FULL ARTICLES

“THE REVOLUTION HAS STRAYED FROM ITS ORIGINAL COURSE”

Ayatollah Khomeini’s grandson: Grandfather’s revolution devoured its children, strayed from original course
MEMRI
June 13, 2006

www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD118406

In an interview with the Al-Arabiyya TV website (www.alarabiya.net) on the occasion of the 17th anniversary of the death of Islamic Republic of Iran founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khomeini’s grandson Ayatollah Hussein Khomeini said that the current Iranian regime was “a dictatorship of clerics who control every aspect of life,” and called for foreign intervention to topple the regime. (1)

In the interview, Ayatollah Hussein Khomeini argued that the “rule of the jurisprudent” was not based on Shi’ite religious principle, but developed for historical reasons having to do with persecution of clerics in pre-revolutionary Iran. He also says that in its current form, the revolution has “strayed from its original course” by abandoning the principles of freedom and democracy, and states that Iran will gain real power only when it re-embraces these principles, not through relying on bombs and weapons.

For the last three years, the Iranian regime has kept Ayatollah Hussein Khomeini under surveillance and has banned him from giving interviews to the Iranian media owing to his criticism of the regime. (2)

The following are highlights from the interview:

Strength Will Not Be Obtained Through Weapons, but Through Freedom and Democracy

Ayatollah Hussein Khomeini told Al-Arabiyya: “Iran will gain [real] power if freedom and democracy develop there. Strength will not be obtained through weapons and the bomb...”

Khomeini also objected to the principle of “[the rule of] the jurisprudent” [velayat-e faqih]. He added: “At the time of the [Islamic] revolution, establishing ‘the rule of the jurisprudent’ was not one of its main principles. Moreover – and I witnessed this [myself] – [the revolution] called for freedom and democracy. But this changed [in light of] the religious view that prevailed in the religious committees and seminaries.

“Within this religious view, there were two approaches. One, which rejected [the principle of] velayat-e faqih, was represented, for example, by [Ayatollah] Abu Al-Qassem Khoi, the supreme marja’ [religious authority] at the time. The second approach advocated velayat-e faqih, [but this approach] was not based on a religious consideration, but stemmed from historical factors. It arose because the religious seminaries were oppressed for many years, especially [in the time of Shah] Reza Khan Pahlavi in Iran [1921-1941], who persecuted the clerics. In response, the clerics lay in wait [for an opportunity] to seize power. This approach was fostered by the many of the wearers of the turban, and I do not say ‘religious scholars’ so as not to [include] Khomeini [in this category].”

The Revolution Persecuted its Leaders

“My grandfather’s revolution has devoured its children and has strayed from its course. I lived through the revolution, and it called for freedom and democracy – but it persecuted its leaders. For example [Ayatollah Mahmoud] Taleqani, who was frequently imprisoned in the days of the Shah, and after the revolution was harshly persecuted by [the regime] for denouncing violations of the law. He consequently [had to] go into hiding, while grieving and protesting. He protested against the establishment of the revolutionary committees that ruled in an arbitrary and disorganized [manner], and against the persecution of his family...

“The revolution rocked the foundations of society, which had [previously] been conservative and had rejected freedom. The revolution prepared society to accept democracy and freedom. Thanks to the revolution, all sectors of [the Iranian] society, from the educated class to the peasants and the women, are now able to accept [the notion of] freedom and have become politically aware.”

Khomeini further said that his meeting with the son of the deposed Shah Reza Pahlavi was “an ordinary meeting with a man who shares my suffering. The [cause] of our suffering is one and the same, namely tyranny, though each of us has his own [political] orientation...”

Addressing the issue of the hijab (i.e. the veil), Khomeini said that if he came to power in Iran, he would first of all “pass a law which makes the wearing of the hijab an optional choice for Iranian women. The Iranian regime shackles women by forcing [them to wear] the hijab in its ugliest form – namely a black [veil], even though the [veil] may be colorful. Girls coming out of schools or out of the university [campuses look] depressingly somber. I am personally in favor of the hijab, but not like this. The hijab is a personal issue. If a woman wants, she may [wear it], and if she doesn’t [want it], she may [refuse it]. Many female relatives of my grandfather Khomeini did not wear the hijab...”

Khomeini Calls for Foreign Military Intervention in Iran

The Al-Arabiyya website stated: “As for his call to American President George Bush to come and occupy Iran, Hussein Khomeini explained that ‘freedom must come to Iran in any possible way, whether through internal or external developments. If you were a prisoner, what would you do? I want someone to break the prison [doors open]...’”

