Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 10:52 AM Feb 2012

Iran Threatens Preemptive Action




(CNN) -- Iran warned Tuesday it would strike against an "enemy" threatening it if needed to protect its national interests -- even if the enemy didn't attack first.

Gen. Mohammad Hejazi, a deputy head of Iran's armed forces, said his country "will no more wait to see enemy action against us," according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.

"Given this strategy, we will make use of all our means to protect our national interests and hit a retaliatory blow at them whenever we feel that enemies want to endanger our national interests," Hejazi said.

Fars added that in November, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had "warned enemies about Iran's tough response to any aggression or even threat."


http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/world/meast/iran-warning/index.html

Iran sets conditions for oil to European nations

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran has laid out conditions for future oil exports to other European countries after halting sales to Britain and France earlier this week, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Tuesday.

The remarks by the spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, came a day after oil prices jumped to a nine-month high above $105 a barrel following Iran's announced halts in crude shipments in an escalation of the dispute over the country's nuclear program.

Tehran also said Monday it was considering extending the oil embargo to other European Union countries. The halt in crude to British and French companies was an apparent pre-emptive blow against the EU after the bloc imposed sanctions on Iran's fuel exports, including a freeze of the country's central bank assets and an oil embargo set to begin in July.

Many Western countries fear Iran's nuclear program masks ambitions to build atomic weapons, and have carried out a string of sanctions aimed to press Iran to cooperate. Iran denies the charges, saying its program is for civilian-sector uses, such as generating electricity.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iran-sets-conditions-oil-european-133233506.html
39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Iran Threatens Preemptive Action (Original Post) SunsetDreams Feb 2012 OP
They learned libtodeath Feb 2012 #1
Not so much RZM Feb 2012 #5
Whatever libtodeath Feb 2012 #6
I'd expect them to issue statements like this RZM Feb 2012 #7
Do you think libtodeath Feb 2012 #8
I disagree - I think they would have made such a declaration anyways n/t MrBig Feb 2012 #9
History lessons bongbong Feb 2012 #12
the poster was talking about a declaration SunsetDreams Feb 2012 #13
Have a nickel bongbong Feb 2012 #23
You're right, it is a common occurrence MrBig Feb 2012 #34
That's not correct RZM Feb 2012 #18
Still more history lessons for you bongbong Feb 2012 #21
Yes we know this. The rulers were of mixed (mostly Turkic) ancestry RZM Feb 2012 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author bongbong Feb 2012 #28
Umm Hmmm bongbong Feb 2012 #30
States are more than their rulers RZM Feb 2012 #31
asdf bongbong Feb 2012 #35
"Persia hasn't attacked anyone for thousands of years." EX500rider Feb 2012 #26
How many bongbong Feb 2012 #29
None. I picked out the ones which were started by Iran/Persia. n/t EX500rider Feb 2012 #32
If you say so bongbong Feb 2012 #36
I don't say so, history says so... EX500rider Feb 2012 #38
Bush DID make "pre-emptive WAR" the official policy of the USA, bvar22 Feb 2012 #14
So Iran isn't capable of making a statement that Bush didn't make first? RZM Feb 2012 #20
No. bvar22 Feb 2012 #22
Pretty much. But . . . RZM Feb 2012 #27
You have a point. bvar22 Feb 2012 #33
They can't do that, only the Empire can. :sarcasm: nt raccoon Feb 2012 #2
doesn't 'retaliatory blow' mean exactly the opposite of the headline? Viva_La_Revolution Feb 2012 #3
the bu$h* doctrine lives on.... spanone Feb 2012 #4
They just want to raise fear headline, to raise oil prices. julian09 Feb 2012 #11
The Double Dog Dares and bluster from all sides doesn't bode well for the innocents. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #10
Can you hear The DRUMS? bvar22 Feb 2012 #15
Sounds like the Iranian version of "All options are on the table". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #16
Yep. n/t Cali_Democrat Feb 2012 #37
There is a bipartisan push for war with Iran. AtomicKitten Feb 2012 #17
Good for them SoonerPride Feb 2012 #19
I have a bit of sympathy for Iran, actually. Blue_In_AK Feb 2012 #24
LOL...the media is trying to scare people with that picture Cali_Democrat Feb 2012 #39
 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
5. Not so much
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 11:14 AM
Feb 2012

W wasn't the first person to launch an attack. He didn't invent preemptive war.

