Newsweek: Iran Says Missile Attack Next to U.S. Troops in Syria Was Reply to Trump Security Official's Threat
A senior Iranian official has said that a missile strike by his country's elite Revolutionary Guards targeting jihadis just a few miles away from U.S. troops in Syria was a direct response to a warning voiced by President Donald Trump's national security chief.
The U.S. and Iran are both battling the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) in Syria, but back different factions of a seven-year civil war and both have tried to undermine each other's influence in the country. Accusing Iran of conducting illicit activities and posing a threat to U.S. forces in the Middle East, national security adviser John Bolton said last week at the 2018 United Against Nuclear Iran summit that Tehran should "take me seriously when I assure them today that if you cross us, our allies or our partners, if you harm our citizens, if you continue to lie cheat and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay."
Read more ....
WNU editor: I think everyone knows that Iran was sending a message.
11 comments:
As an American citizen, I'd love to know when Syria became a vital national security interest worth stationing thousands of troops in illegally until time stops.
There is no there there. Get out. I guess it gives Bolton and Mattis chubbies.
1) Iran blew Pan Am Flight 103 (gisas) over Lockerbie.
2) They were behind the Twin Towers (One of the parties).
3) they killed a few hundred Americans in Iraq
4) They killed soldiers in Afghanistan
5) They set up a command in Venezuela. There are direct flights between Tehran and Caracas.
So why wouldn't they kill a few or a few hundred U.S. soldiers in Syria?
A fascist government anywhere in the world is a threat to America.
Assad, who inherited his throne from his Papa Hafez was not legitimately elected president.
Hafez jr. supported Libyans and other jihadis going to Iraq via Syria. So we have a bone to pick with the kafir dog Hafez jr.
While you sound like a Russian troll, I tend to agree.. or at least I'd say this: the president and his administration are owning this war (not the entire war but the ongoing US mission there) now...this was started by Obama but Trump / his senior staff needs to explain what we're doing there. It seems to become a cold war proxy and if that's the case, fine. Whatever the reason it just needs to be explained. We're not for Assad to stay in power, and his legitimacy is clearly in question. ..but we have to make clear what we stand for over there, and we should know what our own interests are besides showing Putin the finger lol
Hmmmm playing with fire when you're made of paper doesn't end well.
Besides as the houtis well know if there is a u.s patriot on deck those ballistic missiles aren't hitting anything.
Well, if Iran send us a message firing missile close to our troops, we can do the same. For example firing missile close to one of their boat within their sovereign water, or something else like that. We absolutely need to give them an answer.
"Zero evidence for Iranian involvement in 9/11. Nada." - MRN
Iranian official: We protected al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11
"LOLOLOLOLOL!! Iranians in Venezuela! You prolly also watched Red Dawn and thought it was a documentary." - Pufta
Is there a Chavez terror network on America’s doorstep? - Washington Compost
"America fought an illegal war in Iraq 2003, " - Iranian net agitator
The war never ended n 1991. There was an armistice. Iraq broke it. Power was wrested from a small Sunni Baathist clique and given to the Iraqi people in a fair general election.
It is inevitable that Iran in the future will kill an American or NATO soldier and will then pay the piper for what they have done.
Anon (11:44PM),
Except for the "Russian troll" part I tend to agree. After all reasonable people can and will disagree. The "Russian troll" smear is employed by US government propagandists when they are unable to refute a sound argument and they must slander the opposition in order to dismiss what they are unable to confront based upon merit.
Nevertheless I agree with the other sentiments you express. Make clear why we are there, what we are doing, and why we need to do it. Now as for the new Cold War, it is my considered opinion that we need to end it and end it now. While the terms may not be the best, it will only get worse later. Perhaps we never should have sought to undertake it in the first place. As Fazman says, when you are made of paper, don't play with fire!! The best descriptions of America right now would be "paer tiger without teeth" or "Petomkin Village." Such entities should not be engaging in big power struggles or playing "the great game" unless they can add value in some way to one or more of the major powers.
Post a Comment