At the end of the interview, Hussein Khomeini remarked that he believes his father Mustafa to have been poisoned, though, to this day, it is not clear who was responsible. (3)

Footnotes:
(1) Ayatollah Hussein Khomeini was born in Tehran in 1958. In 1965, he emigrated with his family to Iraq, where he studied in a religious seminary. After the Iraqi Ba’th revolution of 1968, he returned to Iran. He defines himself as a “liberal religious person.”
(2) www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2006/05/31/24251.htm , May 31, 2006.
(3) The Al-Arabiyya website writes that the death of Mustafa Khomeini was the main cause for the outbreak of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

 

“THE JEWS ARE VERY FILTHY PEOPLE”

Iran leader’s aide: Jews are filthy
Senior aide to Iranian president says Jews have been accused of spreading deadly plagues throughout history because they are filthy; states that as long as Israel exists, “there will never be peace and security in Middle East”
Yediot Ahronot
June 8, 2006

www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3260391,00.html

Jews are filthy people, and that is why they have been accused throughout history of spreading deadly disease and plagues, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin told students during a visit at the town of Rasht, the Iranian news site Rooz Online reported Thursday.

Ramin, a historian who serves as the president’s most senior aide, is believed to be the man behind the regime’s recent statements that the Holocaust is a myth.

“Historically, there are many accusations against the Jews. For example it was said that they were the source for such deadly disease as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to Christians and thus killed them,” the site quoted Ramin as saying.

“I only know that Jews have been accused of such conspiracies and sabotage throughout history and have not performed well,” he added.

Ramin reiterated past statements made by President Ahamadinejad regarding the Holocaust, saying it was the cause for the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, and claimed that Israel is responsible for Middle East crisis.

“So long as Israel exists in the region there will never be peace and security in the Middle East,” he said adding, “so the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel.”

 

A LEGAL CASE AGAINST IRAN

A legal case against Iran
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
The Washington Post
June 6, 2006

Speaking last October at a Tehran conference on “The World Without Zionism,” Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, referred to Israel as a “disgraceful blot” and called for it to be “wiped off the map.” This was not an isolated or idle threat. In the same speech, he defended Iran’s determination to press ahead with its nuclear program – which would give it the practical ability to achieve this result.

Although Ahmadinejad’s bellicose statements were condemned by the United States and a number of its European allies, the condemnation was not followed up by a concerted diplomatic and legal effort in the U.N. Security Council. It ought to be, especially given the uncertain prospects of the council’s current consideration of Iran’s nuclear activities, further complicated by the just-announced offer of direct negotiations between Tehran and Washington.

There is a good legal basis for such action. Ahmadinejad’s words clearly violate Article 2.4 of the U.N. Charter. This provision, to which Iran has agreed, requires all U.N. member states to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Ahmadinejad’s specific formulation – wiping Israel off the map and prophesying a coming nuclear conflagration in which much of humanity would expire – also clearly entails a threat of committing genocide, which member nations are obliged, under the Genocide Convention, to prevent.

Both the nature and context of Ahmadinejad’s manifesto set it apart from such harsh but legally permissible rhetoric as President Bush’s talk of an “axis of evil” or President Ronald Reagan’s reference to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” Such statements do not threaten the existence of a sovereign member of the international community. Likewise, expressing a view that a particular undemocratic regime or an otherwise odious government would not survive the rising anger of its people, or will fall prey to certain forces of history, does not amount to a legally proscribed challenge.

But Ahmadinejad’s rant features a direct and unequivocal threat, and it gives Israel a valid casus belli – under both Article 51 (self-defense) of the U.N. Charter and customary international law – to use preemptive force as a means of ensuring that Iran cannot make good on its stated intentions.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice, in a 1996 opinion analyzing the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, found that use-of-force threats that violated Article 2.4 and were not otherwise justified under Article 51 also posed a threat to international peace and security, thereby further infringing the U.N. Charter. Since Israel has not committed aggression against Iran, Ahmadinejad’s statements cannot be justified as self-defense. They have, in fact, created a legally cognizable threat that can, and should, be addressed by the Security Council under its Chapter VII powers, which are concerned with threats to peace.

So far U.S.-led efforts to have the Security Council directly condemn and impose sanctions on Iran under Chapter VII for its nuclear ambitions have not succeeded. That’s why seeking the council’s intervention on Iran’s illegal threats to use force makes excellent diplomatic sense. Such an approach would provide multiple and reinforcing benefits.

