Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says his country supports a democratic solution for the Palestinian- Israeli conflict.

“Now imagine the most cruel person of our time, the child-murderer prime minister of the Zionist Regime [Benjamin Netanyahu] goes to Europe and plays innocent, saying Iran wants to destroy them,” said Ayatollah Khamenei during his meeting with A group of university professors and researchers on June 10, 2018.

Who Wanted to Throw Israelis into the Sea?

“They are truly pioneers in oppression and cruelty throughout history. The European addressee listens and shakes his head, without mentioning their [Israel’s] crimes in Gaza and Quds,” he said adding: “The Islamic Republic acts logically on all matters. On the matter of the Zionist Regime, [Egypt’s late President] Jamal Abdul-Nasser proclaimed they would throw the Jewish people into the sea. We never made such remarks.”

“From day one, we announced a plan. We said, today democracy is a modern method that the entire world’s population agrees on. We said, for decision making on the historical country of Palestine, refer to the Palestinian people. This plan is registered with the United Nations as the statement of the Islamic Republic.”

“Those who are true Palestinians and have been living in Palestine over a hundred years ago–Muslims, Christians and Jews–where ever they are, either in the occupied lands or outside of them. They should be surveyed. Their vote should be applied.”

“Is this a bad opinion?” he asked adding: “The Europeans refuse to understand this. Then, that child-murderer, vicious oppressor plays innocent, saying Iran wants to kill several million people out of their population.”

What is Iran’s plan for Palestinian Issue?
Iran officially announced its proposed solution in 2012 during the 16th Non-Aligned Summit in Tehran.
Iran suggests that all current and former inhabitants of the Palestinian territory should participate in a referendum and decide about their fate and future. Iran’s leader described the country’s suggestion in his Inaugural Speech at the 16th Non-Aligned Summit.

“All the Palestinians – both the current citizens of Palestine and those who have been forced to immigrate to other countries but have preserved their Palestinian identity, including Muslims, Christians and Jews – should take part in a carefully supervised and confidence-building referendum and chose the political system of their country, and all the Palestinians who have suffered from years of exile should return to their country and take part in this referendum and then help draft a Constitution and hold elections. Peace will then be established,” he said during his speech in 2012.
Read Iran’s View’s detailed report about the solutions for the Palestinian- Israeli conflict suggested by different parties.

The post Israeli- Palestinian Conflict: Iran Offers a Practical, Democratic Solution first appeared on .

By: Sonia Mansour Robaey *

1. Values and the West’s double standards approach to ethical pluralism.

Ethical pluralism is focused on individual preferences in modern pluralistic societies.  It does not dictate what is ethical or what is not.  It only creates a space for rational dialogue on the diversity of values aimed at reaching a consensus within the limits of reason.  Ethical pluralism is practised in West for controversial moral issues like abortion, gay rights and Euthanasia.  Although laws are legislated on these issues in some western countries, in many cases they do not constrain those who oppose them to live by them.  It is believed that ethical pluralsim creates more tolerance and more freedoms for the individual.  The essence of ethical pluralism is that moral codes cannot be forced, they emerge by consensus through a rational discourse and dialogue on values.   Ethical pluralism represents the culmination of many centuries of western thinking in political Philosophy, moral Philosophy and Ethics.  Ethical pluralism in western democracies is assumed for example in Jürgen Habermas’ ‘Discourse ethics’ where, within western societies, ethical diversity and pluralism require a commitment to rational discourse and dialogue. 

However,  wide dialogue, based on rational discourse and leading to consensus on moral values in western societies, is denied by the West to others when advancing its own set of values in non-western societies,

As such, western moral values, having emerged by consensus, are forced on other cultures and societies who did not participate in the rational discourse leading to a consensus on these values.  Another difficulty in implementing western moral values in most non-western societies is related on the status of the self in society.  Most non-western moral values are anchored, not in individual preferences, but in community norms, elders’ wisdoms and local laws, which ancient Greeks used to call ‘nomos’.   In non-western societies, core values are transmitted between generations where intergenerational dialogue and closeness are strong, contrary to western societies.  They are not discussed in the public sphere where they play a cohesive role in which the individual self identifies more with the community than with the ego.

There is a tension in the West’s approach to values which allows the individual a greater space of liberty within western societies but denies this liberty to individuals in other societies attached to their traditions and the norms of their communities.  In fact, there is a faulty assumption in West that the individual Self in non-western societies is modeled on the western Self, despite historical and cultural differences.  This tension has become palpable with the advent of the globalization of markets, cultures and ideas.  The West stands as the promoter of one set of values, its own, over others, without regard to context, History, and culture.   The West’s hegemonic approach to values is being tackled differently in non-western cultures, either by total assimilation, peaceful but active resistance, distrust and retreat, or violent resentful extremism directed against the West in the case of Sunni Islam.  Colonialism was built on the assumption that the colonized were different in humanity while globalization is built on the assumption that ‘there is no such thing as society’, only individuals exist, as Margaret Thatcher famously said.  Both colonialism and globalism approach non-western cultures with models of the individual self-forged in West and imposed on non-westerners, incompatible with many cultural and religious identities.

Ethical pluralism then, although unequally practiced by West, is not part of the relations the West establishes with other societies, where it is assumed that only individuals exist and that they must consume the product of the ethical consensus built by other individuals in West.  Since 911, as the assumption grew for a ‘clash of civilisations’,  there was an upsurge in this approach and the forcing of western values through military campaigns, invasions and occupations preceded and followed by violent backlashes from extremist fundamentalists.  Post 911, international relations have become a domain of confrontations thought to be confrontations of civilisations and values.

2. A broken dialogue on values feeds terrorism and simulates for us a ‘clash of civilisations’

Many Muslims today live in communities, societies and countries which emphasize traditional values and the supremacy of the community over the individual.   Although Muslims are not the only ones who live in traditions which are antagonists to western values, they are currently the main culture and religion to react and to be targeted by this confrontation and it is mainly Sunni Muslims who are engaged in this confrontation which has claimed many lives and wrecked many countries and their social fabrics through terrorism and the war on terror.