Nor is he responsible for the statements or actions of the Iranian government.

libtodeath

(2,888 posts)
6. Whatever
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 11:21 AM
Feb 2012

the bush doctrine states that preemptive war or attack was our official policy at the same time saying Iran was part of the axis of evil and then invaded Iraq.
What would anyone expect them to do?

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
7. I'd expect them to issue statements like this
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 11:29 AM
Feb 2012

Which are calculated to elicit just this response from the Western left. The US and Iran engaged in an undeclared scrap in the Gulf in the 80s, during the Iran/Iraq War. Carter planned a commando raid against them as well. Tension and threats between the two countries are nothing new. Blaming Bush for Iran's actions unfairly absolves them of responsibility for what they say and do. Bush certainly didn't ratchet down the tension with Iran, but a war of words has been going on for more than 30 years now. Bush was a part of it, not the cause.

Iran owns what it says and does, for better or worse, just like every other sovereign nation.

libtodeath

(2,888 posts)
8. Do you think
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:11 PM
Feb 2012

they would have made such a specific declaration prior to idiot boy saying that we would attack first and ask questions later?
I doubt it so it does land squarely on his shoulders.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
12. History lessons
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:58 PM
Feb 2012

Persia hasn't attacked anyone for thousands of years.

History disagrees with you.

SunsetDreams

(8,571 posts)
13. the poster was talking about a declaration
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 01:02 PM
Feb 2012

which is what the OP is about, a declaration, not an actual attack.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
23. Have a nickel
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:59 PM
Feb 2012

Saber-rattling isn't war. If as you say the OP was just about saber-rattling, than that's a pretty common occurrence.

MrBig

(640 posts)
34. You're right, it is a common occurrence
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 05:49 PM
Feb 2012

Which is why, even if Bush II hadn't issued his doctrine, Iran would still have made such a declaration. A previous poster disagrees with that assessment. Actually going to war wasn't part of the discussion as far as I'm aware.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
18. That's not correct
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:30 PM
Feb 2012

The Safavid Dynasty, which ruled Persia from the 16th-18th centuries, expanded from a small base of power to eventually control a fairly large empire, much of it acquired through military might. They were rivals of the Ottoman Empire and engaged in numerous conflicts with them. They were also a Shi'a dynasty and are responsible from turning Persia from a Sunni to a Shi'a area.

In fact, their harrying of the Ottomans on the latter's eastern flank is sometimes used as an anti-Shi'a argument by Sunnis. This argument holds that had the Safavids not tied down Ottoman forces in the East, the Ottomans could have expanded much further into Europe and claimed it for Islam. But those pesky Shi'a Safavids prevented them from doing that, or so it's argued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavids

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
21. Still more history lessons for you
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:57 PM
Feb 2012

THe Safavids were not native Persians, they were of Turkish origin, immigrated into Persia and did a distinctly un-Persian thing by pursuing empire.

Nice try, too bad it failed.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
25. Yes we know this. The rulers were of mixed (mostly Turkic) ancestry
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:27 PM
Feb 2012

Yet many Persians staffed the bureaucracy, religious orders, and served in the military. Without their support or participation, the state wouldn't have survived long. There was of course tension between groups within the state, but that's pretty common in large empires. Iran has always been a diverse place and remains so today. As late as the middle of the last century, less than half of Iran's population even spoke Persian at home. Even today it's only in the 60-70 percent range. Diversity is the name of the game there and it always has been.

In order to make YOUR point, you'll have to show that Persian elements in the state didn't back military policy.

Response to RZM (Reply #25)

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
30. Umm Hmmm
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:36 PM
Feb 2012

> Without their support or participation, the state wouldn't have survived long.

Now you're just throwing crap up there and seeing if it sticks. You have no idea what you're talking about.

> In order to make YOUR point, you'll have to show that Persian elements in the state didn't back military policy.

No, I'd have to prove that the only time the Persians went empire-hunting is when non-Persians were running things.

Which I already did.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
31. States are more than their rulers
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:49 PM
Feb 2012

You need more than a royal family to 'run things.' The population has to do that, because states are far more than their rulers. Besides, like I said, Iran has long been quite diverse and different groups have had many influences on one another. The Turkic ruling dynasties were much influenced by Persian culture and vice-versa.

If you want to make the argument that expansion is inherently 'un-Persian' you need to provide evidence of that. Saying the ruling dynasties that presided over expansion were Turkic isn't enough. You have to show that Persians either opposed empire-building or were indifferent to it. Seeing as they actively participated all manner of state activities (including expansion) that's going to be difficult.

I'm not 'throwing crap.' I'm countering your thin arguments with reason and evidence. I suspect you are trying to waste my time here.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
35. asdf
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 06:53 PM
Feb 2012

> I'm countering your thin arguments with reason and evidence.

So pulling "You need more than a royal family to 'run things.' The population has to do that, because states are far more than their rulers" out of somewhere is "reason"? I guess you aren't aware of everyday life in Middle Eastern countries like Persia hundreds of years ago. Your "truisms" and "reasonable" guesses as to how things happened, and what influence ordinary people had on their rulers (for that era, and in that region, in a word: close to zilch) have nothing to do with history.


> If you want to make the argument that expansion is inherently 'un-Persian' you need to provide evidence of that.

I did. Persians didn't invade other countries. Hard to argue with history. I suspect you are trying to waste my time here.

EX500rider

(10,531 posts)
26. "Persia hasn't attacked anyone for thousands of years."
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:30 PM
Feb 2012

Right...you mean beside these 12 times?

(going back only 600 years, the list would be a lot longer if it went back "thousands" of years)

Ottoman/Safavid War of 1602 & 1623
Ottoman/Persian War of 1743 & 1821
Afghan/Persian War 1798, 1821, 1836 & 1855
Georgian/Persian War 1795 & 1821
Russo/Persian War of 1825
Dhofar War 1973

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
36. If you say so
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 07:08 PM
Feb 2012

There are a *FEW* (like a couple) of wars that the Persians started after the time of Xerxes, but only *ONE* on your list was initiated by them.

Did you decide to just post BS and see if it stuck?

EX500rider

(10,531 posts)
38. I don't say so, history says so...
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 07:46 PM
Feb 2012

....all the ones I listed were started by Persian attacks, some were continuations of earlier wars, some weren't.

Let look at some of those I mentioned:

Georgian-Persian War-(1795-1796)-After consolidating his power, Agha Mohammed invaded the Caucasian kingdom of Georgia, which had previously been a part of the Persian Empire, but had broken away following the death of Nadir Shah in 1747. Persian forces invaded Georgia and defeated the Georgian King Heraclius.

See the part where it says "Persian forces invaded...."?

Afghan-Persian War-(1798)-The new Shah of Persia, Fath Ali, supported a pretender to the Afghan throne against the Afghan King. The pretender, Muhammad Barakzai overthrew his brother, Zaman, with help from an invading Persian army.

Again, "invading Persian Army".

Afghan-Persian War-(1816)-Persia invaded Afghanistan and occupied the western Afghan city of Herat. Local Afghan guerrillas forced the Persians to exit Afghanistan.

Turkish-Persian War-(1821-1823)-The regime of Crown Prince Abbas Mirza launched an attack on Ottoman Turkey due to Turkish aid to Azerbaijani rebels in Persia. The rebels had fled from Persia and were given refuge by the Ottomans. The war opened with a Persian invasion of Turkey in the Lake Van region, and a counter-invasion by the Ottoman Pasha of Baghdad (Iraq belonged to the Ottoman Empire), who invaded western Persia. This invasion force was driven back across the border, but the newly modernized Persian army of 30,000 troops defeated 50,000 Ottoman Turks in the Battle of Erzurum near Lake Van in 1821. A peace treaty in 1823 ended the war with no changes to their mutual border.

Russo-Persian War --(1825-1828)--This war resulted from the ongoing border disputes arising from the Treaty of Gulistan (1813) between Persia and Russia. Persian forces were initially successful, capturing the Georgian capital of Tbilisi in 1825. Russian forces led by General Ivan Fedorovich Paskievich went on the offensive against the invading Persians and defeated them at the Battle of Ganja (also known as the Battle of Kirovabad) on September 26, 1826.

