Friday, August 30, 2013

Q&A: Reality of Iran in relation to US Policy

Question: What is the reality of Iran in relation to U.S. policy? In other words, does Iran follow its own project in the region, independent from America? Can we say that Iran has a message to spread in the region, namely the Jaafari Madhab? Finally, what is America's actual position towards Iranian nuclear weapons?
Answer: To answer that we have to briefly review the reality of the Iranian regime and the course of its politics since the outbreak of the revolution and the proclamation of the Republic and finally the relationship of all of that with America:
1. The American role in the Iranian revolution was obvious from the very beginning. During Khomeini's stay at the Neauphle-le-Château in France, he was visited by delegates from the White House with Khomeini agreeing to cooperate with America. Consequently American newspapers reported about the agreement and the meetings that took place there... These facts were recently revealed by the first president of the Republic of Iran Abul Hassan Banu Sadr in an interview with Al-Jazeera on 12/1/2000. He confirmed that delegates from the White House came to the Neauphle-le-Château in France, where Khomeini lived wherein they were greeted by Yazdi, Bazarkan, Mousawi and Ardibaili... There have been many meetings between the two parties, most notably the October meeting which took place in the suburbs of Paris, during which agreements between the Reagan and Bush group and Khomeini's group were signed. Khomeini then declared his willingness to cooperate with the United States on the condition not interfere in Iran's internal affairs. Shortly after Khomeini returned on board of a French plane to Tehran, so America applied pressure on Shahpur Bakhtiar to pass over the rule to Khomeini and threatened the leaders of the Iranian army if they stood in Khomeini's way.
Since then Khomeini became the leader and the ruler. And a constitution similar to the constitutions in the other Muslim countries was drafted according to the Western system of capitalism. Iran's constitution imitates Western constitutions, such as the republican system of governance, the partition between different ministries, parliamentary work, the separation of powers, and the issue of competency. All of these are in accordance with the capitalist regimes. As for the statement that the "official religion of Iran is Islam and the twelve Ja'fari school of thought" this then is similar to what can be found in most constitutions in the Muslim countries, which does not mean that the state is based on Islam nor that its message is Islam. Rather this statement is merely related to decrees and holidays, and accommodates the people's beliefs and their worship that pays respect to certain matters of their lives. The Iranian Constitution does not provide that this Deen forms its doctrine or that this Madhab (school of thought) is the state's message or an aim of foreign policy, which is in fact nationalistic and patriotic. The Iranian state adheres to the current international system of enrollment in international and regional organizations based on capitalism, such as the Iranian membership in the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. None of its international relations are based on Islam. Hence it needs to be noted that the Iranian state does not carry a specific message nor does it pursue a specific project based on Islam. Rather the nationalistic and patriotic taint is apparent in the Iranian regime, reflected in the policy of maintaining the existing system as well as the structure of the state and its territory. We contacted Khomeini in the beginning of the revolution and advised him not to cooperate with America, and to declare an Islamic constitution as rendered by us, and we sent him a communique analyzing and explaining the defects of the Iranian Constitution. Khomeini did not accept our advice and proceeded with a constitution that contradicts Islam, in a republican system according to Western-style capitalism.
2. As for the issue of the Madhab (school of thought) specified as the official Madhab of the regime, it was not defined as a message or a project to be promoted, neither are the system and the constitution based on it, nor are the articles of the constitution extracted from it. Rather the basic materials that relate to the system of ruling and foreign policy and those related to the military and security are taken from the capitalist system, similar to the Saudi regime that exploits the Hanbali Madhab which is widely spread in the Hijaz to achieve the interests of the system. Furthermore Iran exploits the confessional aspect to gain followers and supporters or those willing to work with them. It agitates their sense of fanatic sectarianism, thus facilitating their use for national interests and not to serve the Ja'fari Madhabi or the Shiites, evidenced through the fact that Iran does not aid the Shi'a nor the Ja'fari Madhab unless it fosters national Iranian interest. If secularism promotes its interest, Iran pushes Islam, Shi'ism and the Ja'fari Madhab aside. They support the Iraqi regime and the Syrian regime, which are both secular systems affiliated with America. Although there are mainly Shiites residing in the Eastern provinces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and given the fact that these areas also contain the Saudi oil fields, Iran has on a number of occasions supported uprisings in order to weaken Saudi Arabia. It used a similar policy in Bahrain which called for Saudi Arabia to send troops to Bahrain...
