Iranian Official: Israel to Be ‘First Victim’ of U.S. Attack on Syria
Iranian Official: Israel to Be ‘First Victim’ of U.S. Attack on Syria | Washington Free Beacon.
A Syrian army soldier walks on a street in the Jobar neighborhood of Damascus, Syria / AP
BY:
August 27, 2013 1:35 pm
A senior Iranian lawmaker said Israel would be the first casualty of any U.S.-led strike on Syria, according to regional media reports.
Hossein Sheikholeslam, the director general of the Iranian parliament’s International Affairs bureau, claimed the United States would not dare attack Syria but said that if it does, “the Zionist regime will be the first victim.”
“No military attack will be waged against Syria,” Sheikholeslam was quoted as saying on Monday by Iran’s state run Fars News Agency.
“Yet, if such an incident takes place, which is impossible, the Zionist regime will be the first victim of a military attack on Syria,” Sheikholeslam said in an apparent response to the Obama administration’s increasingly stern rhetoric against Syria.
Iran has been one of embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chief allies. It has sent Hezbollah reinforcements to battle rebel forces and acted as Assad’s chief defender in the Middle East.
As the Obama administration hints that it is gearing up to intervene in Syria following the reported use of chemical weapons, Iranian officials have similarly ramped up their rhetoric.
Sheikholeslam said Assad would immediately respond to a U.S. attack by going after the Jewish state with the full force of his military.
Syria can “heavily attack and raze the occupied territories,” Fars reported him as saying.
Another senior Iranian lawmaker said on Monday that the U.S. military is not prepared to handle an operation in Syria.
Mohammad Esmayeeli, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, claimed Washington is not ready for any new military invasion.
He said that if the Obama administration does decide to launch an attack, Moscow will support Damascus.
Russia has consistently thrown its support behind Assad, providing him with advanced weapons and blocking concrete action at the United Nations.
“The U.S. as well as the western and Arab states and certain regional countries are beating on the drums of war, but they should know that this is not to their benefit,” Esmayeeli was quoted as saying by Fars.
Esmayeeli, in an apparent reference to America’s defense budget cuts, went on to say that the United States is in no condition to wage a war against Syria. If America “starts a war with Syria, the U.S. will not achieve its desirable and needed results,” Esmayeeli said.
Meanwhile, newly installed Iranian President Hassan Rowhani condemned the use of chemical weapons, the apparent tipping point for a U.S. strike on Assad.
“Iran gives notice to international community to use all its might to prevent use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world, esp. in #Syria,” Rowhani tweeted on Tuesday.
Syria expert Tony Badran said that despite Iran’s rhetoric, Assad currently has his hands full with the rebel fighters.
“I’m actually not sure they will retaliate against Israel and risk an escalation they can ill afford,” said Badran, research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Of course, anything is possible, and they could conceivably do a repeat of a small-scale, limited Katyusha [and] Grad [rocket] salvo from Lebanon, without anyone taking credit or with some minor faction claiming responsibility in order to avoid a punishing Israeli response.”
It is more likely that smaller pro-Assad factions would strike soft Western targets, Badran said.
“Instead of focusing too much or exclusively on Israel, some groups, such as the PFLP-GC, made a point to say that they would target ‘the interests’ of ‘participants in an aggression against Syria,’ which perhaps suggests softer targets,” Badran said.
These include European targets or even United Nations forces, Badran said
Former Pentagon adviser Michael Rubin warned that Iran’s pro-Assad rhetoric should be viewed as a window into its thinking about nuclear arms.
“Once again, Iran shows why the international community should never let it even come close to a nuclear weapon,” Rubin said. “If Assad can murder Syrians in their sleep, he and his Iranian backers won’t bat an eye to do the same thing to Jordanians, Israelis, or Turks.”
Such rhetoric “shows why the red line should never be the use of WMD, but its possession in the arsenals of the world’s rogues,” Rubin said.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
August 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM
My guess is if:
“the Zionist regime will be the first victim.”
then:
the Persian regime will be the second victim.
Just a hunch I guess.
August 28, 2013 at 4:02 AM
My guess is that we are not going to wait to be the first victims…..
August 27, 2013 at 11:37 PM
I thought the Persians to be more wise. I thought they appreciate the intensity of the words which weren’t said and know that keeping it quiet is worth about gold, while speaking like a fool makes you a fool.
Israel to be the first victim? What, are we still in the late ’30ies when our beloved Adolf was threatening the Jews if the west will open a war against him? Because they sound like him, even though they didn’t mean that. Aren’t they just sweet, politically correct people, who weigh every word and oppose genocide? I’m sure it was only a slip of the tongue from their part, because they know what they will get if they meant seriously to what they just declared.
August 28, 2013 at 12:01 AM
You know, they got recently ‘moderate’.
Translation: “The Zionist regime will be annihilated.”
Their dream will of course never come true.
The mullahs do not represent the great Persian civilisation with its emphasis on religious tolerance, learning and wisdom.
They represent the stone age barabarians. Give a Neanterhal a nuke and you have the correct picture of them.
That’s why any true proud Persian who values the Persian culture despises them.
August 28, 2013 at 3:04 AM
They can say whatever outrageous things they want, the NYTimes and Obamamedia will still portray them as moderates. Or if that doesn’t work, say they were mistranslated.
August 28, 2013 at 1:01 AM
Just reported that Congresswoman Lee (D) of California, a black woman, tweeted that she wants a Congressional debate pursuant to the War Powers Act prior to an American attack. I am sure that she would not have done so without a direct request from the White House. Obama floundering around looking for a reason to avoid ordering the attack is hoping that the rest of the Democrats make the same request. American public opinion is heavily against getting involved in Syria. In comparison, Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the situation. I still believe that there will be no attack.
August 28, 2013 at 3:41 AM
Ok, this is how I see this whole farce stacking up. Obama’s red line was crossed. By whom makes no difference. The fact that it happened is an afront to Obama’s perceived strength and character. In an attempt to save his political face, he will unilateraly and without congressional approval launch a symbolic (no regime change) attack on Syria. He will do this without regard for the safety of Israel. Furthermore, he will gamble with the lives of thousands that there will be no repurcussions for his actions from Russia, Iran, Hizballah and others. It’s all about him. Nothing more. Nothing less. So if you think Obama cares about humanity and his response is the right thing to do, then think again my friends. We’ve all just been thrown under the bus.
August 28, 2013 at 4:02 AM
Obama’s foreign policy: