• Published 13:51 27.07.10
  • Latest update 13:51 27.07.10

Iran: U.S. will likely attack 2 Mideast countries within 3 months

Speaking on state television, Iranian President Ahmadinejad also list of demands before Iran will resume nuclear talks.

By News Agencies Tags: Iran nuclear Barack Obama

In an interview aired on Iranian state television Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran expects the United States to launch a military strike on "at least two countries" in the Middle East in the next three months.

Ahmadinejad did not specify whether he thought Iran itself would be attacked nor did he say what intelligence led him to expect such a move.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a news conference in Tehran, June 28, 2010

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a news conference in Tehran, June 28, 2010

Photo by: Reuters

The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action against Iran's nuclear program. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran "the ultimate terrorist threat."

Netanyahu's deputy, Moshe Yaalon, has said Israel had improved military capability which could be used against foes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran.

Ahmadinejad said Iran had "very precise information that the Americans have hatched a plot, according to which they to wage a psychological war against Iran".

He also criticized the U.S.-led drive for international sanctions to pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, which the West fears is geared toward the manufacture of a nuclear bomb, but Iran insists has only peaceful aims.

Ahmadinejad went on to say in the interview that Iran will only resume nuclear negotiations on certain conditions, reiterating a demand his envoy to the United Nations had indicated no longer applied.

Talks could only resume if further countries are involved, if parties say whether they seek friendship or hostility with Iran and if they express their view on Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal, Ahmadinejad said, according to a voiceover on the English-language television channel.

Ahmadinejad's reiteration of his conditions came after the European Union agreed a new round of sanctions, including a block on oil and gas investment, following a similar move by Washington and a fourth round of UN sanctions.

Talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (P5+1), aimed at addressing concerns about Tehran's nuclear enrichment, stalled last October, leading to a toughening of international sanctions.

"The logic that they can persuade us to negotiate through sanctions is just a failure," Ahmadinejad said in the interview.

But Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, handed a letter to the IAEA on Monday, detailing Iran's position on a nuclear fuel swap which had been agreed in principle in the P5+1 talks.

He said it showed "Iran's complete readiness to hold negotiations over the fuel for the Tehran reactor without any conditions".

Russia, which backed the new U.N. sanctions, criticized the additional U.S. and EU measures, saying they undermined efforts to seek a negotiated way out of the nuclear impasse.

Iran, the world's fifth-largest oil producer, says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, but that has not assuaged fears in many countries that its uranium enrichment activities could be aimed at making a bomb.

Western diplomats say the fuel swap proposal - under which Iran would send some of its low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for higher enriched fuel for a medical reactor in Tehran - is no longer sufficient because Iran has significantly increased its uranium stockpile since October.

Israel on Monday praised the EU decision to impose further sanctions, saying it "sends a clear signal to Iran that it must abide by international demands."

"The make clear to [Iran ] the price of its current behavior and that the international community will not tolerate Iran's continual rejection of international norms," said spokesman Yigal Palmor. "We hope these steps will be joined by similar sanctions from other nations."

  • Print Page
  • Send to a friend
  • Share
  • Text Size +|-
 
 
TalkBacks

Why Facebook Connect?

Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.

Add a comment

Add your reply

  • 28. 0 44
    Iranian US attack.
    • Thighbone
    • 27.07.10
    • 20:27

    Ahmadinejad, Obama will attack only 'one' new ME country, and only just "one" time, and in "one' month, Iran. Obama will ask Ahmadinejad , How do you like me now? Wanna talk now? Salaam. Iran only being used for the final Obama great deception against Israel, don't take it personal Iran. He'll try to make it up to you, afterall his cause is the transfer of the US power of the constitution's judicial arm to a Shariah martial law mandate. Don't take it personal.Voters here in the US have been asleep for two years.When they do wake up they'll be wailing and gnashing of the teeth.

  • 27. 0 0
    The United States and Iran have refused to rule out military action against Israel's nuclear program.
    • Random
    • 27.07.10
    • 20:05

    The United States and Iran have refused to rule out military action against Israel's nuclear program.

  • 26. 49 0
    Not suprised, WW3 coming soon
    • Nate
    • 27.07.10
    • 20:03

    If you follow the news closely and keep yourself informed, this shouldn't come to you as a surprise. The past 2 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were to simply to surround Iran on both sides. At this point, it would only make sense for the US to try and take out Syria and Hezbollah as Iran has armed them to the teeth. Iran has recently stated it has dedicated 100 speed boats for every warship. Bottom line is that many people will suffer and and many people will die just so the Zionist regime can remain in power. Many of you who may support such a war are sick in the head. AIPAC has been lobbying hard to get the US involved and there is nothing Mr. Obama can do. I wouldn't be surprised if McChrystals resignation was because of this. He knows all hell will break loose in Afghanistan if and when this occurs.

  • 25. 43 0
    Israel and America would never give in to international "Strong Arm" tactics, but they expect others to yield to thier "Strong Arm" tactics
    • Natallie Durson
    • 27.07.10
    • 19:46

    The Gaza blockade lasted three years, accomplished nothing, and then was broken. America has had sanctions upon Iran for thirty years and on Cuba for thirty five years. In each case, it has accomplished nothing. Now we have stricter sanctions (if there is such a thing), and threats of attacks. Will these accomplish anything? Not a chance. America has fought in Afghanistan for almost a decade and has not accomplished anything except killing a bunch of people. They are no closer to "winning" that war than they ever were. Iraq is just waiting for the Americans to leave, at which time it will seek its new status quo. You can bet that this will be a golden opportunity for Iran. Ahmadinejad has a flair for making dramatic but inaccurate statements, but then so does Netanyahu.

  • 24. 0 0
    weakness of iaea/un
    • courtney
    • 27.07.10
    • 19:38

    iran is negotiating simply to begin negotiate.. that which has already been negotiated via their signing of the NPT. pathetic...

    • 0 0
      NPT rights
      • Wespe
      • 27.07.10
      • 20:19

      Iran has the right to develop a nuclear industry just like all the other signatories. In fact, the other nations are required to aid in that endeavor. The weakness of the IAEA and the UN is that some members have more power than others (ie veto).

  • 23. 0 0
    Solar System History
    • SamtheSham
    • 27.07.10
    • 19:31

    It should be noted that the present asteroid belt was once a planet that exploded; strangely enough leaving lots of small "radio-active" asteroids and other tangled messes in our solar system. Could this be a hint to mankind to make the spiritual journey to greater maturity? Wise up all of you!

  • 22. 0 0
    Nuke race started in 1950 by israel
    • Tony Silver - Kopenhagen
    • 27.07.10
    • 19:27

    Israel made a very fateful decision in the 1950s to become the first nation to introduce nuclear arms to the Middle East. Nixon and Kissinger (Zionist jew) made and equally fateful decision to lend U.S. support to Israeli weapons of mass destruction. Now, the chickens are coming home to roostIsrael made a very fateful decision in the 1950s to become the first nation to introduce nuclear arms to the Middle East. Nixon and Kissinger (Zionist jew) made and equally fateful decision to lend U.S. support to Israeli weapons of mass destruction. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.

  • 21. 0 0
    Double Standards policy. Iran has the right to have nukes!
    • Tony Silver - Kopenhagen
    • 27.07.10
    • 19:25

    Benjamin Netanyahu has called the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran "the ultimate terrorist threat".

  • 20. 0 0
    I hope not
    • Mike
    • 27.07.10
    • 19:14

    Doing the right thing can often be complicated and a challenging, while doing evil never is. It is and always has been far easier to take a life than to save one. An Israeli US attack on Iran would be the start of a protracted conflict that would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and might even encourage it. It would also lead to instability and unpredictable security consequences for the region and the wider world. There is still room for diplomatic moves, dialogue and consultations to resolve the Iran nuclear issue should not be abandoned lightly.

  • 19. 0 0
    to all prophets here in this website
    • Arie
    • 27.07.10
    • 18:57

    stop trying predicting the future! Noone knows what will happen!

    • 0 0
      Noone knows what will happen?
      • Tony Silver - Kopenhagen
      • 27.07.10
      • 19:13

      sorry my friend. but israeli agents in America know all. at the end of the day,they dictate stupid America´s Foreign Policy and Economy.

    • 0 0
      Bushs prediction
      • Wespe
      • 27.07.10
      • 20:13

      He called for an end to major combat operations in Iraq back in 2003. They ended up outlasting his tenure. Most of these articles are part of an ongoing intelligence war to sway public opinion. History is yet to be made and politicians have legacies to ponder.

  • 18. 0 0
    Bin Ladens stated goal
    • Wespe
    • 27.07.10
    • 18:56

    was to bankrupt the US and its allies. It looks like his work is progressing. The misadventures into Iraq and Afghanistan will be capped off by a real financial crisis if the US goes into Iran. Japan and the US are already on the edge of crisis. How much more debt can they endure? Of course, the Saudis will have lots of money to lend when oil hits $200/barrel. Too bad for consumers and the economy.