Iran does not bother with the sectarian aspect if this contradicts its national interests. Azerbaijan at the end of 1989 sought its liberation from the Soviet Union and people destroyed the borders with Iran in order to unify with it, bringing about massacres during the beginning of 1990 at the hands of the Russian aggressors who had entered Baku to prevent the establishment of a system not following their lead, and to help their old communist agents into power. However Iran did not help the people of Azerbaijan in the face of this Russian attack that violated the rights of the Muslims who sought freedom from the Russian yoke and the clutches of the communists; as a matter of fact, the majority of Azerbaijan's Muslim population follow Iran's official Madhab. Iran did not help Azerbaijan in the face of the Armenians who were sponsored by the Russians in the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijan during 1994 and displaced more than one million Azerbaijanis from their land. This tragic situation is still in existence. Indeed, Iran has developed its relations with Armenia at the expense of Azerbaijan! Not only that, but Iran has supported factions that have nothing to do with Islam, such as the faction of Michel Aoun or secular movements like the movement of Nabih Berri and others in Lebanon of those marching on the path paved for them by America.
3. All of the political work in the region carried out by Iran is in congruence and accordance with American agendas:
A. In Lebanon, Iran founded and armed a party from the followers of its Madhab and, such that it became a special army separate from the Lebanese army, and the Lebanese regime acknowledged it and their weaponry, knowing that the Lebanese system is a secular regime that follows American politics. The Lebanese regime does not allow any other party to bear arms nor did it acknowledge the arming of any other party. The Party of Iran in Lebanon with the support of the Syrian regime associated with America as did Iran, and America did not prevent the Lebanese regime from allowing Iran's Hezb intervention in Syria to prop up the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad, rather American gave its implied consent to the intervention of this party in Syria without being hampered by the Lebanese army.
B. When America occupied Iraq it was met with an unexpected resistance, so it entered Iran into Iraq to help influence those belonging to its Madhab, to affect them and prevent their movement against the occupation, event to make them stand against the resistance, even confronting it and giving legitimacy to the occupation and to the established system. Especially after 2005 America allowed the ascension of a coalition of pro-Iranian parties into power, led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari and then al-Maliki, and these governments were installed by America and are linked to it. Maliki's government, backed by Iran, signed security and strategic agreements with the United States to maintain its influence after the official end of the occupation of Iraq, indicating American satisfaction with the role played by Iran whose officials admitted its cooperation with the United States in the occupation and its work to secure the stability of American influence in Iraq. Iran opened its embassy in Iraq immediately after the occupation, and al-Jaafari was not elected until the Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi visited Baghdad in 2005 at the height of the occupation. The two sides condemned the acts of resistance to the occupation under the pretext of condemning terrorism in Iraq. Jaafari's visit to Iran was used to sign several agreements, including a cooperation agreement in the field of intelligence between them to establish security and control of border crossings and linking Basra to Iran's electricity grid and the establishment of an oil pipeline between Basra and Abadan.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited Iraq at the beginning of 2008 under the spears of direct occupation. Ahmadinejad often incited whirlwinds with his remarks directed against America and against the Jewish entity, although his words were never followed by action. At the same time Ahmadinejad was the Iranian president most closely aligning with the path of U.S. policy, therefore visiting Iraq under U.S. occupation and two weeks before leaving the government he again visited Iraq to renew his support to Maliki's government, which is there to maintain U.S. influence in Iraq. On top of that Ahmadinejad visited Afghanistan in 2010 under U.S. occupation and provided support for the Karzai regime, which serves as a custodian of the U.S. occupation in Afghanistan.
C. Iran did the same in Yemen, where it won over the group of al-Houthi and armed it, who rose against the regime of Ali Salih, an agent of the British. Iran also supports the southern secular movement in Yemen who advocate secession. They in turn are also allies to America, striving to establish a pro-American secular regime in southern Yemen.
D. The relationship between Iran and the Syrian regime is an old one, dating back to the time of the first Intifada in the early 80's of the past century. Iran then supported the Syrian regime in suppressing the Muslims of Syria, so as to keep it within the American project in support of the regime led by its agents from the Assad family. Iran did this knowing that it is a secular nationalist Baathi system congruent with the regime of Saddam, which they were fighting although it had nothing to do with Islam, rather Saddam fought Islam and its people. Iran did this well aware that Saddam was linked to America, it did not defend the rights of the Muslims, they did just the opposite in declaring war against them and bringing victory to a criminal Kufur regime, and Iran continues to do so. The Iranian regime maintains close relations with the Syrian leadership, which includes military, economic and political ties. Iran transferred many weapons to support the Assad regime and provided it with oil and gas at discounted prices due to the lack of reserves of energy in Syria. These political relations can particularly be observed in the Iranian interference in the Syrian revolution when the Assad regime stood on the verge of collapse. Had it not been for Iranian interference by sending troops of the Revolutionary Guards, and troops from Iran's Hezb and Maliki's militias that follow Iran, Bashar and his regime would have collapsed. The massacres of Qusair, Homs and today's chemical massacres in al-Ghouta and others bear witness to this intervention.
