"In recent months, commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and armed forces have announced their complete preparedness for a possible military attack on Iran's nuclear installations and other sensitive sites. Iranian spokesmen have declared that Iran's response would be formidable. ...Iran's military command has taken into account the possibility of a disruption of [communications] between military posts and the central command... As a precautionary measure, the command has ordered all military and Revolutionary Guards sectors to respond swiftly - within no more than an hour and without waiting for orders - against pre-selected targets, [in light of anticipated] international political pressures that might force Iran to not respond. ... The objective is to deliver a harsh blow to the U.S. and its ally Israel at the outset, and then to expand the arena, in light of international efforts to contain the crisis and limit its scope and intensity, so as to ignite the whole region [emphasis added]. This way Iran will assure its right to respond."
Then there's this article from Joseph Farrah at WorldNet Daily (hat tip: MIG) that describes a devastating Iranian pre-emptive EMP strike on America, which is a related concept. Both articles deal with the extent to which the Iranian regime can threaten the US -- and anyone else -- and thereby resist any attempts to contain it.
The news that Iran has successfully tested missiles capable of detonating nuclear weapons at high altitude – thus creating a devastating electromagnetic pulse attack that could cripple the United States – should be a wakeup call to all Americans. ...Unless President Bush gets serious about homeland security by securing the borders and preparing the nation's infrastructure against an EMP attack, there's little point in continuing the charade of screening airline passengers for cigarette lighters.
This in turn raises the question implied in an earlier post: can the Mullahs be defeated indirectly, in the same way that the Syrians were recently forced from Lebanon, or is a direct confrontation with the regime in Iran inevitable? French negotiators representing European efforts to trade away Iranian nuclear weapons were not above threatening hellfire themselves -- American hellfire -- to which the Iranians said they would respond -- not against the French but the US. From MEMRI again:
According to Al-Hayat, Iranian military sources had reported that during a meeting between a French diplomat and Expediency Council Chairman Rafsanjani, the diplomat asked Rafsanjani whether Iran would relinquish its nuclear program, and was answered with an unequivocal "no." When the diplomat said that the U.S. had selected 325 targets within Iran as the first targets in any possible American attack, Rafsanjani explained to his guest that the Iranian counter-attack would be just as powerful and devastating.
And it's not as if the Apocalypse were everything the Iranians had to rattle. They had threats to brandish lower down the threat spectrum. According to a Juan Cole description of a BBC transcript of an Arabic newspaper article the Iranian-linked Badr Corps in Iran have just announced they will accept ex-Baathists into their fold. This suggests the beginning of a political united front to kick the US out of Iraq before it is quite ready to leave.
Badr is a jihadist movement, not a military unit. There are doctors, engineers, university professors, and women who are members of this organization. Besides, we have women associations in all parts of Iraq. Our organization represents all sects, ethnic groups, and religions in Iraq ... We agreed to incorporate Badr forces into the army and police and other state agencies ... We support the dissolution of the Ba'th party. However, we never were against its members who were forced to join the party organizations. Through you, we announce that the doors are open for them to return to the Iraqi people. We should unite to defend the Iraqi people.