  • 17. 0 0
    IRAN
    • SLAVE
    • 27.07.10
    • 18:22

    Non Muslims are happy about Iranian progress but evil governments are unhappy because their killing machine cannot operate without wars for killing humans.

  • 16. 0 0
    are you bomb a Russian nuclear station in Iran ?
    • someone
    • 27.07.10
    • 18:18

    The problem for Israel is Russia. Will Russia remain idle after bombing one it's nuclear station ? There are a lot of russian scientifics there. Russin did not remain idle in Georgia war in 2008. Russia is playing a double game in ME. If Israel attacks Iran, it is the perfect time to Russia to destroy all American bases in ME by a proxy war. To me Russia is discretly encourage of bombing Iran. They lost a nuclear station and in return they complety destroy USA bases surronding Russia. IMHO Iran and Israel two little pawn in much bigger game.

    • 0 0
      are you bomb a Russian nuclear station in Iran ?
      • someone else
      • 27.07.10
      • 19:39

      You have no clue. Russia and US will never engage in direct war, nuclear deterrence stands. They can lead proxy wars, but never a direct war (which would lead to the end of our civilization). Therefore Russia under no pretense aside from being attacked by US directly can attack any US bases in the middle east. Same goes for US. An attack on an Iranian reactor, although will result in a negative response from Russia, but it will not be of the extent that you speak off. This isn't Command and Conquer!

    • 0 0
      why didnt russia do it after iraq and afghan war?
      • dave
      • 27.07.10
      • 19:43

      Your claim doesnt make sense, since they have also their own economical problems.

  • 15. 70 0
    U.S.A should think twice
    • Joseph
    • 27.07.10
    • 18:13

    Russia probably wants USA to attack Iran. That's why they don't deliver the S-300. It could be very good for Russia : On the verge of bankruptcy with 14 trillions dollars debt, military at the limit with Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a third one with Iran could see the total collapse of the USA , like the collapsing of the USSR . Good news for China as well. PLUS : skyrocketing of the fuel price, collapse of the European economy and total control of Russia on energy !!!

  • 14. 0 0
    ha ha ha
    • me
    • 27.07.10
    • 17:57

    c'mon, he is not serious. Even if Iran get an A-Bomb, the worst danger is mishandling and accidental activation in Iran.

  • 13. 55 0
    whats worse...?
    • Hussein
    • 27.07.10
    • 17:49

    Iran having nukes or our intentions to nuke them?

  • 12. 0 0
    Iran can end it this dangerous game anytime
    • Mark from Georgia
    • 27.07.10
    • 16:55

    The problem is they really do want nukes. As most sane people know the world NOT be a safer place with Iran having nuke capability. The louder Iran screams has a direct relationship to the fear they feel. They're just scared and full of bluster, remember after Gulf War 1 Saddam referred to it as "the mother of all wars" and claimed it as a war victory. This is nothing more than Amadeinejad spouting off for PR points. Whether his accusations are accurate about invasions is debatable, but more likely just a distraction. He always throws mud to see what will stick and in the process he hopes we take our eye off the ball. Which still is, keep Iran from developing nukes, period.

  • 11. 0 0
    interesting
    • directrob
    • 27.07.10
    • 16:47

    A reasonable nuclear demand by an unreasonable person.

  • 10. 0 0
    Israel nor the U.S will attack Iran. No need. The sanctions
    • jj
    • 27.07.10
    • 16:29

    Implemented will be so harsh that the chimp in Tehran together with his ayattolahs will be kicked out by the Iranians. -Job done.

  • 9. 45 0
    WW3 is about to begin soon - hence, 2012 is predicted to be a calamitous year
    • Soothsayer
    • 27.07.10
    • 16:21

    for the first time in human history two nuclear warring parties will be at war, Pakistan will be part of this war too. The Americans will be attacked at home and abroad, and the Palestinian- Israeli conflict will be resolved by force, with calamitous results. The muslim/Jewish populations will once again plummet - the west, for the most part will remain safe and secure as this war will be fought in the middle east - Turkey may be pulled into it as well (as will Russia and China as oil supplies plummet for China and intervenes from the east) - nothing will grow in the region for thousands of years (at least) - the Mayan calendar (and i chi in china) talk of something big happening towards the end of 2012 - this will be the time that this war reaches its climax and finally ends, a new world order, peace finally in the mid east (as in Europe, but Europe could only do it after a horrible war, same here, only difference is we have nukes now) . I for one will move to the midwest of the US, buy lots of popcorn, get in the bunker, and watch the fireworks. All sad and tragic - man truly is the stupidest animal on the planet.

