General Mohammad Ali Jafari said in a press conference last week that in the case of attack, Iran will retaliate swiftly. In the case of an Israeli attack, "nothing will remain" of the nation, he said. The possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz was raised as well as potentially attacking US posts in the Middle East.
While the threat of warfare has lingered in the air since Israel's heated criticism of Iran last month, the response from Iran has not been so drastic as it was this past week. New comments were made today by Jafari, with threats just as drastic but with harsher rhetoric against the state of Israel.
Earlier this month, heavier sanctions were put on Iran's economy, but nuclear development has not slowed. Despite a drop in oil export and a greater-than-expected decline in Iran's oil-based economy, the sanctions have not been successful in retarding nuclear progress. Iran still maintains that nuclear power is used only for civilian purposes, but many in the US claim this to be false. Proponents of the anti-nuclear Iran effort encourage these sanctions, but in addition to military planning and diplomatic activity, which has been lacking.
Jafari believes that in the case of Israeli attack, the US will support them. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to pressure the US to agree to join in Israel's push for tougher sanctions. The US, Britain and France stated in front of the UN that the time to negotiate is now, but they are not going as far as Netanyahu wishes them to. Netanyahu wants clearer "red lines."
In the US, the idea of war has grown as well. Earlier today the US Senate passed a non-binding resolution that the US should attempt to prevent there becoming an Iran with nuclear weapons and, in the case of such an event, that the US should rule out any strategy to negotiate with an Iran with a nuclear arsenal. Only one vote came against it. This nay vote came from Rand Paul, who said that "A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of preemptive war." Paul has a strong anti-involvement stance for the Middle East in general.
In the case of US assistance of an Israel attack, Jafari believes that the military bases around Iran a "vulnerability" and believes missile attacks would have to be used to get rid of them. The Strait of Hormuz, transporting 1/5 of the world's oil, would be in jeopardy in the case of a war.
This week, over 30 nations convened near Bahrain to sweep for mines around the Strait. This, the United States says, is purely defensive to ensure Iran cannot destroy the Strait in the future, but has also been interpreted as a show of strength and support of nations against Iran.
However, yes, over 30 nations convened, but only a few will send ships and around twenty wish not to have their participation made public. Thus this "international" effort will be seen as a US-lead mission. This is a sensitive time to act with such force, and it can't help but be seen as a display of force given the discussion of war in both nations.
While Israel is in clear support of an attack to end nuclear development, the United States maintains a less clear position. While not as out front about it as Israel, the Senate resolution and the military show near the Strait send a different message. The United States is trying to be careful about this, but is sending a message that can only mean one thing. Now is the time for negotiation, and we hope only discussion occurs in the meantime.