First, it would broaden the international dialogue beyond Tehran’s breach of nonproliferation obligations, focusing on the real underlying problem: the bellicose nature of the Iranian regime and the use it might make of nuclear weapons. And since Tehran’s violations of the U.N. Charter are, by their nature, issues that can be handled only by the Security Council, bringing them to the council would counter Iran’s efforts to displace the U.N. framework in favor of direct negotiations with the European Union and the United States. Indeed, a serious debate on Ahmadinejad’s illegal threat would give the United States a unique opportunity to focus the Security Council on the shrill anti-Israeli rhetoric emanating not just from Iran but also from numerous other Islamic countries. This rhetoric fosters regional tensions and nurtures the dangerous “jihadist” sentiments.

Second, demands that Iran withdraw its threat and acknowledge its obligation to peacefully resolve any dispute it may have with Israel would be firmly grounded in international law – so much so that Security Council members Russia and China would be hard-pressed to oppose the effort. Both of those countries have routinely cloaked their objections to E.U.-U.S. policy toward Iran in the language of international law, arguing, for example, that Iran has a legal right to pursue civilian nuclear activities. No country, of course, is entitled to violate the U.N. Charter.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is how the U.N. system was, and is, supposed to work. When a clear threat to peace arises, it is incumbent upon the Security Council to act in defense of the threatened party to head off the unilateral use of force and to advance “collective security.” This imperative is particularly compelling when the very legitimacy of the threatened party and its right to independent national existence have been challenged. Such a challenge goes beyond the violation of Article 2.4 and raises the specter of the most heinous international crimes, including genocide.

If Iran genuinely desires the peaceful atom as an energy source, then it should have no problem retracting its threats against Israel and reaffirming its commitment to resolve any differences it may have with Jerusalem through peaceful means. If it refuses, it will provide compelling evidence that Iran’s current government cannot be expected to act as a responsible member of the international community. Then the world can take stock of its true intentions and act accordingly.

 

“THIS IS A TRULY ALARMING DEVELOPMENT”

Iran accused of hiding secret nuclear weapons site
By Con Coughlin
The Daily Telegraph
June 12, 2006

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/12/ixnews.html

Fresh evidence has emerged that Iran is working on a secret military project to develop nuclear weapons that has not been declared to United Nations inspectors responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme.

Nuclear experts working for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna are pressing the Iranians to make a full disclosure about a network of research laboratories at a secret military base outside the capital Teheran.

The project is codenamed Zirzamin 27, and its purpose is to enable the Iranians to undertake uranium enrichment to military standard. Zirzamin means “basement” in Farsi, which suggests the laboratories are underground and 27 refers to the 27-year-old Iranian revolution.

Concerns over activity at Zirzamin 27 will be raised at this week’s meeting of the IAEA’s Board of Governors in Vienna, which starts today.

Suspicions have been growing that Iran has a secret military nuclear research programme since UN inspectors discovered particles of enriched uranium at a research complex at Lavizan, a military base on the outskirts of Teheran, in 2003.

The Iranians agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the Lavizan complex but then razed it to the ground before the inspectors arrived.

Iranian nuclear officials have ignored repeated requests by IAEA officials for a detailed explanation of the Lavizan project. Now the IAEA officials are studying new intelligence indicating that the Lavizan research project has been moved to a secret military location outside Teheran.

Although IAEA officials do not know the precise location of Zirzamin 27, they have comprehensive details of its activities.

“This is a truly alarming development,” said a senior western diplomat working with the IAEA. “This evidence indicates that the Iranians remain committed to developing nuclear weapons, despite their claims to the contrary that their nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful.”

Teheran has consistently argued that its nuclear programme is aimed at developing an indigenous nuclear power industry. But Iran’s insistence on developing its own uranium enrichment facilities has raised concerns that it has a well-advanced programme to develop nuclear weapons.

The Zirzamin 27 operation is thought to be being supervised by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards under the direction of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the head of Iran’s Modern Defensive Readiness and Technology Centre, a top-secret military research site.

According to reports being studied by IAEA officials, scientists working at Zirzamin are required to wear standard military uniforms when entering and leaving the complex to give the impression they are involved in normal military activity. They are only allowed to change into protective clothing once inside the site.

Special attention has also been given to developing specialised ventilation systems to make sure no incriminating particles of radioactive material are allowed to escape.