Iran warns of ferocious response to any US military action

[rangerrebew]

Iran warns of ferocious response to any US military action
 
Tehran warns bases and Strait of Hormuz could be targeted while Geneva nuclear talks struggle to ease escalating tensions.

by Estefano Gomez | Powered by Gloria
21 hours ago
 

Iran has threatened a fierce response to any US military strike, signaling a shift in its defensive posture as tensions escalate between Tehran and Washington, according to a Financial Times report.

Iranian officials warned that American forces, bases, warships and the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global oil shipments, could face direct retaliation if the US proceeds with military action. The statement marks a departure from Iran’s previous pattern of calibrated and limited responses.

Tehran said it is not seeking armed conflict and expressed hope that ongoing negotiations in Geneva would avert confrontation. However, officials made clear that any attack would trigger severe consequences aimed at imposing tangible costs on US military assets across the region.

The administration of Donald Trump has assembled a substantial military presence in the Middle East, including carrier strike groups, representing the largest buildup since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Washington has reiterated its commitment to defending American interests and allies while continuing diplomatic efforts.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/iran-us-strike/2026/02/23/id/1247058/?utm_source=copilot.com

[rangerrebew]

Is Iran consulting with Baghdad Bob?

[The_Reader_David]

Is Iran consulting with Baghdad Bob?

I had a similar thought.  Or maybe the shade of Saddam Hussein with his "mother of all battles".  The trouble is if the Chicoms have given them enough goodies the threat could be real, rather than typical Middle Eastern bluster.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think the "nuclear talks" are a colossal waste of time.  Iran has cheated on every agreement for half a century.

[DefiantMassRINO]

What's worse, an upset Iran without nukes or an Islamic Revolutionary Iran with nukes?

Iran doesn't want peace.  It wants to spread its Islamic Revolution throughout the Mideast, and beyond with a nuclear insurance policy.

At every opportunity to choose peace and prosperity, they chose terrorism.

Let 'em be upset.  Iran is on a losing streak - Hezbollah and Hamas have been neutralized, and the Houthi's are hiding in their caves.

If anything, an anti-Iranian alliance should be blockading Iranian ports to stop delivery of Chi-com missiles.

[MeganC]

What's worse, an upset Iran without nukes or an Islamic Revolutionary Iran with nukes?

Iran doesn't want peace.  It wants to spread its Islamic Revolution throughout the Mideast, and beyond with a nuclear insurance policy.

You need to read up on Shiite Islam. The mullahs want to force the appearance of 'The Mahdi' by using nuclear weapons against Israel and the West. They say so , in their speeches , they say so on television. It is a part of their religious and cultural identity. Meaning that if they have such weapons , they will absolutely use them.

[Cyber Liberty]

You need to read up on Shiite Islam. The mullahs want to force the appearance of 'The Mahdi' by using nuclear weapons against Israel and the West. They say so , in their speeches , they say so on television. It is a part of their religious and cultural identity. Meaning that if they have such weapons , they will absolutely use them.

Yes, their particular branch of Islam compels them to do whatever it takes to bring about the "end of the world."