An interview with Manouchehr Mottaki
Jul 26th
In an exclusive interview with IslamOnline.net, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki touched upon topics ranging from Iran’s nuclear program, to the presence of foreign forces in war-hacked Afghanistan to support for Palestinians resistance.
He gave a passionate defense of his country’s much-criticized nuclear program.
“They (US and West) have been raising this issue unduly. They know we are not going to develop nuclear bomb,” said Mottaki.
“It is nothing but a propaganda that Iran is going to make nuclear bomb and is a threat to regional security.
“We don’t believe in nuclear bomb.”
The West accuses Tehran of developing a secret nuclear weapons program.
Iran insists that its nuclear program only aims at procuring power to feed an increasing local consumption.
“We are like other countries which have energy needs. And we have the fundamental right to cope with our energy needs in line with other countries,” said Mottaki.
He asserts that nuclear weapons do not win wars nowadays.
“Nuclear bomb doesn’t matter nowadays. If it matters, then the US could have won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel could have won the wars in Lebanon and against Hamas, and the USSR could have avoided disintegration.”
Assuring Gulf
The top diplomat tried to assure the Arab world, especially Gulf neighbors, that Iran is not a threat to their security.
“This is merely propaganda. Our nuclear program is not at all a threat to any country, especially those which are located along the Persian Gulf,” Mottaki said, using the Iranian name for the Arab Gulf.
“Some Persian Gulf countries have been raising concerns about Iran’s nuclear program saying that they are merely 120 kilometers away from our main nuclear center,” he added.
“And I respond to them, that we are only two kilometers away from that (nuclear site).
“There is no need to be scared of it.”
Mottaki offered the Gulf countries to send their own experts to visit his country’s nuclear sites.
“We ask them to dispatch their experts to see what our nuclear program is? We have already made it clear to them that Iran’s nuclear program is not aimed at making a nuclear bomb.”
Afghanistan
Mottaki reiterated Iran’s opposition to the presence of foreign forces in neighboring war-torn Afghanistan.
“When innocent people are being bombed in Afghanistan and a leader like Benazir Bhutto is killed in Pakistan, then we are compelled to say that the region is much more insecure and tense after eight years of foreign forces presence in the region,” he told IOL.
“Our realistic judgment is that foreign forces have failed in Afghanistan.”
He cited the aggravating problem of opium cultivation as an example.
“Before the arrival of foreign troops the annual production of drugs was merely a few hundred tons, and after eight years it is over 8000 tons per year.”
Mottaki said his country supported the ouster of foreign forces from Afghanistan and the region.
“Iran has been calling for last eight years that there is no military solution of the Afghanistan problem. The ongoing policies have miserably failed to resolve this problem.”
He believes the solution for Afghanistan is a regional cooperation between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.
The three countries held a conference in Islamabad last month to formulate a joint strategy to deal with the crisis following the proposed withdrawal of foreign troops.
“We are of the opinion that foreign forces are suffering from a political vacuum in Afghanistan. This vacuum may be widened in 2011. Therefore, we think that the regional countries can fill this vacuumed,” said Mottaki.
“The best strategy to resolve Afghanistan problem, is the regional strategy.”
Cancer Israel
The Iranian foreign minister urged those Muslim states which have recognized Israel to sever ties with Tel Aviv.
“It has usurped the homes and hearths of Palestinians. It has a 60-year-old history of occupation, crimes, and aggression,” he said.
“Therefore, those Islamic countries should sever ties with this illegal state.”
On April 18, 1948, Palestinian Tiberius was captured by Menachem Begin’s Irgun militant group, putting its 5,500 Palestinian residents in flight. On April 22, Haifa fell to the Zionist militants and 70,000 Palestinians fled.
On April 25, Irgun began bombarding civilian sectors of the Palestinian city of Jaffa — the largest city in Palestine at that time, terrifying the 750,000 inhabitants into panicky flight.
On May 14, the day before the creation of Israel, Jaffa completely surrendered to the much better-equipped Zionist militants and only about 4,500 of its population remained.
Israel was created on the rubble of Palestine on May 15, 1948.
“Israel, for us, is like cancer in the body,” Mottaki insisted.
“It’s not Iran, but it’s Israel which poses a permanent threat to the entire region.”
Israel plans to invade Lebanon this autum
Jul 25th
French President Nicholas Sarkozy is son of a Jewish mother-Christian father French couple. In November 2007, French daily Le Figaro revealed that Sarkozy had been an agent of Israeli Mossad.
