Fast forward to April 13, 2024, Iran exercised its inherent right of self-defense, as outlined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, in response to repeated military aggressions by Israel. The operation saw the launch of dozens of missiles targeting military sites within Israel.

This recent defensive operation bears a striking resemblance to the simulation depicted in the Iranian documentary. In the simulation, Iran utilized its Sijjil long-range missile to strike critical targets in Tel Aviv, mirroring the actions taken in the real-world defensive operation.

The documentary’s release in 2013 came amidst escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, with the latter repeatedly issuing threats of military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli military leaders even conducted war games simulating strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012.

The simulation depicted in the video from 10 years ago conveyed a clear message: Iran would only respond if Israel initiated an attack on Iranian soil. This stance was reiterated through the scenario presented, indicating that Iran would retaliate in the event of an Israeli strike on its territory. With the recent attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria by Israel, the prediction made in the simulation was fulfilled, aligning precisely with the conditions outlined in the video.

The operation, meticulously orchestrated in accordance with the right to self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, was prompted by a series of aggressive actions by Israel over the past seven months. These provocations included over ten incidents, culminating in the tragic loss of 19 Iranian military advisors in Syria and an egregious attack on Iran’s diplomatic facilities in Damascus on April 1, 2024.

Drawing upon intelligence from Iranian military sources, the operation was meticulously planned and executed, specifically targeting Israeli military installations and a Mossad facility. Characterized by strategic precision and tactical sophistication, this operation stands as a resolute rebuttal to recurrent Israeli hostilities.

Contrary to initial reports, clarification from Iranian military sources dispels misconceptions regarding the scale of the operation, confirming the deployment of nearly 60 ballistic missiles. Significantly, at least 10 missiles successfully penetrated Israeli air defense systems, striking their intended objectives.

The post Foreseeing Iran’s Retaliation on Israel: A Simulation Video from 10 Years Ago first appeared on .

Drawing upon intelligence from Iranian military sources, the operation was meticulously planned and executed, specifically targeting Israeli military installations and a Mossad facility. Characterized by strategic precision and tactical sophistication, this operation stands as a resolute rebuttal to recurrent Israeli hostilities.

Despite Iran’s appeals for action to the UN Security Council, the international body remained inert, hampered by obstructions from certain member states, notably the US, UK, and France. Subsequently, following ten days of inaction, Iran invoked its inherent right to self-defense.

Operational insights reveal a concerted employment of Iran’s intelligence, missile, and drone capabilities to neutralize critical Israeli military targets in occupied territories. This offensive, emblematic of a significant escalation, encountered formidable challenges posed by Israel’s extensive air and missile defense systems.

Clarification from Iranian military sources dispels initial misconceptions regarding the scale of the operation, confirming the deployment of nearly 60 ballistic missiles, contrary to earlier reports suggesting a higher number. Notably, at least 10 missiles successfully penetrated Israeli air defense systems, striking their intended objectives.

The defense network of the Israeli regime, reinforced by Western support, presented a complex obstacle spanning across Iraqi airspace and parts of occupied Syria and Palestine. A diverse array of advanced aircraft, including F-15s, F-16s, F-35s, Gulfstream planes, and refuelers, were integrated into a sophisticated air defense system, incorporating the Arrow system.

Overcoming this intricate defense architecture necessitated tactical ingenuity and resilience against combined electronic warfare capabilities wielded by Western powers and the Israeli regime.

While comprehensive details on the operation’s outcomes are pending, preliminary reports indicate that it surpassed expectations. Nevertheless, its scope was deliberately delimited to targeting assets directly implicated in the assault on Iran’s diplomatic premises and the loss of military advisors.

This revelation of the defensive operation underscores Iran’s unwavering commitment to defending its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national interests against external aggression. As further information emerges, Iran remains prepared to share additional insights regarding its defensive measures.

The post Iranian Military Sources Detail Defensive Strike on Israeli Bases first appeared on .

Reaching for the Stars: Iran’s Daring Space Program

Those three satellites, sent to space on Iran’s own Simorgh rocket, were a big moment. Now, Iran joins a special club of countries that can launch their own satellites! The future is even brighter, with plans for bigger rockets and even sending many satellites at once. One day, Iran’s rockets might carry up to 15 tons of cargo, opening up the universe even more!

Beyond the Stars: Building a Digital World

But Iran’s journey isn’t just about space. On the ground, a whole new world is growing, powered by the internet and the creativity of Iranian people. Almost everyone, even in small villages, can connect online! This strong internet, with over 71,000 kilometers of cables, has helped countless startups and tech companies bloom. They’ve created over 345,000 amazing mobile apps and changed the way people shop. Social media like Instagram is now a bustling marketplace, with over 415,000 small businesses making billions every year! This online market empowers people, fuels the economy, and shows the cleverness and adaptability of Iranians.

Healing Hands: Medical Breakthroughs Take Flight

While satellites and cyberspace are exciting, another kind of innovation is happening in Iranian labs and hospitals. Iranian scientists are leading the way in many areas of medicine:

• Stem Cell Research: Ranked among the top 5 in the world, Iran’s work with stem cells holds great promise for healing damaged organs and treating blood diseases.
• Nanomedicine: Using tiny particles called “nanos,” Iranian scientists are developing new ways to diagnose and treat diseases, like cancer, with fewer side effects.
• Affordable Cancer Drugs: Iranian scientists are creating new cancer drugs like Paclinab, which work against many cancers and are easier on patients than older drugs. This is especially important for making sure everyone can access cancer care.
• Robot Surgeons: In the operating room, the Sina Robotic Telesurger System helps doctors perform complex surgeries with more precision and efficiency. This could make these surgeries available to more people in Iran and beyond.

Beyond the Headlines: More Technological Frontiers

The story of Iran’s scientific and technological journey goes even further! Iranian researchers are also making progress in:

• Artificial Intelligence: AI is being used to detect cancer early, predict crop diseases, and even improve traffic flow.
• Renewable Energy: Iran wants to use more clean energy like solar and wind power, and they’ve already built a lot of solar panels and are researching wind turbines.
• Nuclear Technology: Beyond space, Iran’s expertise helps produce medical isotopes used in cancer treatment.

Challenges and Resilience: Fueling the Pursuit of Progress

It’s important to remember that these achievements happen despite challenges like political tensions and economic difficulties. Yet, Iranian scientists, entrepreneurs, and medical researchers keep working hard. Their dedication to improving lives, both in Iran and beyond, shows the power of human ingenuity and the will to progress even in tough times.

Openness to Collaboration: Sharing Progress for a Brighter Future

Iran believes in working together with other countries. They recognize that their advancements can benefit the entire region, and they’re open to sharing their expertise and technologies with friendly countries like Georgia. This could mean Georgia using Iran’s affordable medical solutions and innovative products to solve their own healthcare challenges, leading to progress and well-being for both countries.

A Journey of Many Paths: Inspiring a Brighter Future

Iran’s ascent in science and technology is not just a list of achievements; it’s a story of human resilience, innovation, and the constant pursuit of a better future. As Iran continues to push the boundaries in space exploration, digital infrastructure, healthcare, and many other areas, it offers not only hope for its own people but also inspiration for collaboration and the advancement of technology for the benefit of all.

The post Beyond Rockets and Remedies: Iran’s Journey to the Stars and Beyond first appeared on .

The executions were met with mixed reactions. Some people praised the government for taking action against terrorists, while others expressed concern about the death penalty.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a widely recognized international treaty that sets standards for the protection of fundamental human rights, permits the death penalty for the most serious crimes. However, the treaty also requires that the death penalty be imposed only in accordance with the law and that it not be used against people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.

In the case of the four individuals executed in Iran, they were all adults and were convicted of crimes that are considered to be among the most serious under Iranian law. As such, the executions appear to be in compliance with international law.

The armed assault that led to the executions occurred on November 16, 2022, in the Negahbani square of the Khaneh neighborhood commonly referred to as the ‘Khaneh Esfahan’ or ‘Isfahan House’ in Isfahan. The terrorists, who were members of the People’s Mojahedin terrorist organization (MEK), opened fire on innocent civilians and security personnel, killing three security defenders and injuring several others.

The assailants were quickly apprehended by the authorities, and a trial was held in the Isfahan Province Justice Administration. The defendants were represented by lawyers, and the court heard evidence from both the prosecution and the defense.

After a thorough investigation, the court found the defendants guilty of terrorism and sentenced them to death. The executions were carried out in accordance with the law.

The executions are a reminder of the serious threat posed by terrorism. Iran has been a target of terrorism for many years, and the government has taken a tough stance against those who commit terrorist acts. The executions are a sign that the government is committed to protecting its citizens from terrorism.

Who is MEK?

The People’s Mojahedin terrorist organization (MEK) is a cult-like group that has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations. The MEK has a long history of violence, and its members have been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks, including the assassination of several Iranian officials.

The MEK is currently based in Albania, and it has been trying to rebrand itself as a peaceful political organization. However, the group’s true nature is clear from its history of violence. The MEK is a dangerous terrorist organization that poses a serious threat to Iran and the region.

The executions of the four terrorists in Iran are a just punishment for their crimes. The executions are a sign that the government is committed to protecting its citizens from terrorism, and they are a warning to other terrorists that they will be brought to justice.

The post Iran Executes Terrorists in Compliance with International Law, for the Good of Society first appeared on .

For Iranian reformists, the twin parliament and Assembly of Experts elections on February 26 were also a chance to blow new life to their presence in the power circle of the Islamic Republic which they lost after their rejection of the results of the 2009 presidential elections, leading to street riots and months of chaos in the capital city of Tehran.

Almost six years after those days, Reformists are cheering the election gains and are ecstatic about their unexpected wins in the ballot boxes and sweeping Principalists off parliament seats in the Tehran constituency.

However, the results in the other cities are different and both Principalists and Reformists have enough seats to be influential in the next parliament and the Assembly of Experts, but the fact that almost all of the Principalists’ prominent figures in Tehran failed to find their way into the Parliament (and in case of the Assembly of Experts, only Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati was elected ranking 16th out of the 16 seats reserved for the Tehran constituency) is a major blow to them which had the upper hand over the course of the past decade.

Though Reformists’ gain in the elections is also a result of their coalition with government supporters, known as the Moderates, as well as some moderate Principalist figures such as Ali Motahhari which led them to support coalition lists for the twin elections, the fact that Reformists could gain such a major support from the people is an undeniable reality for the political power sphere of the Islamic Republic and on the other hand this victory poses, at the same time, an opportunity and a threat for the winning Reformists.

Will Reformists seize the opportunity?

After 2009’s post-election disputes and street riots, many Reformist leaders were arrested and many of their aides who spurred the public into street riots had to flee the country; subsequently, the leadership in Iran lost its faith in the movement and to loyalty of prominent Reformist leaders. This lack of confidence in the Reformist movement and absence of its leaders and forces beside consecutive defeats in the national and local elections pushed reformist figures out of the political scene, minimizing their role.

After Hassan Rouhani won the 2013 presidential election, he tried to pave the way for the return of Reformists to the country’s political circle, while, he himself is not a Reformist and even was a serious critic of them while he served as the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

The full participation of the reformists in the recent elections (even Reformists’ leaders under house arrest invited their supporters to participate in the elections) and then the results of the recent twin elections and especially the landslide victory of the Reformists in Tehran showed that the movement is coming back into the political sphere of the country and will revive its status as a legitimate game-changer.

Now, it’s about time for Reformist leaders to engage in direct talks with the political leadership of the system and to iron out misunderstandings and address the existing issues with them. Overestimating their reemerging power and making the same mistake of playing the role of staunch opponents of the Islamic Republic can lead them to a process which will not have better results than they gain in recent years. But a negotiated resolution not only will recreate the confidence and trust of the Islamic Republic to them but will secure their return to highest levels of the power in the country.

Dangers of a victory

If one was to study the voting pattern of the Iranians in last three decades, they would see Iranians mostly (if not always) make pragmatist decisions and never support a particular group because of their theoretical aims and promising rhetoric. Iranians evaluate the records of an official and after providing them enough time, they would decide to whether continue their support or terminate it. Unexpected victories of the Former reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 presidential elections are good examples of how different choices Iranian people can make due to their experience of the incumbent officials.

For this reason, Rouhani’s government- which turned to be a facilitator for the return of Reformism – will have a critical time for the rest of its tenure. Now the Parliament is also in line with the government and in case the government fails in fulfilling its promises, Principalists cannot be blamed as being the trouble makers! While people are hoping for a better economic situation after giving Rouhani more than two years to reach a nuclear deal, possible excessive concentration of Reformists on their political causes may undermine their ability to make significant and tangible changes in the life of ordinary people and so lose their votes in future Presidential elections, after less than two years.

In the words of the senior reformist leader Mohammadreza Aref during his campaign for the 2013 Presidential election, each time both government and the parliament was controlled by one party the outcome was not satisfactory.

Another threat to the Reformists is their inability in understanding the ordinary and the lower-classes especially in the small cities. They are the sources that provided Ahmadinejad with enough vote to win two Presidential elections against the robust rivals from the Reformist and Conservative circles. Today’s threat to Reformism is to make their usual mistake of confusing Tehran and large cities’ political tendency with national sentiments and ignoring lower- classes and ordinary people for who politics is not a priority.

Next presidential elections will be the scene of a critical completion between the Moderates/ Reformists who were controlling two important sources of power for at least two years and the Principalists who were out of power for the same period. I believe it will be the incumbent government’s economic record that will determine the next winner.

The post How Iranian Reformists’ Victory Can Turn Into Defeat? 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 .

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 .

“Iran has been in sanctions condition for the past 12 years, and Russia is sanctioned too; so we have some joint interests to discuss. I look over the Iranian market and we know Iran has great experiences in working in these sanctions conditions which is much favored by Russia,” Sergey Lasutenko said in an interview with IransView’s Mojtaba Mousavi.

He said Iran and Russia are two of the biggest oil and gas countries in the world; adding Iran has great oil and gas reserves as Russia does and both countries have some big experiences in exploration and production of crude oil and other hydrocarbon products.

“We have some very close views on the market. The idea is to unify our forces. It is work of professionals to promote these ideas but the potentials in political and economical situations are very big. I think it will be very fruitful to cooperate,” he added.

He said Gazprom does not have many activities in Iran at the moment but it will be doing major projects in the near future.

“In the field of exploration, we can cooperate with Iran. Iran has a lot of experiences in constructing some machines and tools for drilling under the sanctions,” he said.  

He added Gazprom is estimating the Iranian market to estimate the Iranian forcibility and work of equipment production.

“We have technologies and Iran has its own. We have a great experience in offshore works. Gazprom is very good at sea drilling. We know that Iran has two seas: the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea; the Persian Gulf is very rich with gas and oil reserves and we can cooperate in the field.”

Iran and Russia are much closer than Iran and the US, he said, adding Tehran and Moscow have some platform to discuss in the oil and gas sectors.

Both Iran and Russia have great experience in drilling. Russia’s Gazprom has the biggest pipeline systems in the world, he said.

The post Gazprom after Iranian Savvy Developed Under Sanctions 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 .

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 .