Skip to main content

Trump’s Threats, Iran’s Response

Keeping fingers crossed on December 29 did not work. President Trump spoke belligerently about further attacks on Iran. What his reaction was to Netanyahu’s Iran 2nd round attack options. i.e., how much he wants US military involved, has not yet been reported. 
        Iran responded as would be expected, but a new element emerged: to meet the existential threat posed by Netanyahu and Trump, Iran is reported to have started working on chemical and biological weaponry to mate with its missiles. 
        A sensible voice came from the Kremlin, calling for dialogue rather than military aggression. Here is a summary of what has been reported by Iran International and Al Jazeera. 
Trump’s threats: I will knock the hell out of them. 
        US President Donald Trump said a lot on December 29, starting with this. Asked whether he would support Israel's attack on the Iranian missile programme: “If they will continue with the missiles, yes. The nuclear? Fast. OK? One will be: Yes, absolutely. The other is: We’ll do it immediately.” 
        Now I hear that Iran is trying to build up again, and if they are, we are going to have to knock them down. We'll knock them down. We'll knock the hell out of them.” 
        "I hope Iran is not trying to build up, as I've been reading, that they're building up weapons and other things. And if they are, they're not using the sites that we obliterated, but they're using possibly different sites. We know exactly where they're going, what they're doing, and I hope they're not doing it, because we don't want to waste the fuel on B-2, it's a 37-hour trip both ways. I don't want to waste a lot of fuel.” 
        "I heard Iran wants to make a deal. If they want to make a deal, that's much smarter. You know, they could have made a deal the last time before we went through, you know, a big attack on them. And, they didn't, they decided not to make a deal. They wish they had made that deal. So, I think, again, they should make a deal." 
Iran’s Response: Aggression will be met with harsh response. 
        Ali Shamkhani, top adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei: “Iran’s missile and defensive capabilities are neither containable nor in need of permission. Any act of aggression will be met with a harsh, immediate response beyond the imagination of its planners. In Iran’s defense doctrine, some responses are determined before a threat even reaches the execution stage." 
        Mohammad-Jafar Ghaempanah, Vice-President for Executive Affairs said. "Iran must have missiles; without them, we would be defenseless. We must stand for Iran’s dignity. If we are to bow our heads to whatever the United States says, then tomorrow we will have to answer to future generations.
        Mohsen Rezaei, former commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: “Iran’s missile and defense capability is neither negotiable, nor stoppable, nor containable. In the event of any new adventurism, the will and capability of the armed forces to respond to the enemy and defend the Iranian nation will be very different from the past.
        Informed military sources told Iran International on Dec 28 that: “The Iranian leadership views potential Israeli and American attacks as a threat to its very existence and intends, in the event of a conflict, to significantly raise the cost for the opposing side.” The highest decision-making levels of Iran consider that “the use of unconventional weapons can be justified in situations of existential threat.” 
        Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is developing biological and chemical warheads for the country's long-range ballistic missiles, anticipating scenarios of large-scale conflict. It is building capabilities that would serve as a “complementary deterrent factor” alongside Iran’s conventional missile program. 
Russia’s response: Dialogue needed. 
        In response to President Donald Trump’s threats: “We believe it is necessary to develop a dialogue with Iran,” urging parties “to refrain from escalation.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...