Afghan-Persian War-(1836-1838)-Persia invaded Afghanistan partly in response to Britain's influence in the region, and laid siege to the western Afghan city of Herat. The Herat defenders were aided by a British military advisor named Eldred Potter. Potter offered his services to the Afghans and set about organizing the city's defenses. Persian assaults on the city failed, and the invading army gave up the siege (September 28, 1838), and returned home.

Afghan/Anglo-Persian War-(1855-1857)-Persia again invaded Afghanistan, this time successfully capturing Herat. This upset the British, who claimed influence over Afghanistan. The British Empire declared war on Persia (Nov. 1, 1856), and proceeded to invade Persia both by sea and by land. British forces landed and took the Persian port of Bushire in January, 1857.

Dhofar War-(1973-1975)--Iran sent troops to Oman to aid the Sultan of Oman, who was fighting against Marxist rebels aided by South Yemen. The Shah of Iran reportedly wanted to not only support a fellow pro-Western Gulf Monarch, but also wanted to give his troops combat experience in the field.

You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

Go ahead and move the goalposts now... : )

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
14. Bush DID make "pre-emptive WAR" the official policy of the USA,
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 02:16 PM
Feb 2012

and Obama and the Democrats have not made any official policy statements to replace or negate the Bush Doctrine.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
20. So Iran isn't capable of making a statement that Bush didn't make first?
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:52 PM
Feb 2012

Just about all of the famous named doctrines could be construed as having an element of pre-emption. That's one of the reasons for them - they attempt to justify policies that other powers might object to by setting them in stone and declaring them official policy.

Let's look a few:

Monroe Doctrine (Don't even bother thinking about coming over here)
Truman Doctrine (We reserve the right to support 'free peoples,' no matter what)
Carter Doctrine (We aren't playing around. We will use military force in the Gulf if we want)
Brezhnev Doctrine (We will nip any threats to socialism in the bud)

Ironically, the Bush Doctrine isn't all that well-defined, though it's come to be associated most with pre-emptive warfare.

What strikes me about all of these is how much they have in common. They are all essentially assertions that a state will do what it wants no matter what anybody else has to say about it.

What Iran's saying is nothing new here. States have long claimed the right to be pro-active about pursing their interests and defending themselves.

Besides, isn't this supposed to be a bad thing? Back when Bush talked about it, he was rightly condemned for it. Yet now that Iran is doing it, I'm not seeing much condemnation, but more of a 'well Bush said it too' argument. If pre-emption was bad then, isn't it still bad now?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
22. No.
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 03:58 PM
Feb 2012

But it DOES absolutely take away any Moral High Ground from those here expressing outrage
at Iran's proclamation, and exposes their Nationalistic hypocrisy and belief in American Exceptionalism.

...Goose... Gander...You know.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
27. Pretty much. But . . .
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:32 PM
Feb 2012

What about people who opposed Bush's policy of pre-emption from the beginning and now are now failing to condemn Iran saying the same thing? That sounds like the exact same type of hypocrisy, only in reverse. No moral high ground there either.

Seems to me the consistent position for those that opposed Bush's policy would be to do the same here.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
33. You have a point.
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 05:15 PM
Feb 2012

I'll stick with THIS:

[font size=3]”Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
---President Dwight Eisenhower
[/font]
I wish ANY politician or "leader" from EITHER Party would stand up and say this today.

 

julian09

(1,435 posts)
11. They just want to raise fear headline, to raise oil prices.
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:40 PM
Feb 2012

The market falls for it every time, speculators love it. If they won't sell oil to europe and others, where will they get money they desprately need?

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
10. The Double Dog Dares and bluster from all sides doesn't bode well for the innocents.
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:31 PM
Feb 2012
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

Blue_In_AK

(46,436 posts)
24. I have a bit of sympathy for Iran, actually.
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 04:01 PM
Feb 2012

They've got nuclear powers all around them, and Israel is itching to take them down. I'd be nervous, too, if I was the Iranian leadership. I guess that should "if I were" for the grammar Nazis among us.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
39. LOL...the media is trying to scare people with that picture
Tue Feb 21, 2012, 07:49 PM
Feb 2012

It's obviously working. Some folks are just plain ol' frightened by scary Iran

Of course what the media won't dwell on is the fact that the US and Israel have made so many bellicose statements that it's obvious Iran will feel threatened.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Iran Threatens Preemptive...