E. As for Afghanistan, Iran supported the U.S. occupation and the constitution laid down by the government created by America with Karzai as president, all of that was an Iranian service to America. Iran has secured the north of the country when America failed to defeat the Taliban. Former Iranian President Rafsanjani mentioned that: "If it were not for our troops fighting the Taliban, America would have sunk in the Afghan quagmire."(al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper, 2/9/2002). Mohammad Ali Abtahi, vice for the former Iranian President Khatami for legal affairs and parliamentary elections in the Gulf and the Challenges of the Future Congress, held in Abu Dhabi on the evening of 1/13/2004, said: "If it were not for Iranian cooperation, Kabul and Baghdad would have never fallen so easily. But we received a bonus and we are within the axis of evil!" (Islam Online Net, 1/13/2004)
President Ahmadinejad has repeated the like on his visit to New York to attend the United Nations meetings in an interview with The New York Times on 9/26/2008 where he said: "Iran has provided a helping hand to the United States with regard to Afghanistan and the result of this assistance was the U.S. President's direct threat to launch a military attack against us. Our country has also provided assistance to America in the restoration of calmness and stability in Iraq. "
4. As for the issue of the nuclear program, it has been at a standstill for years, although the Jewish entity, supported and encouraged by Europe, threatened more than once over the years to strike this program. America stood in the face of the Jewish entity and prevented it from doing so. Until today America is preventing the entity from doing so... Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey on 8/12/2013 visited the Jewish entity for this purpose, such that Kuwaiti KUNA agency on 8/12/2013 reported from a radio channel of the army of the Jewish entity the following statement: "Dempsey's visit comes just days after a similar secret weeklong visit fully carried out by the commander of the U.S. Air Force Mark Welch to Israel," in which both sides refrained from talking about the nature of research taking place in it. Welch's visit was kept a secret at American request, amid tensions in the region and against the backdrop of Israeli threats to strike Iran. KUNA agency added: "Analysts believe that the commander of the U.S. Army will try to persuade his hosts to refrain from making dramatic decisions in the near future against Iran to give diplomacy a chance after the inauguration of Hassan Rohani as president of Iran."
America permitted the Jewish entity to strike the nuclear reactors of Iraq that were under construction at the time of Saddam in 1981, but it prevents the entity from striking Iranian nuclear reactors which started enriching uranium to a 20% enrichment, indicating that it is in their interest to maintain the Iranian regime that works to their advantage in the region. They want it to remain as a deterrent that frightens the Gulf States such that American influence is preserved in these countries, and America works to use it to maintain its influence in the Islamic world.
Returning back a bit, we find that from the beginning of the nuclear talks in 2003 America focused on sanctions without taking any actual action against the nuclear facilities, and frustrated the European Union and outraged the Jewish state, and every time talks were held America proposed additional sanctions as a solution to the issue without taking any military action. And America intervened repeatedly to calm "Israeli" fears, because it wants the Iranian regime to remain, and for the nuclear issue to remain open so that it does reach the nuclear bomb and meanwhile it is not resolved at all, Instead America wants it to remain, as we said, a boogeyman that frightens the gulf states, and a forward for the continuation of the presence of American military forces in the Gulf. In addition to America exploitation, it to set up a missile shield in Turkey and in central Europe under the pretext of deterring Iranian nuclear weapons and protecting it from them! This is on top of a justification for the increase in the budget of the ministry of defense.
5. As for what appears on the surface as animosity between America and Iran, it can be understood as follows:
A. The atmosphere was charged, and public opinion was charged against America before and after the revolution, and it was considered responsible for the suffering of the people and blamed for its support for the Shah and for his oppression and was described as the Great Satan. Because of that the rulers of Iran could not directly announce the resumption of talks between the two sides and afterwards the resumption of diplomatic ties, especially America's meetings with Khomeini in Paris, and American pressure on the Iranian military to not intervene against Khomeini's revolution... All this was not a secret, therefore the Iranian regime was in need of dynamic events with America as justification for sitting with them. So the hostages' incident took place in the American embassy on 4/10/1979 which resulted in the severing of diplomatic ties between Iran and America in order to strengthen Khomeini and strike his opposition and cover the reality of the relationship between the two sides. Afterwards American sources mentioned that it was a tidy American theatrical, and likewise Hasan bani Sadr mentioned in the previously mentioned interview with Al-Jazeera that "that was an agreement with the Americans and of their planning and he agreed to that after Khomeini convinced him". And both sides signed what is called the Algiers Accords on 20/1/1982 whereby the hostages were released, and that happened on the day that the American President Reagan came to power in America, and America implicitly recognized the new regime under the leadership of Khomeini when this agreement ordained the mutual respect by both sides and for each side to not intervene in the affairs of either side and the protection of the interests of both sides by the appointment of a third party, and afterwards the return of 12 billion dollars that the new regime requested from the frozen Iranian assets...