This is the reason why a dialogue on values is urgently needed between the West and Muslims.  Some in the West as well as in Muslim countries do not believe in the dialogue on values, firmly standing on both sides of the values divide, committed to wars.  But others believe in this dialogue. President Obama articulated his desire for dialogue with Muslims in his Cairo’s discourse early during his first mandate.  But due to many factors, including America’s previous war commitments and voices of confrontation inside his own administration, Obama wasn’t able to act on his Cairo’s discourse. We will never know if Obama was sincere about this dialogue.  But what we know is that he did not blindly follow those who wanted a confrontation to the end with Iran. Recently, Ayatollah Khamenei wrote on his twitter account that Obama wrote him a second letter in 2009 full of affirmative accounts about Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei said he had the intention to reply to the letter but after Obama supported the protests against the government in Iran in 2009 he refrained from doing so.  Obama acted against the voices of confrontation with Iran, but not before the failure of the 2009 colour revolution for regime change.  He finally succeeded in reaching a deal with Iran that, if its implementation is unhindered by more confrontation, should naturally open a dialogue on values between Muslims and the West.

On the Iranian side, the deal reached between Iran and the West silenced the voices of confrontation and opened possibilities to initiate a dialogue between Muslims and the West.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was first to open this dialogue on the values of Islam with his two letters to western youth (January 2015 letter and November 2015 letter).  Khamenei’s initiatives came in a context of a renewed wave of Sunni terrorism by ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), more barbaric and more sectarian than the terrorism witnessed since 911, and threatening this time the Near East, the Levant and Europe.

While the nuclear deal was being worked out between the West and Iran during the year 2015, many terrorist attacks by Sunni Muslim extremists hit Muslim countries, especially Iraq and Syria, as well as Europe.  Most notable were the two attacks in France in 2015, both claimed by ISIS, attracting wide and sustained attention in western media.  ISIS is virulently anti-Iran and anti-Shia.  It promotes a return to the  Sunni Caliphate.  Khamenei’s first letter spoke of a different kind of Islam in an attempt to educate western youth on the real sources of knowledge on Islam, away from the terrible and negative image that was being presented to the West by ISIS.  The letter was deliberately addressed to youth because, as Khamenei argued, dialogue with western leaders was futile since they were the ones promoting the kind of Muslim extremism embodied by ISIS through the stigmatisation of Muslims and the religion of Islam.  There is unwillingness in West, especially among those who fear and stigmatise Islam, to learn about the true religion of Islam and Muslims beyond the terrorists clichés.  Ayatollah Khamenei’s second letter to western youth was published two weeks after the attacks on the Bataclan concert venue in Paris that claimed many youthful lives.  In it, Ayatollah Khamenei chides the West for its double standards towards the victims of terrorism and for the imposition of western culture by force uniformly on Muslim societies.

Learning about the true religion of Islam, lifting the peaceful image of Islam and Muslims against the hateful image propagated by terrorists, finding common ground among differences in values, reaching out to youth, were also the main topics of Obama’s speech, and the first, in an American Mosque in Baltimore On February 3, 2016. Obama’s speech at the Mosque was in many ways a foreign policy speech too in which he condemned sectarian policies implicitly criticising Saudi regional policy. At some point he addressed his critics who say his policy against ISIS is not clear by stating that clarity against terrorists can be found only in countering their message of division, sectarianism and hate.  Obama quoted passages from the Qoran more than once during his speech.  Only two years ago, such a move by Obama, going to a Mosque, delivering directly to Muslims a message of peace and quoting the Qoran, was unthinkable.  What happened between the Cairo speech and the Baltimore Speech?  The hate didn’t stop, the terrorism didn’t stop, the divisions and the confrontations didn’t stop.  To be fair to Obama, the Cairo speech was meant to inaugurate an era of dialogue between the West and Islam, but Obama couldn’t act on this alone, he needed partners among Muslims leaders in the ME.  The Baltimore speech comes after the nuclear deal with Iran, Iran’s participation in the fight against ISIS, and the endless possibilities for finding common ground between the West and Islam these events may produce. Obama also realized that an American Mosque and the Muslim American community are the best place to start this dialogue, not Cairo.  

3. A clash of values is not a clash of civilisations.

Although the lives lost to terrorism in France and the West in general aren’t more precious than other lives taken by blind terrorism elsewhere, the attacks in France and the West create a greater wedge between European and Muslim populations at large, inside and outside, in neighbouring countries around the Meditterranean basin, and beyond in the Asian and African continents where the majority of Muslims live.  While American neocons, who so much wish for the clash of civilizations, rejoice of the increasing wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims far from their own shores separated and shielded from this clash by two oceans, Europe is increasingly becoming the theatre of the clash.   

What is the nature of this clash?  It is important to make a distinction here between the clash of civllizations and the clash of values.  While the clash of civilizations includes also a clash of values, it is about more than values.  The clash of civilisations leads to wars because civilizations aim for self preservation and fight against their annihilation.  The term ‘civilisation’ implies not only values but a geopolitical, economic and military space.  The clash of values can be approached differently and resolved through dialogue.  Even inside western societies there is a clash of values.  This is why western societies practise ethical pluralism.  Values can intersect between two civilizations and common ground can be found amid differences.   Many values evolve from the inside, but also from contacts with other civlizations.  In the ancient times, these contacts were mostly established through wars.  The citizens of ancient Greece considered non-Greeks as barbarians and non-humans because ancient Greece was a ‘closed’ civilisation, that is until the advent of Alexander’s conquests and the Hellenistic period that followed.

The term ‘clash of civilisations’ is greatly misleading.  It implies a geopolitical confrontation.  It is both a testimony to the neocons’ warring agenda as well as to their backward thinking.  Wars aren’t needed today to establish contacts between civilisations or resolve differences in values between civilisations.  Today’s means of communication are many, multi-level, fast and easy. The fall of the former communist bloc countries should have led us to a more cooperative, less confrontational world, militarily speaking.  Instead, the neocons created the clash of civilisations set-up to produce more wars and more confrontations to advance American hegemony in a unipolar world.  With 911 and its aftermath, Sunni Muslim terrorism, initially born out from the collaboration of America’s cold war ideology and Sunni Wahhabism against the former communist bloc, set the scene worldwide for a spectacular and threatening clash of values with humiliations, provocations and blasphemy of religious symbols.  A clash of values enacted amid wars, fear and mongering on the world scene, leading to greater divisions, erasing the common ground between civilisations, fulfilling the ‘clash of civilisations’ prophecy.   

It is Europe and Asia where most people on the planet, and most Muslims live, that are set to take the full impact of this clash being prepared for decades now by the neocons. The neocons’ game in Europe is to treat Europe’s woes resulting from a clash of values between east and west, between  north and south, with more confrontations and wars.  The neocons who are the promoters of the clash of civilisations are the new enemies of the Open Society.

This is the post 911 reality created by the neocons. A world that has every possible tool to make communication and dialogue on many issues, including values, easy and natural, yet is locked in confrontations and wars. As it takes two to dance, the neocons’ project to produce a clash of civilisations is greatly helped by Sunni Muslim resentful extremism and its state sponsors.

Fortunately for us, the majority of Muslims do not want this clash of civilisations which has been hurting Muslim countries and Muslims more than others.  Fortunately for us too, Iran refuses to engage in the clash of civilisations.  Amid the tensions created by 911, Iran has shown the world it can make peace without losing its dignity by not responding to the humiliations and provocations of those who want wars for the sake of wars.  I have argued before that both the nuclear deal and Khamenei’s letter to western youth form a coherent approach by Iran to treat the woes of Islam and show the West that there is an alternative to confrontation with Islam and Muslims through dialogue on values and the respect for the dignity of others.

Those in the West who want a dialogue on values with Muslims to peacefully resolve differences instead of a clash of civilisations and wars can now count on Iran’s leadership.   A dialogue on values can be much more enriching than the forcing of western values on Muslim societies.  A dialogue on values doesn’t and shouldn’t end by one set of values taking on another but by finding common ground amid differences.  That’s the essence of communication and diplomacy and the respect for the dingity of others and our common humanity. 

Russia, which has worked hard to end Iran’s isolation, has a diplomacy which instinctively understands the potential of resolving the issue of the clash of civilisations that feeds today’s devastating terrorism eating at the heart of all civilisations.  Because Russia’s neighbour, Europe, is by excellence the theatre for this clash.  And because a clash of civilisations that counts on terrorism for self-realization will undoubtedly lead to the end of civilisations. 

The US however, despite the nuclear deal and the recent détente with Iran, is still very much sitting on the fence, between war and peace.  Hesitations and mixed messages, as well as Obama’s end of mandate, risk annihilating the dialogue that the Iran deal is promising, putting the initiative back in the hands of the neocons.  Obama’s last year in office must prove decisive in its open approach to the ills born out from the confrontation with Islam and Muslims if we are to bend the arc of History definitively away from the neocons.

As I wrote in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, only a dialogue on values can silence the voices of confrontation. 

* Sonia Mansour Robaey, PhD, teaches Philosophy and Ethics, does counselling in Ethics. She is an observer and analyst of Middle Eastern and Levantine politics. Follow her on Twitter @les_politiques

The post Iran, US and Clash of Values’ Dilemma first appeared on .

” Anyone who has benefited from affection and humanity is affected and disturbed by witnessing these scenes- whether it occurs in France or in Palestine or Iraq or Lebanon or Syria,” Iran’s leader writes as he explained his reason for reaching our directly to the Western youth. ” I genuinely believe that it is only you the youth who by learning the lessons of today’s hardship can be barriers in the misguided path that has brought the west to its current impasse.”

On late January, Ayatollah Khamenei published his first open letter to the Western youth and appealed them to make an effort to understand Islam before condemning it. In the letter, Iran’s leader asks a series of questions from its readers like if they have directly read the Qur’an of the Muslims or have studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his “humane and ethical doctrines”? And possibly most importantly whether they have ever received the message of Islam from any sources other than the media?

below is full text of his second open letter:

In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

To the Youth in Western Countries,

The bitter events brought about by blind terrorism in France have once again, moved me to speak to you young people. For me, it is unfortunate that such incidents would have to create the framework for a conversation, however the truth is that if painful matters do not create the grounds for finding solutions and mutual consultation, then the damage caused will be multiplied.

The pain of any human being anywhere in the world causes sorrow for a fellow human being. The sight of a child losing his life in the presence of his loved ones, a mother whose joy for her family turns into mourning, a husband who is rushing the lifeless body of his spouse to some place and the spectator who does not know whether he will be seeing the final scene of life- these are scenes that rouse the emotions and feelings of any human being. Anyone who has benefited from affection and humanity is affected and disturbed by witnessing these scenes- whether it occurs in France or in Palestine or Iraq or Lebanon or Syria.

Without a doubt, the one-and-a-half billion Muslims also have these feelings and abhor and are revolted by the perpetrators and those responsible for these calamities. The issue, however, is that if today’s pain is not used to build a better and safer future, then it will just turn into bitter and fruitless memories. I genuinely believe that it is only you the youth who by learning the lessons of today’s hardship, have the power to discover new means for building the future and who can be barriers in the misguided path that has brought the west to its current impasse.

It is correct that today terrorism is our common worry. However, it is necessary for you to know that the insecurity and strain that you experienced during the recent events, differs from the pain that the people of Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan have been experiencing for many years, in two significant ways. First, the Islamic world has been the victim of terror and brutality to a larger extent territorially, to greater amount quantitatively and for a longer period in terms of time. Second, that unfortunately this violence has been supported by certain great powers through various methods and effective means.

Today, there are very few people who are uninformed about the role of the United States of America in creating, nurturing and arming al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their inauspicious successors. Besides this direct support, the overt and well-known supporters of takfiri terrorism- despite having the most backward political systems- are standing arrayed as allies of the west while the most pioneering, brightest and most dynamic democrats in the region are suppressed mercilessly. The prejudiced response of the west to the awakening movement in the Islamic world is an illustrative example of the contradictory western policies.

The other side of these contradictory policies is seen in supporting the state terrorism of Israel. The oppressed people of Palestine have experienced the worst kind of terrorism for the last sixty years. If the people of Europe have now taken refuge in their homes for a few days and refrain from being present in busy places- it is decades that a Palestinian family is not secure even in its own home from the Zionist regime’s death and destruction machinery. What kind of atrocious violence today is comparable to that of the settlement constructions of the Zionist regime?

This regime- without ever being seriously and significantly censured by its influential allies or even by the so-called independent international organizations- everyday demolishes the homes of Palestinians and destroys their orchards and farms. This is done without even giving them time to gather their belongings or agricultural products and usually it is done in front of the terrified and tear-filled eyes of women and children who witness the brutal beatings of their family members who in some cases are being dragged away to gruesome torture chambers. In today’s world, do we know of any other violence on this scale and scope and for such an extended period of time?

Shooting down a woman in the middle of the street for the crime of protesting against a soldier who is armed to the teeth- if this is not terrorism, what is? This barbarism, because it is being done by the armed forces of an occupying government, should not be called extremism? Or maybe only because these scenes have been seen repeatedly on television screens for sixty years, they should no longer stir our consciences.

The military invasions of the Islamic world in recent years- with countless victims- are another example of the contradictory logic of the west. The assaulted countries, in addition to the human damage caused, have lost their economic and industrial infrastructure, their movement towards growth and development has been stopped or delayed and in some cases, has been thrown back decades. Despite all this, they are rudely being asked not to see themselves as oppressed. How can a country be turned into ruins, have its cities and towns covered in dust and then be told that it should please not view itself as oppressed? Instead of enticements to not understand and to not mention disasters, would not an honest apology be better? The pain that the Islamic world has suffered in these years from the hypocrisy and duplicity of the invaders is not less than the pain from the material damage.

