Image 01 Image 03

Trump Warns Iran President Rouhani of Severe Consequences if He Threatens America Again

Trump Warns Iran President Rouhani of Severe Consequences if He Threatens America Again

Pompeo said the Iranian regime “resembles the Mafia more than a government.”

Over the weekend, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned President Donald Trump that “war with Iran is the mother of all wars” and war will happen if the U.S. keeps provoking Iran while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered his speech “Supporting Iranian Voices” in California.

Trump was not in the mood to hear threats from an oppressive dictator and promised Rouhani that if he threatens America again, he will “suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before.”

Rouhani’s Remarks

PressTV, which receives funds from the Iranian government, reported that Rouhani made the remarks during a “meeting with the heads of Iran’s diplomatic missions in the world.” He said:

“The Americans should learn well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” President Rouhani said in a series of sharp remarks aimed at the US.

The Iranian president reminded America of Iran’s long reach in the region.

“Iran’s strategic depth reaches the [Indian] Subcontinent to the east, and the Mediterranean to the west, the Red Sea to the south, and the Caucasus to the north,” he said. “We rooted Daesh out and saved the people in the region; we take pride in ourselves.”

“Threats will further unite us [Iranians]; we will certainly defeat America,” he said. “That will carry some costs for us, but the benefits will be greater.”

“The US’s latest conspiracy [against Iran] has been to attempt to wear the Iranian nation down [and lead it into submission,” President Rouhani said. “You must know [however]: the Iranian nation is honorable and will never be servile to anyone.”

“No one with even a basic understanding of politics will ever say, ‘We will block Iran’s oil exports,’” President Rouhani said, reminding America that, “We have many straits; the Strait of Hormuz is but one.”

He had more advice for Trump.

“Mr. Trump! We are men of honor and [have been] the guarantors of the security of the region’s waterway throughout history. Don’t you want to play with the lion’s tail! It will be something [for you] to regret,” he said.

Pompeo’s Speech on Iran

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lashed out at the Iranian regime, describing it “as a kleptocracy that has amassed wealth at the cost of its people” and its leaders as “hypocritical holy men.”

Pompeo delivered this speech in California that had a crowd with “young people who left Iran a few years ago and members of an older generation who fled after the revolution.”

The Los Angeles Times reported Pompeo’s speech received mixed reactions within the crowd:

Mariam Memarsadeghi said that though she voted for Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in previous presidential elections, she supports the Trump administration’s policies because she believes they are applying the type of pressure needed to force the Iranian regime to change.

“It’s a 180[-degree] contrast from Obama,” she said.

Iranian Americans who oppose Trump’s policies said they wondered how the administration could express its support for Iran’s citizens while imposing harsh sanctions and barring them from entering the United States.

Iran Reacts to Pompeo

It didn’t take long for the Iranian regime to respond to Pompeo’s speech. I haven’t seen any reactions on Trump’s tweet yet, but I’m sure officials will fire back.

PressTV reported that Bahram Qassemi, the spokesman for the foreign ministry, described Pompeo’s speech as “foolish and baseless” and his words proved the U.S. wants to meddle with Iran’s affairs:

“The US secretary of state’s remarks, especially last night, show that he is still deprived of the necessary knowledge and understanding of the past and present of the Iranians,” the spokesman said.

“Throughout history, Iranians have never accepted any foreign domination and bullying, and certainly in these sensitive situations, they will not only ignore the current president and the war-mongering minority in the US … they will also respond to these meddlesome remarks and measures with exemplary unity and coherence.”

“The US secretary of state’s hypocritical and foolish speech more than ever…was a sign of the American government’s fathomless desperation after its unilateral and unwise withdrawal from the JCPOA and its failure to achieve its goals despite global isolation,” Qassemi said.

The spokesman said Pompeo’s statements showed the “hypocrisy and lack of sincerity” of the current American statesmen and the long gap which exists between their words and deeds.

That’s precious coming from a regime that arrests women who don’t cover their heads out in public. It also sounds like they’re mad because the Trump administration won’t bow to a government that wants to destroy America and wipe Israel off the map.

As we all know, Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal and issued demands for a new deal. The administration attempted to work with the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to pen a new deal, but it went nowhere. The European countries told the Iranian regime “they are exploring activating accounts for the Iranian central bank with their national central banks in a bid to open a financial channel to keep the agreement alive.”