Sayanim is a Hebrew word which means ‘volunteers’ – and according to Jeff Gates there are tens of thousand of them in United States (could be as many as one million around the world).
Currently, Sarkozy’s government is preparing groundwork for the Zionist regime to settle its scores with Lebanese Islamic Resistance, Hizbullah, for its 2006 military humiliation – before it bomb Islamic Iran.
The recent French military provocation when on Israeli request the soldiers belonging to French contingent with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) raided the houses of the suspected Hizbullah members. The search orders came from French Defense Minister Hervé Morin. When the Lebanese complaint was discussed in the UNSC, France presented excuses through Claude Guéant, general secretary of the French President Sarkozy.
According to an article published by Voltairenet.org, the Zionist entity is planning to invade Lebanon this autum.
On 10 July, the French army conducted a significant evacuation exercise involving French nationals.
The Special Tribunal For Lebanon, which was created by the Security Council (officially in connection with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri) to serve as a political tool against Syria, abandoned indictment procedures against Syrian President Bachar el-Assad and former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, since as time went by the charges against them were proven false. Notwithstanding, it is not to be excluded that the Tribunal could still order an arraignment in September or October. At that point, according to Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, the Special Tribunal would be turned into a political instrument against the Resistance. It may indulge in false accusations, even more fanciful than the previous ones, but this time against the Hezbollah. This maneuver would aim to create internal dissidence and open the door for a new military attack by Israel.
In Washington, the Saban Center (Brookings Institution) and the Council on Foreign Relations have published two contradictory reports. According to the first one, Israel should be given complete leeway. The second report recommends, instead, that the Obama Administration should exert pressure on Netanyahu before, during and after the conflict with a view to containing it. These documents should be deciphered in light of the leadership rivalry that has subsisted between Tel Aviv and Washington for some time. The fact remains that both of these reports are based on the foregone conclusion that Israel is determined to get back at Lebanon and that no one will be able to stop it.
Maura Connelly appeared before the Senate on 20 July to be confirmed as next Ambassador to Lebanon. She backed the policy laid down by Obama’s Middle East peace broker George Mitchell: the United States should no longer pursue a direct confrontation strategy with the Hezbollah, which enjoys majority support among the population, but should seek to isolate it instead. In other words, Washington should pretend to interpret an Israeli war against Lebanon as a police operation against the Hezbollah and refrain from intervening openly.
On his part, de facto President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas sent a message to the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon asking them not to leave their camps during the offensive slated for this autumn. These instructions correspond to the points of consensus prevailing in Washington. Any attempt to use the Palestinians (mainly sunni) against the Hezbollah (mainly shiite) would be counterproductive for the interests of the United States in Lebanon and could spawn negative effects throughout the region.
Saving Zionist entity from doom
Jul 22nd
Gone are the days when Zionist Golda Mier assured his fellow Zionist thugs that “there is no such thing as Palestinian people”. Then they told the world that Palestinians already have a country, Jordan. On April 29, 2010 – Israeli daily Ha’aretz quoted Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin saying: “I would rather accept Palestinians as Israeli citizen than divide Israel and the West Bank in a future two-state solution. A month later, former Israeli Defense Minister and a radical Zionist Jew, Moshe Aren endorsed Reuven Rivlin’s idea of a ‘one state’ for both the native Arabs and the foreign Jew settlers. However, he did mention his fear that absorbing another one million Palestinian Muslims and Christians living in the West Bank would pose a demographic problem which would end Zionists’ dream of a ‘Jewish State’.
Glad Atzmon in his July 20 post, titled “On the Israeli Right’s New Peace Agenda” wrote:
As the Israelis are becoming conscious of their inevitable tragic circumstances, a final desperate attempt to rescue the Zionist project has come to life. Astonishingly enough it is the Israeli right that is now pushing for ‘one binational State.’ It is pretty staggering to find out that while the Israeli so-called ‘left’ is locked within the 1967 territorial paradigm that is fueled by Judeo centric racial ideology, it is actually the hawkish Zionist thinkers who are willing to move the discourse forward.
This Zionist political novelty doesn’t take me by complete surprise. Unlike the Jewish left that is tribally orientated both in Israel and in the West, the right wing Zionist philosophy was grounded on a dream of an eternal bond between the Jew and the alleged ‘promised land’. In Zion the Jew was supposed to transcend oneself beyond the race and the tribe. Israel was there to demolish the ghetto wall. As it happened, in practice, Israel had become the biggest ghetto in Jewish history.
However, there is a clear trap here. As much as the peace loving Zionist hawks seem to champion Palestinian civil rights, the vision of a ‘one binational state’ is still totally Judeo centric. The Israeli advocates of the one binational state are not talking about a neutral “state of all its citizens”, nor about “Israstine” with a flag showing a crescent and a Shield of David. One state still means a sovereign Jewish state, but in a more complex reality, and inspired by the vision of a “democratic Jewish state” without an occupation and without apartheid, without fences and separations.
I guess that this what it is all about. The Israeli hawks want to counter the inevitable ‘demographic disaster’. They would offer West Bank Palestinians Israeli ID cards, and offer them to “enjoy ice cream in Tel Aviv” as long as they are kept as a minority. The Israeli hawks ignore Gaza and the right of return. In practice they dismiss the Palestinian cause for they are certain that the Jewish one is superior. In short, this is not a solution or a resolution. It is just another Zionist spin that is planted in our discourse in order to disseminate confusion.
The Experience of the Islamic Revolution in Iran
Jul 19th
The writer of the following article is Sheikh Chafiq Jeradeh, director of the Institute of Sapiential Knowledge for for Philosophical and Religious Studies in Beirut (Lebanon).
The Islamic Revolution in Iran has come to be defined for many by the concept of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Jurist’s Guardianship), instituted by Imam Khomeini – May Allah Sanctify His Soul (MASHS). Wilayat al-Faqih represents an Islamic concept that is based on the values of the Sufi-Irfan idea that it is possible for humans to ascend through a thorough knowledge of themselves to the state of a ‘Perfect Human Being’.
Such a person is sometimes referred to as the ‘Pole’ or ‘the Pole of the Poles’. In the Sufi-Irfan concept, this state of being carries clear contractual obligations – including political obligations for any human on this path. It also implies that such leadership also requires a strong understanding of law and the literal application of Islam in the day-to-day life of individuals and of Islamic societies. Beyond this juridical understanding, a leader has to possess the ability to manage and organise the elements of society – that is, he must be able to act ‘politically’, following the lead provided by Mohammed’s (pbuh) and his Household’s method of managing the early Muslim communities.
What is remarkable about the Wilayat al-Faqih, and the act of revolution that gave rise to the Islamic State of Iran, was the interaction between the development of the concept of Wilayat al-Fiqih within the context of the reality of revolutionary action. As political reality impinged, and as the revolution imposed new challenges, these events reinforced and opened further scope for the concept to grow and to exhibit new dimensions.
The more the concept expanded and added substance, so it created a new atmosphere amongst Iranians generally. Furthermore this leadership concept opened new horizons for dealing with the external international order, as well as in the military and scientific spheres via its bold declaration to achieve a nuclear fuel cycle. This latter ambition was placed within a moral and religious stance which forbids nuclear weaponisation – in contrast with the peaceful use of energy derived from nuclear fuel.
Thus I believe that it is plain both that the Wilayat al-Faqih concept is susceptible to further evolution and certainly is not immutable; it has not assumed its final shape – as it lies at the intersection of the religious structure intended to manage the day-to-day reality of existence with the desire to live in harmony with the divine values.
Therefore both the substance and the detail of Wilayat al-Faqih are mutable, and should reflect the requirements appropriate to both time and place. It was this need to place the Wilayat al-Faqih in its correct setting that explains why the concept altered and developed during the late Imam’s (MASHS) lifetime. Between the phases of preparing the revolution; the revolutionary phase and the rise of the state; the imposed war phase; and the phase of drafting the constitution, the concept evolved under the pressure of these events. If this transformation was not always very evident during Imam Khomeini’s (MASHS) life, this is largely due to the fact that this period spanned a period dominated by extraordinary change and was overshadowed by the towering figure of the founder.
Nevertheless, after the demise of the Imam (MASHS) and Imam Khameini assuming office, the Imam’s methodolgy, i.e. as Wali Faqih, was impacted by three major debates:
Firstly, until now, the tension between the underlying religious principles and contemporary structures of statehood and the international order have not been satisfactorily resolved. The relationship between Islamic values that demand direct involvement with political and social affairs, and the prevailing global order influenced by contemporary mores and ideas, methodology, and institutions, places it [Iran] at each and every juncture in face of a debate on the values of Islam versus the values of the wider world (which have been created by so-called ‘modernity’).