Dear youth! I have the hope that you- now or in the future- can change this mentality corrupted by duplicity, a mentality whose highest skill is hiding long-term goals and adorning malevolent objectives. In my opinion, the first step in creating security and peace is reforming this violence-breeding mentality. Until double-standards dominate western policies, until terrorism- in the view of its powerful supporters- is divided into “good” and “bad” types, and until governmental interests are given precedence over human values and ethics, the roots of violence should not be searched for in other places.

Unfortunately, these roots have taken hold in the depths of western cultural policies over the course of many years and they have caused a soft and silent invasion. Many countries of the world take pride in their local and national cultures, cultures which through development and regeneration have soundly nurtured human societies for centuries. The Islamic world is not an exception to this. However in the current era, the western world with the use of advanced tools is insisting on the cloning and replication of its culture on a global scale. I consider the imposition of western culture upon other peoples and the trivialization of independent cultures as a form of silent violence and extreme harmfulness.

Humiliating rich cultures and insulting the most honored parts of these, is occurring while the alternative culture being offered in no way has any qualification for being a replacement. For example, the two elements of “aggression” and “moral promiscuity” which unfortunately have become the main elements of western culture, have even degraded the position and acceptability of its source region.

So now the question is: are we “sinners” for not wanting an aggressive, vulgar and fatuous culture? Are we to be blamed for blocking the flood of impropriety that is directed towards our youth in the shape of various forms of quasi-art? I do not deny the importance and value of cultural interaction. Whenever these interactions are conducted in natural circumstances and with respect for the receiving culture, they result in growth, development and richness. On the contrary, inharmonious interactions have been unsuccessful and harmful impositions.

We have to state with full regret that vile groups such as DAESH are the spawn of such ill-fated pairings with imported cultures. If the matter was simply theological, we would have had to witness such phenomena before the colonialist era, yet history shows the contrary. Authoritative historical records clearly show how colonialist confluence of extremist and rejected thoughts in the heart of a Bedouin tribe, planted the seed of extremism in this region. How then is it possible that such garbage as DAESH comes out of one of the most ethical and humane religious schools which as part of its inner core, includes the notion that taking the life of one human being is equivalent to killing the whole of humanity?

One has to ask why people who are born in Europe and who have been intellectually and mentally nurtured in that environment are attracted to such groups? Can we really believe that people with only one or two trips to war zones, suddenly become so extreme that they can riddle the bodies of their compatriots with bullets? On this matter, we certainly cannot forget about the effects of a life nurtured in a pathologic culture in a corrupt environment borne out of violence. On this matter, we need complete analyses, analyses that see the hidden and apparent corruptions. Maybe a deep hate- planted in the years of economic and industrial growth and borne out of inequality and possibly legal and structural prejudice- created ideas that every few years appear in a sickening manner.

In any case, you are the ones that have to uncover the apparent layers of your own society and untie and disentangle the knots and resentments. Fissures have to be sealed, not deepened. Hasty reactions is a major mistake when fighting terrorism which only widens the chasms. Any rushed and emotional reaction which would isolate, intimidate and create more anxiety for the Muslim communities living in Europe and America- which are comprised of millions of active and responsible human beings- and which would deprive them of their basic rights more than has already happened and which would drive them away from society- not only will not solve the problem but will increase the chasms and resentments.

Superficial measures and reactions, especially if they take legal forms, will do nothing but increase the current polarizations, open the way for future crises and will result in nothing else. According to reports received, some countries in Europe have issued guidelines encouraging citizens to spy on Muslims. This behavior is unjust and we all know that pursuing injustice has the characteristic of unwanted reversibility. Besides, the Muslims do not deserve such ill-treatment. For centuries, the western world has known Muslims well- the day that westerners were guests in Islamic lands and were attracted to the riches of their hosts and on another day when they were hosts and benefitted from the efforts and thoughts of Muslims- they generally experienced nothing but kindness and forbearance.

Therefore I want you the youth to lay the foundations for a correct and honorable interaction with the Islamic world based on correct understanding, deep insight and lessons learned from horrible experiences. In such a case and in the not too distant future, you will witness the edifice built on these firm foundations which creates a shade of confidence and trust which cools the crown of its architect, a warmth of security and peace that it bequests on them and a blaze of hope in a bright future which illuminates the canvass of the earth.

Sayyid Ali Khamenei

8th of Azar, 1394 – 29th of Nov, 2015

The post Terrorism is Common Worry for Muslims and West, Says Iran Leader first appeared on .

Professor Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. is the former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He currently serves on the Harvard faculty as a University Distinguished Service Professor. Along with Robert Keohane, he founded the theory of “neo-liberalism” in international relations, and more recently coined the often-used phrases of “soft power” and “smart power”. He is one of the world’s foremost intellectuals in the fields of political science, diplomacy and international relations. A 2011 TRIP survey ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the last twenty years, and in October 2014 he was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

following is the Interview of Mojtaba Mousavi with Dr. Joseph Nye which first published in the October issue of the Age of Reflection monthly. 

A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – November 1989. Many strategic analysts believe that the United States is still using the same pattern of collapse of communism in the East bloc to confront Iran. In the “Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics”, you have pointed to the American experience as well as the designation of the Marshall Plan as the means to undermine the Soviet soft power components. Do you believe that the same pattern can be adopted from the Cold War to undermine Iran’s soft power?

I do not think the situation of Iran today is like the Cold War. Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed from it own internal economic contradictions. The Marshall Plan was forty years earlier and designed to help West European economies recover from the devastation of World War II. The Soviet Union lost soft power after its invasions on Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  If there is a lesson in this for Iran, it is to free up its markets and society, and beware of interventions in neighboring countries.

This rationale has major drawbacks: essentially because Soviet Russia and Iran are profoundly different in not just their ideological makeup but the nature of their soft power. Iran’s Islamic Republic draws its narrative from Shia Islam, while Soviet Russia was born from atheist Marxism. Several critics of the US actually believe the country has ignored those fundamental and philosophical differences which exist in between Iran and Soviet Russia. How do you understand Washington’s position vis-à-vis Iran and are we seeing a repeat of the Cold War strategy here? In which case can this approach really serve the US?

 That is correct, but remember that Shia Islam is a minority and Iran should be wary of intervening in sectarian disputes. I do not see this as a repeat of a Cold War strategy. President Obama expressed an openness to dialogue right from the beginning of his presidency. Iran was initially reluctant to engage in that dialogue.

Although the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was to some degree defeated – Russia after all came to embrace capitalism, Moscow nevertheless preserved its political independence by remaining a non-aligned superpower. Is it not possible therefore to envisage that Iran will accomplish such feat – in that its goals might stray from the initial “revolutionary mindset” but still act an opposition to American imperialism? After all there are more than one way to resist and challenge.

 Capitalism in Russia is highly distorted by corruption. As I show in my book, “Is the American Century Over?” Russia is heavily dependent on one “crop” (energy) for two thirds of its exports. It also faces a demographic decline. This is not good, because declining powers often take greater risks such as Putin engages in now in his invasion of Ukraine and his intervention in Syria. I have no idea what the future of Iran will be, but it would be a mistake to model it on Russia.

President Richard Nixon called the US’ negotiations with Soviet Russia a “victory without war”. What President Nixon introduced and President Ronald Reagan followed into was a series of non-military actions which led to the ‘internal collapse’ of a country.President Barack Obama alluded a similar strategy, when,  in an interview  he argued that the path taken by both Nixon and Reagan vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China inspired his own policies. Taking into account that his comments were made on the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal do you think the US is looking for “containment” instead of a real rapprochement? Is Obama replicating a Cold War scenario?

As I said above, I do not think Obama is following a Cold War strategy. My personal view is that the Middle East is involved in decades long series of revolutions, primarily in Sunni areas, which outsiders like the United States have little capacity to control.  In that sense, containing the spread of ISIS and its successors makes sense, but large scale intervention like the war in Iraq does not make sense. Where Iran will fit in all this will depend on Iran’s behavior.

Will this Iran nuclear deal lead to an increase of America’s footprint in the ME and therefore see Iran lose influence?

I do not think the Iran nuclear deal will increase the US footprint nor necessarily erode Iran’s influence.  Much will depend on how Iran chooses to behave.

Do you think US’ efforts to increase its soft power and smart power in Iran will lead to a change in narrative within the country, in that Iranians will no longer look on America with suspicion and animosity?

In general, increased contacts can reduce the stereotypes of hostility that can develop among countries. I hope with time this will be the case between the US and Iran.  Soft power can be a positive sum game from which both sides gain.

In a recent piece for National Interest, you wrote that the real challenge that the US is facing could be called “the rise of the rest”. Some authors such as Fareed Zakaria in his “Post-Americanism World”, are pointing to the same challenge. There are also philosophers who believe that America as “the” world superpower is coming to an end – For example American philosopher, Richard Rorty wrote in a piece for Decent magazine: “The American Century has ended (…) The spiritual life of secularist Westerners centered on hope for the realization of those ideals. As that hope diminishes, their life becomes smaller and meaner.” In view of such analysis, do you think the US can overcome those challenges stemming from its power and hegemony? Or is it the US has no clear awareness of such challenge? 

Americans have worried about their decline since the early days of the founding fathers centuries ago. In the last half century there have been several cycles of declinism. This tells you more about American psychology than it does about relative power positions of countries. In my book, I explain why I do not think the American century is over. At the same time, the rise of transnational challenges like climate change, cyber terrorism, and international financial stability will require cooperation among countries. In that sense, the rise of the rest as well as the new transnational challenges will require the US to work with others.  There will be no American imperialism or hegemony, but as the largest country, there will still be a need for leadership in organizing global collective goods.

In his September 16 address at a meeting with the IRGC commanders in Tehran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said:  “cultural and political penetration is more dangerous than military and security threats.” You also referred to the ‘culture’ as one of the key elements of soft power – you mentioned both the US educational and popular cultures of America as powerful media – maybe here we could use the term Trojan horses. Iran’s leadership has repeatedly warned against such “cultural invasion”. Iranians have themselves naturally organized into movements to counteract Western cultural intrusion, thus manifesting a national trend. Do you see a situation where Iran would disappear to the US; or could it be that Iran will walk a different path than that of the Soviet Union?

Countries evolve over time, and I have no idea what future choices Iran will make, but I suspect that most of its future evolution will be determined from inside Iran.

The post Interview: Joseph Nye on Iran and the End of American Exceptionalism first appeared on .

این مقاله را به فارسی بخوانید.

By: Sonia Mansour Robaey *

If I were a faithful and pious Muslim and if I were to take a look at the state of the religion of Islam and Muslims today, I would be extremely worried. And even though I am not a Muslim faithful but an Arab secular Christian woman, I can still worry for my Muslim sisters and brothers and the religion of Islam. This is not a selfless concern. The future of minorities in the Middle East depends largely on the state of the Muslim religion, which is the religion of the majority. Also, the Muslim religion and its people are part and parcel of my cultural background, of who I am as an Arab Christian, as much as Muslims of the Middle East are culturally shaped by their presence as pieces in a mosaic of religions and sects, which the region never ceased to be, until al Qaeda and its most notorious branch, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, came to be.

Again, as an Arab Christian, I was educated not on the holy Qur’an, but on the religion of Islam and its History. I grew up seeing Islam as a religion of conquest and enlightenment in the Arts and Sciences. I grew up seeing Islam as a forward progressive religion. Of course, as in every religion, I could perceive some extremism here and there, some backwardness, but these seemed marginal, or so was my perception during the late seventies, early eighties, until al Qaeda and its most notorious branch, ISIS, came to be.

Since 911, I have been asking myself: what happened to Islam? More so since the emergence and mainstreaming of sectarian killings inside Iraq after the 2003 US invasion and the recent mass displacements of religious minorities by ISIS in the Middle East, the largest since the Ottoman Empire disintegrated.

To answer this question one must understand what happened between the late seventies and the early eighties and how the struggles born out of these years came to their conclusion as the iron curtain fell on the Soviet bloc ushering in a short era of revigorated and unchallenged American and western imperialism.

During these decisive years, we witnessed an Islamic revolution in Iran that rose against western imperialism while another Islamic movement in Afghanistan came to be subsumed, and consumed, by the goals of western imperialism. We also witnessed a war on Iran from the West, with Iraq as a proxy, meant to challenge to the nascent Islamic revolution of Iran. These events, which will lead to a profound misunderstanding inside Islam, took place after the strong anti-imperialist sentiment in the Middle East, in which Palestine was the main conduit, was sidelined through a partial peace between Israel and Egypt. The Palestine struggle was buried by partial peace and the Palestinian resistance lost the support of most Arab states. This was going to lead to the still-born Oslo peace process and the slow asphyxiation of the Palestinian struggle, while Israeli settlements flourished as they continue to do until today.

The eighties end with the triumph of western imperialism. But in the Middle East, the Islamic revolution of Iran stood in the way of this triumph, albeit weakened and its society profoundly wounded by the Iraq war. After the end of the Iraq-Iran war and Ayatollah’s Khomeini’s death, the Islamic revolution of Iran had survived but the country was going to spend the next decade rebuilding itself amid a climate of increasing hostility, unilateral and multilateral sanctions.

Iran’s Islamic revolution inspired many and in many ways in the region. Islamist groups and Islamist movements rose in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Only few survived and those who did, like Hezbollah, did so because they understood the spirit of the Islamic revolution of Iran, as it stood, as an Islamist insurgency, first and foremost, against western imperialism. Hezbollah resonated with the populations of the Arab world because it revived the Palestinian struggle and the struggle against western imperialism. At the same time, Hamas was born to challenge the occupation of Palestine, based on a non-compromising attitude toward the occupation, but with a different spirit marked by the context of inter Palestinian rivalry heavily weighed by outside and competing regional influences.

This is why Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups moved by the same goal for many years, find themselves today at odds because the forces that have been pulling Muslims apart since the event of the Islamic revolution of Iran, not only are still at work today, but they are now aided by scores of terrorist Takfiri groups claiming to be working for Muslims and Islam.

The Islamic revolution of Iran had clearly designated the anti-imperialist struggle as the defining project of modern Islam. But the Islamic revolution of Iran was not the only Islamic movement renewing the search to redefine Islam in modern times. However, the Islamist groups who came before it and most of those who were inspired by it sought a return to an era of Islam before western imperialism to find the tools to challenge western imperialism. Thus, the nostalgic return to Islam resulted in ambiguity toward the West. I am thinking here specifically of the Muslim Brotherhood. The ambiguity is in confronting modern western imperialism with conceptual tools that existed before this imperialism. This is at best a flight strategy, at worst, a legitimization of Wahhabism, the gangrene that’s been eating at the heart of Islam. Ambiguity exists also in the fact that running away from modernity prevents these movements from ever understanding imperialism, replacing understanding with mystification, leaving modernity to exert a fascination on their entire ideological conceptual apparatus without ever being able to understand it.

This is a tragic misunderstanding, by the insurgent Sunni branch of Islam, of how to conduct the struggle for relevance against western imperialism and renew the search to redefine Islam in modern times. Western imperialism, in its essence, is about the superiority of science and technology. By choosing nostalgia and pre-imperialist conceptual tools, insurgent Sunni Islam could then only fight western technical superiority and the way of life it implies with increased barbarism. Hence, al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The Islamic revolution of Iran, on the other side, has sought to fight western imperialism with the elements of its alleged superiority; technology. But contrary to other Muslim countries that had sought nuclear technology as a way to achieve military superiority, like the West, Iran sought nuclear technology only for civilian purposes and as a right to achieve equal status, to oppose to western imperialism the right to dignity. Because western imperialism sees itself as superior in status, it refuses dignity to others, to subdued countries, and it does so mainly through technology.

The post Iran N.Deal, Future of Islam and A.Khamenei’s Letter to Western Youth first appeared on .

In the letter, Iran’s leader asks a series of questions from its readers like if they have directly read the Qur’an of the Muslims or have studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his “humane and ethical doctrines”? And possibly most importantly whether they have ever received the message of Islam from any sources other than the media?

Condemning terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram, the leader ends his message on a hopeful note on how the future generations will write history if they have accurate information about global developments.

Iran denounced the shooting at the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo but has also condemned as “provocative” its publication last week of a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad.

Referring to the recent events in France, the leader then asked that readers “study and research the incentives behind this widespread tarnishing of the image of Islam” and “try to gain a direct and firsthand knowledge of this religion.” He added, “I don’t insist that you accept my reading or any other reading of Islam. What I want to say is: Don’t allow this dynamic and effective reality in today’s world to be introduced to you through resentments and prejudices.”

Iran’s View has launched a campaign calling the Western youth to post their responses to the Ayatollah Khamenei’s letter.
A select number of the replies will be communicated with Leader’s office.

Leave you comments under this article or send them to this email: letter4u@iransview.com

Read the entire letter and watch a video of the 10 questions asked from the Western youth by Ayatollah Khamenei:

Message of ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Leader of The Islamic Republic of Iran

In the name of God, the Beneficent the Merciful

To the Youth in Europe and North America,

The recent events in France and similar ones in some other Western countries have convinced me to directly talk to you about them. I am addressing you, [the youth], not because I overlook your parents, rather it is because the future of your nations and countries will be in your hands; and also I find that the sense of quest for truth is more vigorous and attentive in your hearts.

I don’t address your politicians and statesmen either in this writing because I believe that they have consciously separated the route of politics from the path of righteousness and truth.

I would like to talk to you about Islam, particularly the image that is presented to you as Islam. Many attempts have been made over the past two decades, almost since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, to place this great religion in the seat of a horrifying enemy. The provocation of a feeling of horror and hatred and its utilization has unfortunately a long record in the political history of the West.

Here, I don’t want to deal with the different phobias with which the Western nations have thus far been indoctrinated. A cursory review of recent critical studies of history would bring home to you the fact that the Western governments’ insincere and hypocritical treatment of other nations and cultures has been censured in new historiographies.

The histories of the United States and Europe are ashamed of slavery, embarrassed by the colonial period and chagrined at the oppression of people of color and non-Christians. Your researchers and historians are deeply ashamed of the bloodsheds wrought in the name of religion between the Catholics and Protestants or in the name of nationality and ethnicity during the First and Second World Wars. This approach is admirable.

By mentioning a fraction of this long list, I don’t want to reproach history; rather I would like you to ask your intellectuals as to why the public conscience in the West awakens and comes to its senses after a delay of several decades or centuries. Why should the revision of collective conscience apply to the distant past and not to the current problems? Why is it that attempts are made to prevent public awareness regarding an important issue such as the treatment of Islamic culture and thought?

You know well that humiliation and spreading hatred and illusionary fear of the “other” have been the common base of all those oppressive profiteers. Now, I would like you to ask yourself why the old policy of spreading “phobia” and hatred has targeted Islam and Muslims with an unprecedented intensity. Why does the power structure in the world want Islamic thought to be marginalized and remain latent? What concepts and values in Islam disturb the programs of the super powers and what interests are safeguarded in the shadow of distorting the image of Islam? Hence, my first request is: Study and research the incentives behind this widespread tarnishing of the image of Islam.
My second request is that in reaction to the flood of prejudgments and disinformation campaigns, try to gain a direct and firsthand knowledge of this religion. The right logic requires that you understand the nature and essence of what they are frightening you about and want you to keep away from.

I don’t insist that you accept my reading or any other reading of Islam. What I want to say is: Don’t allow this dynamic and effective reality in today’s world to be introduced to you through resentments and prejudices. Don’t allow them to hypocritically introduce their own recruited terrorists as representatives of Islam.

Receive knowledge of Islam from its primary and original sources. Gain information about Islam through the Qur’an and the life of its great Prophet. I would like to ask you whether you have directly read the Qur’an of the Muslims. Have you studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his humane, ethical doctrines? Have you ever received the message of Islam from any sources other than the media?

Have you ever asked yourself how and on the basis of which values has Islam established the greatest scientific and intellectual civilization of the world and raised the most distinguished scientists and intellectuals throughout several centuries?

I would like you not to allow the derogatory and offensive image-buildings to create an emotional gulf between you and the reality, taking away the possibility of an impartial judgment from you. Today, the communication media have removed the geographical borders. Hence, don’t allow them to besiege you within fabricated and mental borders.

Although no one can individually fill the created gaps, each one of you can construct a bridge of thought and fairness over the gaps to illuminate yourself and your surrounding environment. While this preplanned challenge between Islam and you, the youth, is undesirable, it can raise new questions in your curious and inquiring minds. Attempts to find answers to these questions will provide you with an appropriate opportunity to discover new truths.

Therefore, don’t miss the opportunity to gain proper, correct and unbiased understanding of Islam so that hopefully, due to your sense of responsibility toward the truth, future generations would write the history of this current interaction between Islam and the West with a clearer conscience and lesser resentment.

Seyyed Ali Khamenei
21st Jan. 2015

The post Iran Leader Reached out for Western Youth Through Rare Open Letter first appeared on .

According to the informed sources talked to Iran’sView, the new Iranian President, Hassan Rowhani, perceived to have won the June-14 elections by his moderation promises, is said to have requested the Leader to give him a modest free hand in the country’s foreign policy affairs, including the prolonged nuclear standoff, so that he will be able to tackle the Islamic Republic’s economic problems to some extent.

It is years now that Tehran is at odds with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) over its nuclear case due to irreconcilable views of the negotiating sides.

According to a Rouhani aide who has spoke to Iran’sView on condition of anonymity, he has promised the Supreme Leader he will be able to scrape a large part of the stifling sanctions imposed on Iran without damaging the nature of its nuclear program provided that the Leader permits the president to act more flexibly in the talks with the P5+1.

“I would agree with what I once called ‘heroic flexibility’, as it is a proper move at times,” said the Leader during his address to the Sepah commanders on Tuesday, seems to be an explicitly agreeing to the administration’s request. However, he cautioned the president to be wary of the “other side and the chief objective” in the talks while being more flexible.

Though this was not the first time the Supreme Leader spoke of “heroic flexibility”.

“Artistic and heroic flexibility, softness and maneuver are accepted and welcome in all political grounds,” said the Leader in another meeting a fortnight ago with members of the Assembly of Experts. “But maneuvers should not be interpreted as a leave to cross the red lines or step back of fundamental strategies or neglecting the ideals.”

The Leader of Iran is still suspicious about the flexibility in international dealings of the new administration as it might be induced to cross some red lines (like direct and comprehensive talks with the US) or retreat from fundamental strategies of the Islamic Republic (like supporting Palestinian cause and the Syrian government as part of the resistance front).

The Leader once again reminded the administration in his Tuesday speech that it is not allowed to neglect the “objectives and ideals” of the Islamic Revolution with excuses like “The world or the trends has changed.”

According to political observers in Tehran, the Supreme Leader has allowed the administration to expand ties with European countries, engage in direct talks with the US over the Syrian conflict, and show more flexibility in nuclear talks. The Leader has decided to let Rouhani have his try in various fields, even though he (the Leader) is not optimistic about the West’s reaction to Iran’s flexible tone; which is why the Leader stressed in his Tuesday speech that the US and the West are seeking much greatest goals in Iran’s nuclear case and that it should be taken in and well analyzed by “challenging the hegemonic system by the Islamic Revolution”.

“We do not approve of nuclear weapons not because of the US or others, but because of our beliefs; when we say no one can have nuclear weapons, we would never seek such weapons ourselves; the dissenters of Iran are after something else. These countries would never let their nuclear energy monopoly be broken,” Ayatollah Khamenei said on Tuesday.

“Diplomacy is the field of smile and calls for talks and negotiations; however, all these should be defined in the framework of our major challenge.”

Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly cautioned the new administration against the Islamic Republic’s red lines and fundamentals while exhibiting flexibility in its foreign dealings. In his earlier speech addressing members of the Assembly of Experts, the Leader certified that every “administration or person has their own methods and innovations, and are allowed to practice them in their work.”

As a key player in Iran’s power struggle during the past 34 years, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, or Sepah, has aligned itself well with the Supreme Leader’s directions, and stood up to administrations which fail to follow the Leader’s directions. Besides, the construction projects as well as economic activities run by the Sepah are a powerful lever that can help every administration to materialize their domestic policies; which may be why the President Rowhani addressed Sepah commanders a day before the Leader to ask them to support the administration economically.

With regard to Rowhani’s concerns about acceptance of his “flexible” policies by Sepah commanders, the Supreme Leader called on Sepah top brass to temporarily step out of politics and view the developments from outside.

“Sepah is not required to meddle in political grounds, but guardianship of the Revolution needs precise understanding of realities,” the Leader said on Tuesday.

“The organization that is deemed as the Revolution’s guardian arm cannot be expected to be alien to derivative political currents,” said the Leader, stressing that under the current circumstances Sepah must, of course, identify and counter all adversaries of the Islamic Republic.

The Leader is evidently giving the administration a free hand to remedy the country’s economic and political headache by putting into effect its innovations. Likewise the Leader would be happy see that his strategic decision has helped the administration manage to fulfill its promises and receive a palatable feedback from foreigners. However, if the government fails to get the desired response from the West by being more flexible, just like the Reformist administration of Mohammad Khatami, the Leader’s warnings and pessimism against the US and enemies will be well substantiated. 

“The revolution’s future is glorious for sure, but the time of its happening depends of the performance of the nation and officials. If we are united, integrated and decisive, such a future is soon realized, but if we are infested with indolence, arrogance and other such stuff, that future will be late to come.” Ayatollah Khamenei said to the top commanders of Sepah.

The post REPEAT:: Why Iran’s Leader Gives Rowhani Nuclear Free Hand? first appeared on .

While more than 1,600 Palestinians have been killed and another 8,000 injured and more than 200,000 internally displaced persons are sheltered in UNRWA since Israel launched an full scale air attack against the tiny strip of Gaza on July 8, yet the international community failed to stop Israeli indiscriminately offensives .

UN’s human rights council passed a resolution condemning the Israel’s military actions; resolution was adopted by 29-1 vote. The sole “no” vote was the United States. Strong US support for Israel and Israel’s powerful lobby prevented any effective decision being made by the international organizations. Same was for more than last six decades of Israel – Palestine conflict.

In such circumstance when Palestinians see none of political efforts could protect them against the well-armed regime of Israel, in the Gaza strip, they prefer to resist rather than to continue living under an inhuman blockade.

Palestinians who lost of most of their land due to Israeli occupation since 1946, now only rule in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Two separate landlocked territories with two different ruling systems.

The Gaza under Hamas has chosen military resistance to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation. On other hand, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in the West Bank recognized Israel In 1993 and accepted to stop fighting against Israel and engage in a peace process which went nowhere so far.

It was only after PLO put down its weapon that the Palestinians lost their control over the West Bank and Israel occasionally conduct crackdown in the region, arrest or kill civilians.

Looking at the West Bank as a sample of setting back from military resistance, Palestinians don’t see a successful experience while on other hand Lebanon’s Hezbollah successfully defeated Israel and ended the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories in 2000 make resistance in Gaza more meaningful.

Like Hezbollah, Hamas is fighting Israel with military and financial support from Iran. It was Iranian missiles and arms that led Hamas to stop Israel in the 2008 and 2012 conflicts.

Despite Iran and Hamas’ strained relations over the Syrian war, Iran’s political and military officials have stressed their unconditional and strong support for Palestinian resistance groups including Hamas.

The letter of the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force to the Palestinian freedom fighters on July 31 is the latest exemplar of the support for Palestinians resistance from Iran.

“Before the almighty God, we take an oath with the martyrs that we will remain bound to and not change, just like we are and have been in doing our religious duty in supporting the resistance. We emphasize that we continue to insist on the victory of the resistance … until the ground, the sky, the sea for the Zionists turns into hell,” Qasem Soleimani wrote.

While Israel and US are trying to disarm resistance movements, Iran called on the world to help arm Palestinians in the West Bank.

“Everyone, whoever has the means, especially in the Islamic world, they should do what they can to arm the Palestinians [in the West Bank] too,” Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei said on July 29.

“Iran will also do its best to form military resistance in the West Bank. But obviously we won’t deal with Abbas and its people, we will work with real resistance groups,” Abdollahi who is familiar with the Iranian strategy in Palestine told Iran’s View.

Soleimani excluded Fatah and PA in his statement while naming Palestinian groups and leaders and praising their resistance.

But what an armed West Bank would mean for Israel?

West Bank has a population of more than 2,000,000 Palestinians who anxiously follow the events in Gaza and show their support from the resistance movement by protesting against Israel.

The photos and videos of Palestinians protesting and fighting back Israeli military by throwing stones may give one a better idea when those stones are to be replaced by weapons provided from Iran or other supporters of Palestinians freedom fighters.

In this case, Iran expects Palestinians to defend themselves against Israel in a more balanced battle.

The final solution to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict however is seen differently by Iran.
Iran suggests that all current and former inhabitants of the Palestinian territory should participate in a referendum and decide on their fate and future.

The post Arming West Bank only Way to Save Palestine first appeared on .

As Iran’s View previously reported, Iran’s Leader paid a visit to Army of the Guardians Aerospace Force achievements show on May 11, 2014 to reiterate Iran’s determination to development of its military power.

In the show, Iran’s IRGC displayed its latest aerospace achievements which include modern designation of ballistic missile systems and production of advanced drones.

“[The West] expect to limit Iran’s missile program while they are threatening Iran with military action. Such expectations are foolish and idiotic,” Ayatollah Khamenei said during the visit.

During his two-hour visit from the IRGC exhibition, Ayatollah Khamenei also watched a recorded video of Iranian drones filming USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier. he then went to visited a captured American RQ-170 sentinel drone and its Iranian version that was manufactured by IRGC Aerospace Force through reverse engineering.

The post JUST IN:: Video: How Iran Will Confront US Military Threat in the Persian Gulf? first appeared on .

While Iran and the five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany are to start drafting the text of a comprehensive nuclear agreement on May 13, Ayatollah Khamenei said that the West’s expectation of limiting Iran’s missile program is foolish.

While the P5+1, led by the United States, has insisted that Iran’s ballistic missile program will be on the table in any comprehensive agreement, Iran repeatedly rejected any issue other than the nuclear program should be part of the negotiations.

“I always supported creativity in the foreign policy and the negotiations and always advise officials to apply utmost creativity in the international interactions. But the country’s needs and issues like sanctions should not be tied to the negotiations. The authorities should resolve the sanctions in a different way,” Iran’s Leader said today.

Iran and the P5+1 reached a landmark nuclear interim deal in Geneva on November 24, 2013 in which Iran agreed to dilute some of its 20% enriched uranium stockpile to a lower concentration and convert some into oxide.

Although the agreement came into force on January 20 but Iranian officials believes US failed to meet its commitments to easing of sanctions.

“[The West] expect to limit Iran’s missile program while they are threatening Iran with military action. Such expectations are foolish and idiotic.”
Iran’s IRGC displayed its latest aerospace achievements which include modern designation of ballistic missile systems and production of advanced drones.

During his two-hour visit from the IRGC exhibition, Ayatollah Khamenei also watched a recorded video of Iranian drones filming USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier. he then went to visited a captured American RQ-170 sentinel drone and its Iranian version that was manufactured by IRGC Aerospace Force through reverse engineering.

On 4 December 2011, an American Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was captured by Iranian forces near the city of Kashmar in northeastern Iran.

The Iranian government announced that the UAV was brought down by its cyberwarfare unit which commandeered the aircraft and safely landed it, after initial reports from Western news sources inaccurately claimed that it had been “shot down”. The United States government initially denied the claims but later President Obama acknowledged that the downed aircraft was a US drone and requested Iran to return it.

But Obama’s request rejected one day later by Iranian officials which urged US to apologize to the Iranian nation because of violating the country’s aerospace.

Below are Photos of Iran’s Leader visiting Aerospace Force of the IRGC exhibition:

The post Leader: West’s Expectation of Limiting Iran’s Missile Program is Foolish and Idiotic first appeared on .