  • 8. 0 48
    if its true, good. time to get it on
    • judah ben hur
    • 27.07.10
    • 16:01

    its inevitable...the arabs will never come to peace with israel, nor within themselves, nor with the rest of the western world. This needs to happen before things will truly get better.

    • 0 0
      coming to peace
      • Damien
      • 27.07.10
      • 16:40

      Its hard to 'come to peace' with a military occupation of your birthplace.Especially when it includes your own eviction.Nice double standards.Shalom.

    • 0 0
      Peace means compromise
      • DavidAK
      • 27.07.10
      • 17:54

      Arabs cannot bring themselves to compromise, even if it means it will bring the Palestinians autonomy, prosperity, a fair solution for BOTH parties, and peaceful coexistence. No, they only want absolute victory -- which is why people like you keep harping on all the things you can't "come to peace" with. And yet you undoubtedly support separations like India/Pakistan and Serbia/Kosovo, which reduced war and have allowed people to get on with their lives. You are the one with double standards.

  • 7. 0 0
    A world unimpressed
    • Mark Lincoln
    • 27.07.10
    • 15:57

    Attempting to use the red herring, to change the issue, is not going to work. The sanctions being imposed ARE hurting Iran and it's leaders. The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has admitted they will slow down it's atomic energy program. The program to produce fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor is not producing 19.75% enriched uranium fast enough to refuel the reactor - if that 'fuel' is even usable (the rate of production indicates it is not). The world wants Iran to come fully into compliance with the NPT and it's Additional Protocols. Changing the subject is not going to solve Iran's problem.

  • 6. 0 0
    Position
    • A guy from somewhere
    • 27.07.10
    • 15:48

    israel should reconsider the position on the middle east that it has ... no one is going to help them unless they dont pul every cards on the table and play by international rules ... and the guys in the goverment they want to make state in emergency for every israeli citizen that the war is all the time on their door... bad politic is that they are palcing to the israeli people .... shame on them ...

    • 0 0
      Position
      • jake
      • 27.07.10
      • 18:16

      'israel should reconsider the position on the middle east that it has ... no one is going to help them unless they dont pul every cards on the table and play by international rules ... ' Can't agree. That country has a rich daddy, an every so soothing mommy, and a loutish uncle called AIPAC that controls them both.

    • 0 0
      Position
      • Peter
      • 27.07.10
      • 18:26

      What international rules are being broken by Israel? Iran appears to be breaking rules relating to its nuclear activities. Didn't you notice?

    • 0 0
      US
      • Spery
      • 27.07.10
      • 19:19

      Israel breaks lots of rules and gets away with it, we are fed up with its arrogance and attitude and we should never start another war to protect Israel or anyone else, we are already involved in two wars that are ruining us. The US administration must learn to put its foot down and say no to AIPAC and all Israeli pressure.

    • 0 0
      It is Iran who wants
      • Mark Lincoln
      • 27.07.10
      • 20:13

      It is Iran who signed the NPT and the Additional Protocols. It is Iran who wants the benefits of being a signatory. Thus it is Iran - not Israel - which has to comply with the responsibilities which those treaties impose.

  • 5. 0 0
    Most likely, Lebanon and Iran are candidates for an attack.
    • Peter of Florida
    • 27.07.10
    • 15:27

    Lebanon most likely will be attacked after Sept. by Israel followed by America attacking Iran sites using Tomahawk Missiles targeting every suspected research center. Iran will retaliate by attempting to close the straight of Hormuz first as well as increase its arms shipment to Hizbullah, Moktada El Sadr and the Talbans. This will be the begining of WWIII. Israel will be at war off and on for over a decade. Gloves will be off from all sides. Ultimately the countries involved will be Lebanon, Syria, Iran supported by Turkey, Irak and Possibly Egypt post Mubarak.

    • 0 0
      Game over in two weeks
      • Ron
      • 27.07.10
      • 19:31

      With countries you mentioned, this is no WWIII, this is game over in two weeks. Achieving military victory over countries like Iran or Iraq is trivially easy, the difficult part is what to do after that. Iran is very weak militarily, this is why they want nuclear weapons so much.

  • 4. 0 0
    Most likely, Lebanon and Iran are candidates for an attack.
    • Peter of Florida
    • 27.07.10
    • 15:22

    Lebanon most likely will be attacked after Sept. by Israel followed by America attacking Iran sites using Tomahawk Missiles targeting every suspected research center. Iran will retaliate by attempting to close the straight of Hormuz first as well as increase its arms shipment to Hizbullah, Moktada El Sadr and the Talbans. This will be the begining of WWIII. Israel will be at war off and on for over a decade. Gloves will be off from all sides. Ultimately the countries involved will be Lebanon, Syria, Iran supported by Turkey, Irak and Possibly Egypt post Mubarak.

  • 3. 55 0
    Something smells fishy in the Middle East
    • allang
    • 27.07.10
    • 14:54

    There’s something fishy in the Middle East. A US official, casually let it slip that a Aegis-class aircraft carrier has arrived in the Persian Gulf. That is... in addition to the 5th fleet in the region. At Diego Garcia, the US has re-stocked its stealth fighter fleet. Reportedly, the Mossad chief Meir Dagan... had a clandestine meeting with the Saudis. And the Israeli Defense Minister is flying to Washington tomorrow. Ahmadinejad [... as unreliable as he is], was quoted today as having verifiable evidence that the US is preparing for an attack in the next 3 months. On top of all that, Al-Hayat a Lebanese news source... reported Assad of Syria has cautioned Hezbollah to keep quiet in Lebanon. Doha also sent a message to Hezbollah. I don’t know, maybe this is normal occurrences in the fertile Middle East. But this certainly smells more toxic... then gefilte-fish.

    • 0 0
      Snake Fish Oil in the mideast
      • Mark Lincoln
      • 27.07.10
      • 16:08

      "There’s something fishy in the Middle East. A US official, casually let it slip that a Aegis-class aircraft carrier " - Alang There are no 'Aegis-class" aircraft carriers. The carrier currently attached to the 5th fleet is the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). The Truman Strike Force includes the cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60) as well as Aegis-equipped destroyers USS Winston Churchill (DDG 81), USS Milius (DDG 69), USS Ross (DDG 71), USS Oscar Austin (DDG 79) and German frigate FGS Hessen (F221). ALL of the Burke class DDGs and the CG are Aegis equipped. Try facts instead of conspiracy theories.

  • 2. 0 0
    This is one of the very few people in the world that
    • Avi
    • 27.07.10
    • 14:45

    Made 'internet trolling' a real-life profession.

  • 1. 44 75
    They will never conquer us
    • Salem
    • 27.07.10
    • 14:36

    All arab and moslm countries in ME must expect any horrible adventure frm israel and its supporters. So they have to prepare themself for a long , long and effective defence and resistence, even when they use all their atmic arsenals.

    • 3 0
      Salem - The fact is
      • Rory
      • 27.07.10
      • 16:43

      that most "things horrible" in the ME region have come from islamic nations. The fact is that muslims cannot even live peacefully with each other, let alone others. Instead of preparing for "defence and resistence" (which probably means more suicide bombings and mass murder), remind your fellow muslims of how "islam is the religion of peace".

    • 2 0
      Salem - The fact is
      • Rory
      • 27.07.10
      • 16:43

      that most "things horrible" in the ME region have come from islamic nations. The fact is that muslims cannot even live peacefully with each other, let alone others. Instead of preparing for "defence and resistence" (which probably means more suicide bombings and mass murder), remind your fellow muslims of how "islam is the religion of peace".

    • 3 0
      No One From The West Or Israel Wants
      • Brazen
      • 27.07.10
      • 18:59

      to conquer anybody elses country but the arabs. However dont be so sure of yourself. sadam was gonna spill us blood , he was hanging from a nuse last I heard. The little monkey from iran talks a lota smack, I cant wait to see him eat his words too. salem alechem

    • 0 45
      The fact is that muslims cannot even live peacefully with each other?
      • Tony Silver - Kopenhagen
      • 27.07.10
      • 19:20

      I agree with you. thanks to israeli conspiracy of waging wars against all Muslim World.

    • 0 0
      Mindless Bigotry
      • Mark Lincoln
      • 27.07.10
      • 20:17

      By you Tony Silver, and those who claim Muslims are the problem. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reveals far more truth about those who promote and believe it than the utter lack of truth within it reveals about Jews. That some will believe twaddle for pathological, racial, or religious reasons is a condemnation of themselves.