be fair, even if Trump is, unusual to say the least.

You got to be an equally unusual leader to honestly believe you stand a chance against the U.S.

Most wars the U.S has fought in in recent history, has also been while providing for overseas troops.

I hardly doubt any single country on this planet stands a chance against the full might of USA, and I'm not even a military loving American, but they've been pumping $500-$600 billion into their military for god knows how many years, and although salaries for some are high, that money doesn't just go under the carpet.

MiaTanaka@Superior weaponry and full control of the air and sea will still not defeat a determined foe fighting on its own soil, as evidenced by the war in Vietnam. After the expenditure of all that money and all those lives, the US was lucky to fight to a stalemate in Korea and has had to keep forces there for the past six decades. And no country, not even the US with its enormous military budget, can handle 2 or 3 conventional wars simultaneously. In 2003-2004 having troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq stretched the US military to its limits, and Bush 43 was forced to send in National Guard units that lacked training or experience. It did not play out well.

Ike-in-Tokyo, agreed on all points. Excellent post!

Fat history books weigh the world down.

This Islamic style rhetoric is loathesome.

The mother of all wars . . . sounds like something Trump would say.

Now, some people are laughing at the idea that Iran could fight a war with the US and emerge victorious.

Leaving aside the note that Iran has effectively done this once already (Saddam may have been the frontguy, and the moniker hung out it the 'Iran-Iraq war', but the reality is that the US wasn't just indirectly involved, it had its military directly on the frontline and firing on Iranians, and the Iranians achieved every strategic objective while the US achieved none of theirs) there is the differences in what each side would need to do to be victorious, and how much of their military capabilities they could devote to this war.

For the US to be victorious, they would need to break the Iranians will to be independent, or at least rob them of the capability to exercise their will in a meaningful way. The first means mass slaughter of the Iranians, and the installation of a puppet regime willing to oppress the population or invasion and occupation, while the second means mass slaughter of the Iranians, and the destruction of its industrial base with an ongoing process to keep them from rebuilding.

On the other hand, for Iran to be victorious, all they would need to do is make the war so costly to the US it would accept whatever terms Iran saw as the minimum it could accept.

As you can see, the point spread is significant.

Then there's the matter of what percentage of their capabilities both sides could devote to this war.

For the US, it can't open itself to its 'enemies' by pulling out of everywhere else. It can't pull out of South China Sea and expect nothing to change, probably irreversibly (indeed, even with what is has in the region, irreversible changes that the US doesn't want to happen are happening). Same for Europe, Africa, South America, and even in the Caribbean. It is the same problem they had in Iraq and Afghanistan, only orders of magnitude greater.

On the other hand, Iran can devote EVERYTHING it has to this war. Every threat to it would be outside its frontlines, and for the most part, if it manages to move the frontlines out, not only does that remain true, it gains resources that it can add to its efforts (think that the people of Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain, the UAE, or Palestine would support the US if the regimes weren't there? Think that the people of Syria, Lebanon, or Qatar want the only counterweight to Americas violent, oppressive allies in the region to disappear?) And while Iran has a very small STANDING army, it has put a lot of thought and effort into giving itself the capability to go from that small standing army to a pretty large one in a week or two. In the time it would take to get volunteers assigned to a few Basiji, the 'idle' factories could churn out the weapons, communication equipment, ammunition, supplies, armour, and probably even uniforms to turn them into competent infantry units, and most of the existing military units upweaponed and upequiped into heavy weapons and elite tactics units. And these would be units totally equipped with the latest weapons, armour, and ammunition, designed for exactly this battlefield, not stuff stockpiled for years and designed for wars someplace completely different, with the stuff they need in short supply, and trickling out of factories that were designed to take years to build up stockpiles of stuff from what was left over after supplying training exercises and drills, not active wars.

I'd also like to point out to some that while the US hasn't started a war where it ruling the skies unopposed was a given since Vietnam, in a war with industrialized, resourced, scientifically advanced, space capable Iran, it won't enjoy that advantage even if Iran stood alone. When your target only has a small amount of purchased air defense capability, and no way to make more (let alone make upgrades and adaptations based on previous engagements) you can stand out of effective range and fire cruise missiles and the like at those defences until they are destroyed. But when your target not only can make more, and better, air defences, but more, and better, cruise missiles to fire at your bases, you have to go in with everything while still taking a lot of fire and casualties, in the hopes of breaking through, even though such a breakthrough rarely happens.

theFritzXToday  06:44 am JST

This Islamic style rhetoric is loathesome.

You prefer Trump's tweets?

You prefer Trump's tweets?

Indeed, the liar's bellicose rhetoric is wonderfully evocative of a time long since past.

Whereas Rouhani is rightfully standing up to US meddling and still leaving the door open for negotiations.

Trump is cleaning up the mess left over from Obama, and to be fair, W before him.

"The mother of all wars . . . sounds like something Trump would say.

You're confusing Trump with Saddam's Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, hehe

 Tucker Carlson: We are moving toward confrontation with Iran. That should worry everybody, but it should especially concern the president’s supporters. If President Trump decides to go to war with Iran, it will destroy his presidency, just as the Iraq War destroyed the presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s65154ZJP0c

True! But remember Trump was calling Kim Jong Un Little Rocketman, and threatening fire and fury and now Kim's not firing rockets anymore and he's started dismantling his nuke sites.