Archive

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Iran Army Warns U.S. of 'Harsh Consequences' over Syria


Iranian armed forces deputy chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, warned the U.S. of “harsh consequences” if it intervenes in Syria over the chemical attacks.

“If the United States crosses this red line, there will be harsh consequences for the White House,” Gen. Jazayeri said on Sunday. (Fars News Agency, 25 August)

“The terrorist war under way in Syria was planned by the United States and reactionary countries in the region against the resistance front (against Israel),” Jazayeri added. “Despite this, the government and people of Syria have achieved huge successes.Those who add fire to the oil will not escape the vengeance of the people,” he added. (Fars News Agency, 25 August)


Last year, President Barack Obama warned the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a “red line” and have “enormous consequences.” Today, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. military was ready to take action against Syria if ordered by the president.

“President Obama has asked the Defense Department to prepare options for all contingencies. We have done that,” Hagel told reporters in Malaysia. “Again, we are prepared to exercise whatever option, if he decides to employ one of those options,” Hagel added. (AFP, 25 August)


The rebels say Syrian armed forces unleashed a chemical attack Wednesday on areas southwest and east of the capital, killing hundreds of people. Assad’s government denies the accusations, blaming the rebels for the attack.

File photo: Iranian armed forces deputy chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Massoud Jazayeri. (IRNA)

39 comments:

  1. he should have warned Lebanese Hezbollah about the harsh consequences of intervening in Syria.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's no worse than the USA and its wahabi terrorist proxies intervening in Syria. Typical zionist hypocrite. You can give it, but you can't take it.

      Delete
    2. the USA is intervening in Syria?

      since when?

      Delete
    3. Since it decided to support the wahabi, cannibal terrorists of the fsa.

      Delete
    4. are you really that entirely ignorant or do you consider that half-witted comment to be, in some way, amusing?

      Delete
    5. There is nothing amusing about cannibals and wahabi terrorists.

      Delete
    6. nor is there anything amusing about a worthless, cowardly and illegitimate heredity dictatorship that kills its women and children with chemical weapons and is allied with vile groups and a vile regime that rapes and kills women that it imprisons in Evin

      Delete
    7. The American regime seems to think so. It supported such a dictatorship in Iraq in the 1980s and is supporting one now in Syria, that has already shown to the world its possession of chemical weapons by testing them on rabbits and is allied with vile groups like al nusra front and al qaeda.

      The fact is, the wahabi, cannibal terrorists of the fsa are no better than the Syrian government.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousAugust 27, 2013 at 9:15 AM
      f you cant see the difference between the government and the fsa/al qaida you must be blind

      Delete
    9. The difference between a secular, moderate government and militants who are religious extremists, anti-democratic and trying to exterminate minorities. I can see that.

      Evidently the American regime and other anti-Syria people cannot see that.

      Delete
  2. The mighty mouse roaring .....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who does he think he is? The elected president? Somebody needs to herd this general back to his barrack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No hes the deputy chief of staff and a major general,and that means that what he has to say is pretty damn credible,hes not just some junior officer shooting his mouth off hes speaking for the military

      Delete
    2. Do we have a defece minister?

      Delete
    3. reader, how do you know if this commander was authorized to speak by the president? Has it ever occurred to you that messages are sometimes delivered through different means?

      When a US commander speak about "All options on the table" regarding Iran, do you think he just say it because it's nice or because he's been ordered to say it???

      Ruhani,"the moderate", won't be issuing warnings to the US because as his name in the west implies - he's "moderate". He'll rather an army commander deliver the message itself.

      And here's a hint, the president is NOT the commander-in-chief of the Iranian army.

      Delete
    4. With respect and I may be wrong but I never heard a serving army commander from a democratic country speak on that terms. An army general could make threat on mechanics of the war but not on the politics of the wars.

      Delete
  4. How great would it be if we finally see Iran's "military" against the US? To see all the Iranians living in the west, who praise Iran, sometimes while collecting government assistance from the US -- get put in their place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iranians are not known for "collecting" government assistance in the West...Rather, they are the ones paying the taxes.

      Delete
    2. You're sick. War is never a great thing.

      Delete
    3. If war is "never a great thing" then maybe Iranians should stay out and stop threatening "grave consequences."

      Or, they can enter and get put into their place. Their choice.

      Delete
    4. Or maybe Americans should stay out and stop threatening Syria and its people.

      Or, they can enter and get put into their place. A new Afghanistan war. Their choice.

      Delete
    5. You mean their place as conqueror of Afghanistan?

      Delete
    6. "conqueror"?! 11 nearly 12 years of war and still no end in sight. Are you on drugs? If not, you should be.

      Delete
    7. Who has bases, drones and power all across and is running the country? Exactly. Now go look for a job in the usa like all iranians dream of

      Delete
    8. AnonymousAugust 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM
      You are confusing occupation with conquering.The nato forces have been in afghanistan for 12 years and have achieved as much as the soviet union did in 9,you have a puppet government kept in power only by force of nato arms and large areas of the country run by the taliban

      Delete
  5. "How great would it be if we finally see Iran's "military" against the US? To see all the Iranians living in the west, who praise Iran, sometimes while collecting government assistance from the US -- get put in their place".


    You should not imagine things that would, cause you great disappointment The U.S. Welfare state, that supports poor Anglo/trash will be begging on its knees once the strait of hormuz is closed and her carriers and bases are on fire and Conus bombers are exploding in mid aid!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The "general" is reliant on opiates.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A lot of naive and idiotic comments not withstanding, the fact is that any US strike at the goading of the devious British lapdogs will cause immeasurable fallout in the region. Interestingly, the Zionist shill Edward Luttwak in Jew York Times stated that the best US policy would be to keep on arming the Takfiri cannibals so that the Arabs can keep on killing each other and this helps both US Zionists. He also alluded to the policy during the Iran-Iraq war that arming both sides kept the senseless slaughter going for almost a decade. Thy US and its British evil brain is trying to stoke a prolonged Syrian fratricide to totally destroy the Arab world. Iran is right, the consequences will not be just limited to Syria and will consume the whole region.


    In Syria, America Loses No Matter What
    By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK

    Prolonged stalemate is the only viable policy for now.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html?hp&_r=0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No the only viable option is to attack syria at which point iran will either enter and have their 50 year old weapons massacred, and will finally be put on their place like the loudmouth bs artists they are, or they can stay out and be humiliayed.

      The world's enemy right now is iran and their time is running out.

      Delete
    2. Not going to happen. This is not 2003 and the US will collapse much faster than you think. In any case all the Takfiris will turn on the US anyway, it is only a question of time. This war if the US is stupid enough to launch, will go viral very fast.

      Delete
    3. Bravo Mr Luttmark. He is absolutely right. That is why the Jews are superior in the region.
      Let them kill each other. The Takfiri cannibals and the backward Shias.
      The world would be a better place with fewer of them in it.
      The IRI will also bleed more by helping Assad and Hezbollah.
      Excellent strategy.

      Delete
    4. "the US will collapse much faster than you think."

      A post in ENGLISH, almost certainly from the UNITED STATES.

      Iranians are such liars.

      Delete
    5. Not nearly as much as zionists are liars.

      Delete
    6. Anon 8:24 PM-----



      what sort of unclean asshole writes juvenile drivel such as "the Jew York Times"?


      are you currently serving as somebody's temporary wife?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous August 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM, English does not come from America. There are other parts of the world where people speak it.

      Delete
  8. Hes simply reminding the us that syria and iran have a treaty and if the us thinks that it can "intervene" in syria and that iran will just sit back and do nothing then its gravely mistaken

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure that Iran won't do nothing, but will complain with vigor.

      Delete
  9. The 'barking' is now turn to Syria. Let's see.

    ReplyDelete