Although similar dilemmas face all Islamic movements, this potential conflict takes, in Iran, a more serious form, owing to it being a doctrinal state that has surpassed the limitations of being a movement, rather than a state. Iran also – perhaps uniquely – possesses the virtue of having the option to find the balance between these opposing currents.
These tensions however are evident today in Iran: They have given rise to a strand of thinking within society that seeks to place doctrinal religion within a secular framework – this, in addition to their desire to establish the political structures on a similar secular basis. This has caused the religious parties to react in two ways:
- Firstly it has led some to wall themselves in behind the Wilayat al-Faqih formula and to reject any new thinking about this concept arising in the Iranian intellectual or political arena.
- Secondly, it has led to a wider discussion regarding the relationship between Islam and Wilayat al-Faqih. The object of this discussion is centred on how to Islamise contemporary institutional systems of governance, whilst another strand is moving in the opposite direction: It looks at how to revise the concept (Wilayat al-Faqih) better to reflect contemporary reality, and its needs.
This is the real dilemma facing the present al-Wali al-Faqih (the Guardian Jurist, i.e. Imam Khamenei) and the institutions affiliated with him.
Secondly – During Imam Khamenei’s rule, some circles began to discuss the following issues:
- Does the concept of Wilayat presuppose a tradition of (cognitive) knowledge of its own, which in itself enables the Wali (Supreme Leader) to lead and to manage the actuality? Or, does it require some additionally acquired expertise in governance, as well as the special vision, which only spiritual attainment can provide?
- Does Wilayat al-Faqih have one form, and one form only – the one presented by late Imam Khomeini, or there are other possible forms that Imam Khamenei can reveal?
- Finally, does the concept rest on a basis of popular acceptance and commitment within the ranks of the Iranian elites? Or; does its basis lie in the emotional circumstance of revolution? This is an important point that needs to be clarified – for the answer to this question will spell out for us the possibilities for dissension between Iranian elites and the popular will.
Thirdly – There has been in Iran an ancient debate that is perennially renewed: The issue is what should govern Iranian policy: the logic of interest; or the logic of ideology? Does Iran’s interest lie within Iran, internally; or does the Iranian interest intersect with other peoples who uphold the same revolutionary Islamic values?
A debate about such issues may look nothing out of the normal at first glance; but, taking into account the doctrinal nature of the state, and the cultural mood of the people, each of these issues and the debate surrounding them, has an impact and consequences whose potential scope are difficult to predict. Time and experience will be the judge, when it comes to observing how successfully such debates can be resolved.
Breaking The Siege Conference – Malaysia
Jul 18th
On July 11, 2010 – Perdana Global Peace Organization (PGPO) held a one-day international conference at Putra World Trade Center in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). The theme of the conference was “Breaking the Siege: In the spirit of Rachel Corrie and Mavi Marmara“.
The keynote speaker was the Chairman of PGPO, former Prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who said: “We are gathered here not only to honour the Turkish martyrs, who were brutally slaughtered by Israeli commandos on the MV Mavi Marmara, but also to counter the lies and propaganda by Israel and the Zionist-controlled international mass media claiming the passengers, specifically the martyrs, were terrorists and the killings justified. More importantly, we must send a message of hope and solidarity to the Palestinians that the peace-loving people of the world will never abandon them, come what may, and we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder in their struggle for liberation. The Muslim world continues to be taken in by (the United States) President Obama’s rhetoric he is committed to change and he is for peace. His actions contradict his spoken words. Upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama then escalated the war in Afghanistan, a war started by President George W. Bush. It is not surprising the UN chose not to allow a debate on Malaysia’s resolution condemning Israel for its dastardly acts.”
The conference was hosted by renowned television personality Wan Zaleha Radzi, and attracted several politicians, media practitioners, bloggers, students and representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The participants included former UN assistant secretary-general and PGPO international advisory panel member Denis J. Halliday, international activist onboard Rachel Corrie Jenny Graham, Turkish IHH’s (Insani Yardim Vakfi, Humanitarian Relief Fund, or IHH) Dr Hassan Huseyin Usyal who was onboard Mavi Marmara, Astro Awani broadcast journalist Ashwad Ismail, University of Ottawa Centre for Research on Globalisation Prof Michel Chossudovsky, ambassador of Turkey to Malaysia Serap Ataay, deputy head of mission Embassy of Iran and Chief Representative of the League of Arab States Mission in New Delhi Dr Ahmed Salem Saleh Alwasihi.
Recent Comments