B. And for a long time, Iranian rulers have worked to foster an atmosphere for the resumption of these relations, even though secret communication continues between them and collaboration had occurred as the Iranian officials themselves revealed, and they have continued to do so... as though the continuation of this situation between the two countries benefits them; as Iran appears as though it is hostile to America to cover its dealings and progression with America in its imperial projects, and so it can be a contributing factor to the facilitation of those projects, and America appears as hostile to Iran and works against it to limit Europe and the Jews. And the public opinion against Iran in America and the West is deceived to achieve its interests in the region. Some of the rulers that have attained positions have been accused of being agents to America by the Iranians such as the President of the Republic Bani Sadr, so he was overthrown due to the presence of a strong opposition current at the time against the relationship with America that worked to overthrow him. But the President of the Republic Rafsanjani, whose relationship with America has been revealed such as Iran-gate and Iran-contra, was not overthrown because such a current did not exist at the time. And Presidents have been punished and described sometimes as reformers and moderates, and sometimes as conservatives and radicals, but a change in the Iranian policy has not been seen despite the harsher talks at times and lighter talk at other times, and it remains just talk not followed by actions and not applied in reality. And as such the American stance toward Iran has not changed despite the toughening of talk at times by the Republicans and placing it on the list of the axis of evil and the softening of talk by the democrats, but America has not taken any decisive and serious steps against Iran, and when the President Rouhani put together the new government he said: "His government will adopt in its foreign policy the prevention of threats and the elimination of tensions" (Reuters 12/8/2013). And he chose "Muhammad Jawad Tharif for the position of foreign minister, who is the former ambassador to the United Nations and was educated in the United States and was an essential participant in rounds of secret negotiations that attempted to overcome the decline in relationship between Washington and Tehran" (Reuters 12/8/2013). Rouhani more frankly announced after the elections when he said: "We do not wish to see an increase in tensions between Iran and the United States. Wisdom tells us that both countries need to think more about the future and try to sit to create solutions to the past issues and correct the matter" (Reuters 17/6/2013). American President Obama replied to him saying: "The United States is still prepared to engage in talks directly with the Iranian government with the goal of reaching a diplomatic solution that deals fully with the international community's concern over Iran's nuclear program" (same source), which means that Iran wants to end the era of secretly progressing with America, and begin a new era of openly progressing with it, but with different forms so it will appear as though it is an influential state regionally that commands involvement in regional affairs.
6. And based on what was mentioned above, we conclude the following:
The matter of doctrine that Iran has specified as official doctrine for the regime, it has not specified it as a message or project it carries, and it has not established its regime on this doctrine, nor has it adopted its constitution based on it, or its articles based on it. Instead the central articles that pertain to the system of governance and foreign policy, and the issues of military and security is taken from the capitalist system, so that it resembles the Saudi regime, which exploits the prevalent doctrine in the land, the Hanbali doctrine, to achieve the interests of the regime. As for the foreign policy for Iran, it is compatible with American interests in the region, and likewise in the larger Middle East and the Islamic lands. For example, Iran helped Washington to realize the continuation of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade or so, and also, by way of its Hezb in Lebanon, it has drawn the political landscape in Lebanon. And recently it has collaborated to maintain U.S. hegemony in Syria by way of supporting al-Assad. Thus, Iran works in Afghanistan and Syria and Lebanon and Iraq to serve American interests. As for outside the region it can be said that America has succeeded in exploiting Iran's conduct to promote its own missile shield program and tying the Gulf Cooperation Council into unbalanced security agreements, and likewise in the selling of weapons in the billions to Gulf states out of fear of Iran!
Iran is progressing with America and it understands the significance of this progression and it knows its boundaries, so it does not cross them even if it raises the tone of speech to deceive or cover up the truth as happened in the time of Nijad that saw great service to America in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and therefore America sees the regime in Iran largely as a servant to its interests to the extent that the decision making circles in America see no reason to change the regime. This is what it announced on December 12 2008, when Robert Gates in an international security conference about the relationship between America and Iran and what it should be, said: "No one wants to change the regime in Iran... and what we want to discuss is bringing about a change in policies and conduct, so that Iran will become a good neighbor to the countries in the region, instead of being a source of instability and violence."
04th Shawwal 1434 AH
21 August 2013 CE

No comments: