Iran: Attackers Would Face 'Hell'
 

AP


A month after President Bush warned that the United States hasn't ruled out military action against Iran, President Mohammed Khatami responded Thursday that his country would turn into a "scorching hell" for any possible attackers.

Khatami's comments, before a crowd of tens of thousands gathered on a snowy square in Tehran to mark the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, came amid an escalating exchange of rhetoric between the United States and Iran. Washington accuses Tehran of maintaining a nuclear weapons program, which Iran says is for peaceful energy purposes.

"Will this nation allow the feet of an aggressor to touch this land?" Khatami asked at the crowd. "If, God forbid, it happens, Iran will turn into a scorching hell for the aggressors."

His statements drew chants of "Death to America!" from the crowd.

Khatami is widely recognized as a leader of a moderate faction in Iran. Indeed, Khatami himself indicated in his speech that the talk of a possible U.S. invasion was pushing him into a united camp with Tehran's hard-liners against foreign meddling.

"The Iranian nation is not looking for war, violence and confrontation," Khatami said.

"But the world should know that the Iranian nation won't tolerate any aggression and will stand united against aggression despite differences," he said, referring to the internal divide in Iranian politics between reformers and the more conservative clerics.

Last week, Bush accused Iran of being "the world's primary state sponsor of terror," and last month he said his administration won't rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear program.

Until Khatami's statements, some had pointed to a possible softening in Iran's position in recent comments made by Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, who said that his country wants to resolve its differences with the United States.

But in his speech Thursday, Khatami was adamant that Iran wouldn't scrap its nuclear program. Iranian scientists worked hard to develop nuclear technology on their own and will not stop due to "the illegitimate demands of others," he said.

"We have decided to move toward scientific progress, including peaceful nuclear technology and we will continue this path," Khatami said.

Thousands of Iranians traveled through heavy snow to listen to Khatami's speech on Azadi, or Freedom, Square on the anniversary of the revolution that toppled the pro-U.S. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and brought the hard-line clerics to power.

The speech is the most recent volley in a war of words between U.S. and Iranian officials that did not seem to ease even after comments made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week that a military strike against Iran is "simply not on the agenda at this point."

Rice, in Luxembourg for talks with European Union diplomats, again assured the Europeans that the United States has no plans to attack Iran, but warned that Washington will accept no foot-dragging in Tehran during nuclear talks.

Khatami said Iran's decision to suspend uranium enrichment in November was a voluntary sign of good will that should be reciprocated by the International Atomic Energy Agency and European negotiators pressing Iran for concessions on its nuclear program.

The suspension, policed by the IAEA, is aimed at building trust and avoiding U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Under an agreement reached with Britain, France and Germany, who negotiated on behalf of the European Union, Iran will continue suspension of its enrichment activities during negotiations with the Europeans about economic, political and technological aid. Iran has said it will decide in three months whether to continue its suspension.




Iranian president Mohammad Khatami speaks during a ceremony for the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution on Thursday, Feb. 10, 2005.

The whole situation sounds exactly like Iraq before we invaded.

David...
 

I don't think so, since Israel quite some time ago proved that no one had to invade anyone, merely to take-out some nuclear sites.

Still, and whether for Iran, North Korea or wherever, I've never really gotten one thing clear in my mind about this nuclear business. How-the-hell do people considering it GOOD that each have thousands of nuclear warheads between themselves,...convince those having only a few nuclear warheads between themselves (plus convince ourselves also),...that such IS BAD?

Hey, put yourself in the other guy's shoes,...and just askin?

Neil :cd:

It's a tough sell to be sure. I think we try to convince them economically it will be to their advantage to give them up with economic sanctions if they refuse or promised payouts if they comply with our wishes.

Putting myself in their shoes would be rather difficult given their radical views on the world and religion. If they were a bit more moderate they could find a place for themselves in the new world order much as the Irish, Indians, and Russians have done with the high tech markets.

The thing these countries (South Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. etc.) refuse to see is that there is a new world order in the first place. They can whine and complain and bomb all they want but this simple fact will not change anytime soon.

Just my 2 cents worth:

Most Direct Route, President Says Under pressure to detail an exit strategy for Iraq, President George W. Bush said at a White House briefing today that he would not designate an exact timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. troops but added, ?The fastest way to bring the troops home would be through Iran.?

After reporters audibly gasped, the president explained that bringing the troops home through Iran would be ?the most direct route? and produced driving directions from Mapquest to back up his claim.

But less than an hour after his remarks, Iranian president Mohammed Khatami blasted Mr. Bush?s exit strategy, arguing that bringing U.S. troops home through Iran was far from the most direct route, and was, in fact, going totally in the wrong direction.

Using a map of the world and a magic marker, President Khatami showed that by traveling east rather than west, U.S. troops would have to circumnavigate the globe in order to reach their final destination.

In response, Mr. Bush acknowledged that it would be a long journey, but added, ?If necessary, we?ll stop in North Korea.?

On a related subject, Mr. Bush said that the vote-counting in Iraq?s historic presidential elections was not yet complete but that it looked like the winner would be actor Jamie Foxx, for his performance in ?Ray.?

?He?s won everything else so far,? Mr. Bush said.

Elsewhere, McDonald?s said it would follow up its successful promotion involving a French fry that looks like Abraham Lincoln by creating a Supersize vanilla shake that looks like Dick Cheney.


enough.......

David & Reeb...
 

True enough,...even though coming at it from two different perspectives.

Still, it must be realized that: "The New World Order"(an old time expression) currently used by The Largest Nuclear Power on Earth, isn't all that appreciated very much by MANY of The Nuke Have-nots.

America usually gets-away with: "The Bully Pulpet" here at home and in many cases abroad. But, when it comes to this dirty nuclear business of it being OK for America, France, Britain, China, now about 18(?) Russias, and others having stockpiles (in the thousands) of warheads 50(?) or 100(?) TIMES more powerful and devastating than Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nukes were,...I must believe that MANY of: "The Nuke Have-nots", and whether rightly or wrongly, just aren't to overly thrilled about America's current variation of that; "New World Order"? Or, and for that matter, just how exactly will the: "New World Order" be reinforced?

Don't believe We have any ACLU branches abroad, or that The ACLU even has A Nuclear Department?? :D :D

Neil :cd:

I am sure they are not happy with the new order, but then neither were we with Great Britain, or the rest of the world with the Spanish Armada. Such is human history :)

David...
 

"Such is human history" for sure,...and that's EXACTLY THE MAIN PROBLEM.

In fact, if long ago both: "Great Britain" and "The Spanish Armada" both had the sea and land based nuclear missiles of today, it's very unlikely that you and I (probably a couple of billion others also)...would even be around to have this little debate, TODAY.

I guess that in that context, we and most all other Americans should consider ourselves pretty-damn-lucky, since Today's American Leaders (of whatever bent) mostly treat international affairs or disputes as if just some naively-politically-correct project,...and/or that our many enemies when push comes to shove,...JUST WOULDN'T DARE?

Whatever,...Hope Our Luck doesn't-run-out and/or that our many enemies JUST WOULDN'T DARE under any circumstances?
Plus, and on this matter, I also honestly hope that EVERYONE ELSE is right about things, and I'm totally wrong with and over my concerns.

Neil

No doubt it will all come crashing down upon our collective heads one day Neil. I am not speaking of the downfall of America, but of humanity in general, should we continue to advance our sciences beyond our ability to reason the consequences of what is done with them ;)

Nukes in Iran, Nukes in North Korea, who is on our hit list next. Guess the polictical leaders of this world won't be happy until there is WWIII.