Iran is Hurting Its Citizens

While supporters of the Iranian nuclear deal and the regime want you to think Iranian citizens are ticked at America, the truth is that many of them are tired of the brutal and cruel regime. Sanctions are not hurting the Iranian citizens…their regime is hurting the citizens. The Iranian currency is losing value. Citizens are also sick of the lack of social freedoms.

Protests against the regime began in December and have not stopped. My friend Hanif Jazayeri continues to use his Twitter account to showcase the protests against the regime.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Who cares who the Ayatollahs do to the Iranians. Can’t we learn from Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen…?

Is Trump threatening genocide here?

Iran can close the Persian Gulf by putting a single RPG into a single freighter. The insurance companies would cancel insurance for all ships operating in the region, and the ship owners would remove their ships from it. There would be no exports from the Gulf and no imports to it. This blockade does not require a navy nor an air force. Just some land-based missiles and artillery and a few speedboats.

To undo the Iranians blockade, the US would have to conquer Iran from its coastline to the Zagros. Does anyone seriously think that’s possible? Does anyone remember ‘Nam?

    RodFC in reply to bob sykes. | July 23, 2018 at 9:42 am

    Should anything like that happen Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would demand that we go to war with Iran. Along with many of the European countries.

    And they would all do it.

    scaulen in reply to bob sykes. | July 23, 2018 at 9:56 am

    Nam was a war run by politicians. When the US military is not hamstrung by PC ROE’s they are unstoppable. Trump has full trust in Mattis and because of this Mattis has the full US playbook open for any engagement that US troops are involved in.
    As I’ve always said, we owe Iran an ass kicking the world has never seen. They’ve been murdering Americans for almost 40 years and getting away with it. That needs to end soon, a top down cleansing of the rats running that country would solve a lot of problems in the world.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to scaulen. | July 23, 2018 at 10:26 am

      We should start by knocking out their approximately 40 dams, giving them too much water briefly, followed by too little water, and loss of all their hydroelectric. Return them to near stone age living, and dying conditions.
      Follow that with lots of drones deliver a Hellfire to every one of their clerics.

        Tom Servo in reply to JusticeDelivered. | July 23, 2018 at 11:04 am

        Actually, a move like that would strengthen the Ayatollahs, not weaken them. A huge driver behind the unrest in the countryside is that the Regime is using the dams to store water and supply it to Tehran, while denying it to the farmers in the countryside. This is why so many of the rural areas are close to open revolt. If a foreign power were to attack the water supply, it would allow the Regime to blame all of the water problems on an external enemy, rather than reveal that it is their own corruption that has destroyed the water supply system.

          Ulysses in reply to Tom Servo. | July 23, 2018 at 11:33 am

          The United States Navy on orders from President Ronald Reagan under took Operation Preying Mantis in 1986 in response to Iran’s attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran did not have much of a Navy left after the encounter.

          The United States was condemned by globalist tribunals such as the International Court of “Justice”

          President Trump and the United States armed forces are prepared to reinforce this lessen with actions I presume that will make Preying Mantis look like recess to the Iranians.

          Barry in reply to Tom Servo. | July 23, 2018 at 11:11 pm

          Yep. Over half their fleet was destroyed.
          They got the message, then.
          They may be getting ready to receive a new message.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Tom Servo. | July 24, 2018 at 9:14 pm

          Strengthen them for how long? It would reduce them to near stone age living conditions. I don’t care what the people of Iran like or dislike. Removing their water and power sources would create widespread chaos, and the people would likely kill their disreputable leaders.

    Exiliado in reply to bob sykes. | July 23, 2018 at 10:15 am

    That would be a very very very very stupid thing for Iran to do, and the biggest loser would be Iran.

    casualobserver in reply to bob sykes. | July 23, 2018 at 10:19 am

    So, um, you are suggesting capitulation and subservience for fear of the struggle over the Strait of Hormuz?

    That sounds pretty weak.

    I’ll take sabre rattling for now. Doubtful Iran wants or is ready for all out war. Close the Strait and impact the global economy, and they can be assured that is what they will get.

    Mac45 in reply to bob sykes. | July 23, 2018 at 10:24 am

    First, militarily, the Iranians are at about the same point as the Iraqis in 1991. Can they close the Persian Gulf? Not for long, any determined action by the US and Gulf allies. Their only real force asset is terrorism. And, after the US response to 9/11, that is not going to do them much good. The only military asset which will really help them is a nuclear weapon and a reliable means of delivery. And, that is not likely to happen in the immediate future.

    What will affect regime change is the people of Iran. Pressure from the sanctions will increase unrest among the populous, toward a callus, corrupt regime. And, that is exactly what Trump is doing, ramping up the internal pressure. And, from the reaction of the Iranian regime, it is working.

      Barry in reply to Mac45. | July 23, 2018 at 11:13 pm

      “And, from the reaction of the Iranian regime, it is working.”

      Yep. Their days are numbered IMO.

    dystopia in reply to bob sykes. | July 23, 2018 at 10:57 am

    Sorry Bob. Iran holds the losing hand. By the way, an RPG is not the right tool for disabling a freighter.

    I am sure Iran has carefully laid plans to try to close the Strait of Hormuz. I am equally sure that the United States Navy is more than prepared to rapidly counter any moves Iran may make and the United States Armed Forces would rapidly inflict grievous harm on Iran.

    They are not dealing with Jimmy Carter, George Bush or Barack Obama any longer.

      Tom Servo in reply to dystopia. | July 23, 2018 at 11:06 am

      A US carrier air wing could knock out every military asset the Iranians have on the straights of Hormuz within a day or two, including any shore based missile launchers.

      Ulysses in reply to dystopia. | July 23, 2018 at 11:34 am

      The United States Navy on orders from President Ronald Reagan under took Operation Preying Mantis in 1986 in response to Iran’s attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran did not have much of a Navy left after the encounter.

      The United States was condemned by globalist tribunals such as the International Court of “Justice”

      President Trump and the United States armed forces are prepared to reinforce this lessen with actions I presume that will make Preying Mantis look like recess to the Iranians.

    Milhouse in reply to bob sykes. | July 23, 2018 at 1:46 pm

    Nam was a military victory pissed away by near-treasonous politicians, just like Iraq.

      Fen in reply to Milhouse. | July 23, 2018 at 2:19 pm

      Well said. Keep this up and I may come to your birthday party after all 😉

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | July 23, 2018 at 11:14 pm

      near-treasonous politicians


        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | July 24, 2018 at 2:28 am

        Treason requires adherence to the enemy. Knowingly giving an enemy aid and comfort in order to gain a domestic political advantage is not treason.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 24, 2018 at 12:08 pm

          Get off your high horse, Milhouse, and buy a dictionary. Treasonous is not a synonym for treason. Treasonous simply means having the character of, or characteristics of, a traitor. It’s not a legal term and Barry was entirely correct to cross out “near.”

          The conduct of politicians who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam and Iraq demonstrated that these people had the characteristics of traitors because they did in fact betray at the very least the troops fighting and dying in those conflicts. As well as their families. It does not mean their conduct meets the legal definition of treason. You are improperly using “treasonous” interchangeably with “treason” and they don’t mean the same thing at all.

          If you don’t know what words mean, don’t get into a pissing match over them.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 24, 2018 at 12:27 pm

          Here you go, Milhouse. A link to an online thesaurus.

          Synonyms for treasonous can include:

          Double-crossing, betraying, faithless, perfidious, unfaithful, treasonable, traitorous, two-faced, two-timing, untrue, etc. You know what’s not a synonym for treasonous? Treason. You need to actually know what words mean before you fly off the handle.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | July 24, 2018 at 1:27 pm

          “Treason requires adherence to the enemy.”

          Among others, I’ll give you John Kerry.
          Explain how he was not treasonous.

          That’s just to fit your nitpicking precise definition. Otherwise, Arminius already did an excellent job of explaining it.

          What is “near” treason if not suggesting that certain people were treasonous? Because they were not prosecuted?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 25, 2018 at 3:15 am

          Whether Kerry committed treason is an interesting question. If his motive was to help the enemy, then yes, he did. If his motive from the beginning was to build the successful political career for himself that he did, then no, it wasn’t treason. If the evidence is mixed, it would be for a jury to decide.

          By “near-treasonous” I meant acts that are distinguishable from treason only by such subjective factors as that.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to bob sykes. | July 24, 2018 at 12:13 pm

    Our military was hamstrung by politicians in Vietnam. If they are given free reign to win at any cost, especially high Iranian costs, then they will be overwhelmingly crushed.

    Making an example of Iran would send a clear message.

If the PC-riddled DOD got the authority from DJT to move forward WITHOUT any Rules of Engagement Iran would be done in short order. And I mean, short order.

smalltownoklahoman | July 23, 2018 at 9:40 am

Iran, despite all it’s threats and bluster, would not actually last long in a out and out war with the U.S. President Trump is letting them know in no uncertain terms that their past antics they used aren’t going to fly with him. I would just hope that if it came to an actual war that we learn from the mistakes of the Iraq war and if some antiwar Dem replaces Trump in the WH after he’s done that it won’t be so easy for him to undo all the good our forces accomplished much like Obama did to Iraq.

    I watched the run-up to the Iraq war online, and caught the Democrats enthusiastically supporting it, and then, no sooner than our military started to move, reverting to asking if we had a quagmire, yet.

    Sen. Tom Daschle, then Majority Leader, had this great idea to ride the Iraq war all the way to the White House. For this civic sin, Mr. Daschle was returned to private life by his constituents.

    Make no mistake: the Democrats hunger and thirst to see DJT involved in a war.

      Arminius in reply to Valerie. | July 24, 2018 at 11:48 am

      Unless you are talking about the early 90s you aren’t talking about the run-up to the Iraq war. We were already at war with Iraq. There were two places in the world where no President could have started a war; Iraq and Korea. All we had with those countries were armistice agreements. Unfortunately with the advent of the UN people think that an armistice, or cease fire agreement, ends a war. I only peace treaties end wars. We have one with Iraq, but not with Korea. So we have been continuously at war with the NORKs since June 1950. This is why US Soldiers patrolling the DMZ get combat pay when the fighting flares up. And if fighting flares up in Korea again it won’t be a “second Korean war.” Just like the renewed fighting against the Saddam Hussein regime wasn’t a “second Iraq war” but as a matter of international law simply a continuation of our involvement starting in 1990 after Saddam Hussein kicked the war off by invading Kuwait.

      I don’t want to sound rude. But I was in the Navy and the Iraqis kept shooting at our aircraft. In fact, Iraq started violating the cease fire agreement within weeks of signing it at Safwan. International law says that if one of the signatories to a cease fire is in blatant violation of the agreement, the enforcing powers have the right to declare the agreement null and void and continue the fighting. Which is precisely what we should have done instead of squatting in the desert for 12 years. You only make things worse by putting off the inevitable. Unfortunately Bush 41 and later Clinton made public statements that essentially told Saddam Hussein that we thought it would be stupid to enforce the cease fire, which only emboldened the dictator. Which was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Bush 43 did some stupid things as well, which is why while I defended the decision to go to war and still do I can’t defend Bush and how he ran it. Hell, if I was running things we would have finished our business in Iraq by 1993. And none of that stupid nation building crap. There would have been no idiotic “Pottery Barn rule” on my watch. That’s the only reason we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan so long.

      We retaliated a few times for their blatant violations. Perhaps you recall Operation Desert Fox (the only US operation ever named after a Nazi general, which shows just how ignorant the Clinton regime, that loathed the military, was about history).

      I do believe you’re right about one thing, Valerie. The Democrats would love to see DJT involved in a war. Which just shows how deranged they are and just how bad their political instincts are. Iran can’t close the Hormuz strait and frankly I believe they know it would be stupid to even try. We wouldn’t have to have a full scale war. People have already mentioned Operation Praying Mantis. That devastated the Iranian Navy as well as two of the offshore oil rigs (they were armed and used for intelligence purposes). As had already been mentioned that devastated the Iranian navy. We can do it again and we can do it quicker as the gap in Naval power has widened over the years. This time we need to take out their anti-shipping missile sites and destroy critical economic infrastructure; i.e. critical nodes in their oil drilling and refining sector.

      We don’t need to go to war with Iran. And, again, no nation building. They can use those billions of dollars Obama gave them and rebuild their own damned country.

Trump will send in the dreaded Comey

Such talk makes me cheer and makes me very very nervous, but I’ll stand by our President.

Who knows if the Iranians will nuke LA or NY that will help us in the House Senate and Electoral College. I doubt they can do much more.

    casualobserver in reply to RodFC. | July 23, 2018 at 10:16 am

    Who knows if the Iranians will nuke LA or NY that will help us in the House Senate and Electoral College….

    C’mon. That’s taking a tip out of the progressive playbook wishing death and destruction to the other side.

    I agree with you that I like to see a president who is willing to stand up to a bully and out-bully them. But it makes me nervous at the same time.

Did Trump just say “one more word and I’ll put a fist in your face?” Kind of provocative. How can they not say that word without being humiliated? Of course, the interesting things is, what will Trump do if they take the bait?

casualobserver | July 23, 2018 at 10:22 am

Hilarious. I just read a notice that after Trumps standing up to the bully tactics of Iran they now accuse him of psychological warfare. LOL.

Funny how bullies react when they get their own treatment back for the first time in decades. Maybe they were expecting effete diplomacy. They aren’t getting that so far.

It took about five weeks to overrun Iraq in 2003. The capital was captured in less than a month. A fugitive Saddam Hussein was captured within the year.

In eight years, and at a cost of a third of a million dead Persians, Iran was unable to do more than fight that same Iraq to a stalemate.

I don’t see Iran as a serious contender against anyone who’s serious about fighting.

Of course there are a few unknowns involved. A defeated Iran would leave a huge power vacuum, and what deviltry might result in the surrounding shithole countries is imponderable. And what state the US military might be in isn’t obvious (and anybody who knows would be foolish to talk), but there must have been repercussions from Obama’s eight-year program to turn it into some sort of transsexual dude ranch. And I’d feel a lot better about the whole thing if I had confidence that the Navy has fixed its little problem of ships colliding with solid objects. But these are details we pay the President to worry about (even when he gives his salary away).

    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Half of one quote I remember from back in the day is, “We don’t do mountains.” Iran has a lot of mountains. Also, it took what, five to six months of massive buildup in Saudi Arabia for the previous Gulf War? (American nomenclature)

    Trump’s approach is more realistic.

It’s interesting to see how the MSM mangles this. NPR (for example) opined on the Trump tweet first, waxed poetic about how dangerous it was, THEN transitioned to the Iranian speech that started it so the listener would think Trump’s tweet came first, then the aggrieved Iranians responded.

Also, it’s a tweet. Seriously, media. If you’re going to comment on it, READ it to the listeners in its entirety. The NPR story I listened to spoke *about* it, and read out little snippets of it, but never actually read it. I swear if Trump ever releases a two-word tweet, the media will comment about the first word, then opine for hours upon the second word, without ever saying them together.

    casualobserver in reply to georgfelis. | July 23, 2018 at 11:09 am

    That pales in comparison to how NPR reports on anything tying Israel and the Palestinians. Especially whenever there is fighting involved. They go out of their way to paint every Palestinian victim as the paragon on innocence. Perhaps even more virtuous than a child separated from a parent after crossing our border (or imaginary border…).

“Throughout history, Iranians have never accepted any foreign domination and bullying”

Remind me again how Iran became an Islamic country?

And the regime knows well enough that many of their subjects are sick of “the Arab religion”. They also know that they cannot count on the regular military not turning their guns on the Revolutionary Guards and militia if regime change is in the cards.

    Paul in reply to Squires. | July 23, 2018 at 11:44 am

    Indeed, “Submission” is the word that is most frequently on their lips. They’re well-versed in it by now.

I skimmed Pompeo’s speech. In a just world, the complete media blackout of his words, and the financial activities of Iran’s leadership, would be a national scandal. As it is, the AP is focusing on Rouhani “cautioning” the United States, the NYT on him issuing a “warning”, whereas both characterize Trump’s words as threats. I guess they have to spin it somehow.

I’m thinking Rods of God. Ask the NOK’s

Two blowhards shootin’ their mouth off in an effort to make up for their little peckers. This shit ain’t gettin’ us anywhere … both of ’em should shut the fuck up.

If you’re serious about taking someone down, don’t talk about it, just do it. Lower the boom on him, his cabinet and family. Leave nothing undone, scorch the earth, give notice to the Muslims and bring in an interim government sufficient to facilitate elections.

Extinguish Rouhani’s genome. And, while you’re at it, do the Kennedys, too.

How irresponsible of the President. When dealing with a foreign dictator who commands armies that might do us some serious damage if sufficiently provoked, the president’s proper role is to placate him, flatter him, persuade him gently to play nice. Getting tough and asserting jurisdiction we don’t have over him is so dangerous, it’s practically an impeachable offense!

Oh, wait, we were talking about Putin? That bastard, how dare the President be nice to him? He should be sending in SEAL Team Six to arrest him and bring him to justice. Buttering up such a person is practically an impeachable offense!