They are running scared in Tehran. They know that the Israelis are now in the late stages of planning to destroy their nuclear program, and that Jerusalem has the full backing of the Trump administration. They know that they are defenseless against airstrikes, because on October 26, 2024, the Israelis destroyed all of its anti-missile defense systems, including four S-300 batteries that protected Tehran. Iran has never been so vulnerable to attack from the air. So the Iranians, like those frogs that blow themselves up, sometimes emitting screams, to scare off predators, do the only thing they can: they threaten a terrible response to any attack on its nuclear facilities. Should Israel destroy 100 nuclear sites inside Iran, the Iranians insist that they will promptly build 1000 new nuclear facilities. But nuclear facilities built deep underground, like those at Natanz and Fordow, take many years to build. And building the threatened “1000 nuclear facilities” would take many decades.
The Israelis, having destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities once, will be quite capable of doing so again, and again. More on the comical threat fromTehran about how, if “enemies” (the Iranians don’t like to use the word “Israel”) destroy a hundred of Iran’s nuclear facilities, “we will build a thousand other ones” can be found here: “Iran to Build 1,000 Nuclear Sites if ‘Enemy’ Destroys 100, President Says Amid Reports of Possible Israeli Strike,” by Ailin Vilches Arguello, Algemeiner, February 13, 2025:
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday warned that if “enemies” attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the country will quickly rebuild and multiply them, seemingly responding to new reports of a possible Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites by the middle of this year.
“[Enemies] threaten us that they will hit our nuclear facilities … If you strike a hundred of those, we will build a thousand other ones,” Pezeshkian said during a speech in the southern province of Bushehr, according to Iranian state media.
“You can target the buildings and locations, but you cannot target those who build them,” he said, adding that Iranian “experts” will continue to expand the country’s nuclear program.
“You cannot target those who build them [the nuclear facilities].” That’s a curious remark. Surely Masoud Pezeshkian has not forgotten how the Mossad managed to kill five of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, one after the other, over several years. Some were shot when their cars were stopped in the middle of Tehran traffic. The country’s most senior nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was killed by a rifle, set off by remote control, on a road an hour outside Tehran. Israel has demonstrated before the whole world how vulnerable to the long arm of Mossad Iran’s scientists turn out to be.
Pezeshkian’s comments came after a Washington Post report claimed that Israel may launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow and Natanz by mid-year, citing US intelligence assessments. Such an operation could exploit extensive damage done to Iran’s military capabilities in October, when Israel devastated Iranian air defense systems and ballistic missile production facilities in a coordinated, three-wave strike. The attack was a response to Iran targeting the Israeli homeland with 181 ballistic missiles weeks earlier.
During his meeting in Bushehr, Pezeshkian criticized the United States for pursuing a “contradictory” approach to Iran, saying that while President Donald Trump claims he wants to negotiate a nuclear deal, he also imposes harsh sanctions on Tehran….
There is no contradiction. Trump wants to push Tehran into a corner — hence those harsh sanctions he has reimposed — so that it will come to the negotiating table, eager to deal. Iran has seen its allies — Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the army of Bashir Assad in Syria — all devastated by the IDF. It has seen Syria transformed from being an ally to being a Sunni-run enemy of Shi’a Iran. Iran has lost its anti-missile defense systems. It has lost the factories that produced fuel for its ballistic missiles. And now it has had those economic sanctions put back on by a president determined to apply “maximum pressure” on Tehran, so that it will negotiate a halt to its nuclear program. And if Iran doesn’t yield? Then the IDF, with Trump’s blessing and most likely with 30,000-pound bunker busters provided by Washington, will destroy Iran’s nuclear program, including the underground facilities built at Natanz and those build inside a mountain at Fordow.
somehistory says
If you build it…*they* will come. If you build them, *they* will come.
Practice makes pretty good. By the time 100 have been destroyed, they will really be very good.
BTeboe says
Yep.
Hudders. says
Amen. Practice makes -perfect, as the saying goes…
Maybe turn the whole country to glass might be another worthy saying, if it wasn’t for those who are trapped in Iran, desperate to get from under the hard high heels of the maniacal muslim monster regime today.
Watch this space….
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Except that building nuclear reactors is nothing like building sandcastles at the beach, as Iran seems to think
Willem Van den Heuvel says
Why is there no expectation Iran just buys some nucliar missiles from Russia?
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Were Russia to do that, both the Americans and the Europeans would likely join Israel in targeting those nuclear weapons — more likely to be bombs than missiles, Iran is not just a threat to Israel, but to the entire non-Muslim world.
Keys says
I have wondered if the Pakistanis would give them nukes, but there’s the Sunni hates Shia thing.
Also, wondered if North Korea might give them nukes, and or assistance on delivery systems.
Keys says
Never thought North Korea would send troops to help Russia.
gravenimage says
And apparently they’ve done very poorly. Who thought that half-starved recruits with antiquated weapons would be anything but crack troops?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Actually, Pakistan is the best friend of Iran, despite that shi’a-sunni thing. Pakistan in surveys has been shown as the country w/ the most positive view of the islamic regime, and every regime in Islamabad has been more than happy to be chummy w/ the Ayatollahs
Only reason Pakistan is unlikely to is that they fear not having a nuclear deterrent against India. Or else they themselves might have stationed their nukes in Iran. As it is, Pakistan’s nukes are located in Balochistan, near the Afghan border
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Unlike the Soviets back in the day, and unlike Putin in the ’10s, Russia today is a military sink rather than a supplier. They have been getting drones from Iran (which work badly), pulling troops from Syria (which is why the Assad regime fell), getting North Korea to send troops (lessening the threat to Seoul). The idea that Moscow has nukes to spare for Teheran is just laughable
Also, Iran doesn’t pose a direct threat to Russia’s direct enemies, namely NATO/Europe. Which is why that would be of no benefit to Moscow
somehistory says
OT
Israel has sent tanks into the “West Bank”…..and told the troops to prepare for an extended stay.
ed says
Sounds like a good idea to me
Kosh's Shadow says
The Iranians are like the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
STJOHNOFGRAFTON says
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s hyperbolic comment is what we’d expect form a petulant five year old kid.
bobby says
Iran is failing to read the room…..It’s own citizens are getting fed up with their government, and now that Israel has the backing of the U.S., Israel just won’t destroy Nuclear sites, it’s destroy their military and economy and their own people will be at conflict with the Iranian government.
Pixie says
@Bobby: why go all that way? Kharg is where they’re weakest from an economical point of view, if you ask me. You destroy Kharg (their oil terminal island way up north in the Red Sea) their economy will go straight down the drain, which will most likely trigger the end of the regime. This would prevent us from destroying Fordow and Natanz, which actions would indeed seem to be a lot riskier than destroying Kharg. And if it wouldn’t cause the regime to go down the drain, it will weaken it even more significantly than ever.
Taffy says
Kharg Island is in the Persian Gulf, not the Red Sea. Iran believing that its oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz would be bottleneck Ed there, opened up a new oil terminal off of Jask port in the Gulf of Oman. But, you are right! Destroying those two terminals would put Iran out of commission in due course.
But I do believe that the US needs to take out Natanz and Hordow to set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions 30 years.
Pixie says
@Taffy: I stand corrected on the location and appreciate your remark concerning Kharg and Jask port. But if you first force this regime to the ground then it may be easier to take out Natanz and Fordow. Anyway, they should start either way, I’d say. The sooner these *** are forced out the better.
Statler says
I bet this is easily said, because they don’t have 100 nuclear sites. Do they?
OLD GUY says
Iran would make a fine parking lot.
Jack Reynolds says
The West to IRAN …
.
If we destroy 100 of your Nuclear sites the only thing you’ll be building for the next 1,000 years is RADIATION TREATMENT CENTRES.
.
David says
It will all depend on ‘how’ they are destroyed.
gravenimage says
Iran Says If 100 Nuclear Sites Are Destroyed, It Will Build 1000 More
…………………………………………..
And if we wipe out 1000, will you build a mllion? Have at it…