« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Film: Iranians Vow Massive Response to Any U.S. Attack
Frontline does it again. Fresh after the documentary show's penetrating look at Dick Cheney's pet legal theories, it travels to Tehran to explore the slowly building crisis between the U.S. and Iran. In doing so, Frontline pulls off a real coup, presenting the first-ever televised interview with Mohammed Jafari, a Qods Force commander and deputy leader of Iran's national security council.
Jafari isn't a household name, but in U.S.-Iranian relations, he's a big deal. Earlier this year, the U.S. raided the Iranian consulate in Erbil in an attempt to capture him, but Jafari wasn't at the consulate during the raid. Frontline describes him as one of the architects of Iran's Iraq policy -- which, the U.S. alleges, includes providing weapons to anti-American insurgent and militia groups -- and had the raid succeeded, U.S.-Iranian relations could very well have reached a crisis point.
In the documentary, Jafari promises retaliation against any U.S. military strike on Iran:
You will not find a single instance in which a country has inflicted harm on us and we have not responded. So if the United States makes such a mistake, they should know that we will definitely respond. And we don't make idle threats.
He's joined in that sentiment by Hossein Shariatmadari, a mouthpiece for "supreme leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i:
As the Supreme Leader has said, if we're attacked we will threaten all American interests around the globe. The first step would be that all areas in Israel are in reach of our missiles, I mean there is not a single place in Israel outside the range of our missiles.
Showdown With Iran airs tonight on PBS.
retaliate? them's fightin words!
October 23, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...and had the raid succeeded, U.S.-Iranian relations could very well have reached a crisis point."
And I'm sure that was the plan.
October 23, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retaliation is exactly what the neocons want. Bush will ride his bicycle, Cheney will declare martial law and our representative democracy will be officially dead.
October 23, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It already is dead Jim.
October 23, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retaliate? Yes, I should think that any sovereign nation would do so in response to an attack. Just stop for a moment and think about the constant barrage of threats that Iran has endured from the U.S. (and Israel) for the last decade and more. If any country had presumed to make such threats against the U.S. (putting aside the fact that, unlike our threats against Iran, no country would actually have the ability to carry them out), that country would have been "regime-changed" long ago.
The Bush-led U.S. is such an insufferable bully. And we blame people for the natural response to being threatened?
Btw, Hossein Shariatmadari is "a mouthpiece" for Khamene'i? Isn't that rather unnecessarily insulting? Why didn't you use "spokesman" instead? Watch out for those cups of Kool-Aid . . .
October 23, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was alot of praise for the Frontline Cheney program, but I thought it woefully deficient. They didn't have a single legal expert on to explain how incredibly ahistoric, unconstitutional and just plain fucked the unitary executive theory is, yet gave John Yoo plenty of time to justify his interpretation of the Constitution as Mein Kampf in drag.
October 23, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since watching the Mukasey confirmation hearings, I have become convinced that the "unitary executive" theory MUST be eradicated for the good of the republic. Obviously, this is a pipe dream, since the Senate is about to confirm as AG an individual who is clearly, by his own testimony, an adherent to this bag of Federalist Society crap.
It's clear that there are far more idiots who believe this nonsense (at least when the president is a reupublican) than I had previously supposed - and the Federalist Society is contaminating every new generation of lawyers to the maximum extent possible.
October 23, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't do any good. the end is extremely @$(%ing nigh.
October 23, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should start referring to the GOP as the "World War III Party". I think it's evocative, and it's exactly the kind of petty name-calling they use.
It would point up the Administration/Neocon's dangerous kookiness, and force GOP moderates to distance themselves from it (yes, I know that last bit is a pipe dream).
October 23, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the best fairest site to go to find evidence of iranian complicity or lack thereof in attacks on US GI's in Iraq, and in making weapons for Iraqi terrorists/separatists/whateverists ?
i don't like this warmongering and i know we blew every chance we had to get some kind of entente with iran. but i do want to know whether/how the've stirred things in iraq.
October 23, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be sure to watch, so that I can counter all the crap that I hear about Iran from the rightwingers here.
BTW, does anyone else see a striking resemblance to Osama in the still shot above? If you scroll the photo up so that you see the face from just below the nose.
Jeebus on a piece of toast! He has been hiding in plain sight!
October 23, 2007 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"""
Where is the best fairest site to go to find evidence of iranian complicity or lack thereof in attacks on US GI's in Iraq, and in making weapons for Iraqi terrorists/separatists/whateverists ?
"""
http://www.juancole.com/labels/Iran.html
thanks.
mp
October 23, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just below the eyes, I meant to say!
October 23, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best site would be the NYT and the WashPost. When they start to write about Shiite insurgents using surface-to-air missiles, radar-jammers and other high-tech gear, start to believe. Of course, you might just wait until you can actually see the markings on the actual missiles...
October 23, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink