Iranian cleric: Use of nuclear arms sometimes permissible

[bishop]

article

A religious leader in Iran has said that in certain situations it is permissible by Muslim law to use nuclear weapons. Hojatol-Islam Mohsen Gharavian was quoted by the Iran News as saying that according to Muslim Shariya, "When the world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to make use of these weapons in order to stand up against this threat." This is the fist time the Iranian government has not censored such statements from a religious leader, according to Meir Javedanfar, an Israeli of Iranian descent and Middle East analyst at the Middle East Economic and Political Analysis Company. Until now, said Javedanfar, the Iranianian government had given clear instructions against saying anything that could be interpreted to mean that Iran is planning to use its nuclear technology for military purposes. Gharavian's statement contradicts the words of other religious leaders, who have declared that Islam does not permit the production or use of nuclear weapons. Javedanfar said that Gharavian's words testify to the difference of opinion within the Iranian elite, both governmental and religious. Gharavian is considered a close associate of the conservative Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who recently attempted to rank himself as candidate for the replacement of the ruling Ayatollah Ali Khamenei upon the latter's resignation. Iran on Friday confirmed that it has begun using centrifugal gas in its uranium enrichment facility. On Saturday, a gathering of Iranians who claim they are dedicated to becoming suicide bombers warned the United States and Britain of attacks on coalition military bases in Iraq if there were a strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities. "With more than 1,000 trained martyrdom-seekers, we are ready to attack the American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," said Mohammad Ali Samadi, spokesman of Esteshadion (Martyrdom Seekers). "We have registered more than 52,000 people who willingly are ready to defend their country." "If they strike, we have a lot of volunteers. Their (U.S. and British) sensitive places are quiet close to Iranian borders," Samadi said after a gathering of about 200 students for a seminar on the suicide-bombing tactics at Tehran's Khajeh Nasir University. Samadi reviewed the history of the suicide bombing as a weapon, praising it as the most effective Palestinian tactic in their confrontation with Israel. The organizers also showed video clips of suicide attacks against Israelis, including one in the Morag settlement near Rafah in the Gaza Strip in February 2005. One settler, three Israeli soldiers and the two attackers were killed in the attack. Hasan Abbasi, the main speaker, also praised suicide bombers but denounced attacks against "innocent people as al-Qaida did in New York." Abbasi told the audience of potential martyrs that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons as claimed by the United States and some of its allies. "Our martyrdom-seekers are our nuclear weapons," said Abbasi, a university instructor and former ranking in the elite Revolutionary Guards. After his speech, about 50 students filled out membership applications. "This is a unique opportunity for me to die for God, next to my brothers in Palestine. That was why I signed up," said Reza Haghshenas, 22, an electrical engineering student. A 23-year-old woman student, Maryam Amereh, said: "We are trying to defend Islam. It's a way to draw the attention of others to our activities." But Rahim Hasanlu, a 22-year-old industrial management student, sipped his orange juice and declared himself not interested in joining. "I just attended to learn what they're saying, thats all." Esteshadion was formed in late 2004, calling for members on a sporadic basis at Friday prayer ceremonies, state-sponsored rallies and at the group's occasional meetings. Those who join have three choices: To train for suicide attacks to defend Iran's national interests, for suicide attacks against Israel or the assassination of British author Salman Rushdie, who was sentenced to death by former Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini for his 1989 book, "Satanic Verses."

and just to add... during the iran/iraq war, the iranians sent waves of weaponless children into iraq. their mission was to be gunned down by the iraqis so that the iranian mullahs could point at the iraqis and call them cowards.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop and just to add... during the iran/iraq war, the iranians sent waves of weaponless children into iraq. their mission was to be gunned down by the iraqis so that the iranian mullahs could point at the iraqis and call them cowards.

My first thought was, poor Iran. They have a Rumsfeld too. It is ironic how the Bush occupation of Iraq has strengthened the radicals in Iran.

Iran Was on Edge; Now It's on Top

The Islamic government in neighboring Iran watched with trepidation in March 2003 when U.S.-led troops stormed Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime and start remaking the political map of the Mideast. In retrospect, the Islamic Republic could have celebrated: The war has left America's longtime nemesis with profound influence in the new Iraq and pushed it to the apex of power in the region. Emboldened by its new status and shielded by deep oil reserves, Tehran is pressing ahead with its nuclear program, daring the international community to impose sanctions. Iran is a Shiite Muslim nation with an ethnic Persian majority, and the blossoming of its influence has fueled the ambitions of long-repressed Shiites throughout the Arab world. At the same time, Tehran has tightened alliances with groups such as Hamas, which recently won Palestinian elections, and with governments in Damascus and Beijing.

The "waves of weaponless children" story may have happened but not with the frequency described in the Western press. The original story was that the children/young recruits were used to clear minefelds.

[Scribbler1]

The plot thickens. One more poke at the west, daring us to do something they KNOW they can't win if we engage them in all-out war.
These people are not acting in their best interests and they MUST know it.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but you have to admit the timing is suspicious. Most people, even Bush supporters know the whole Iraq thing was a huge mistake and there seems to be no real support for us staying there. Now, in rapid succession the Muslims are going nuts (in a manner even rabid zealotry doesn't adequately explain) over 6 month-old cartoons and Iran is rattling a TINY little saber at a ferociously beweaponed West just to seemingly make damn sure the people here get angry at them. Now Hamas has repudiated the Oslo agreement where they acknowledged Israel's right to exist.

All of this is happening in just a few months. Again, I'm not saying these events happening in rapid succession are anything but coincidences but I do notice the whole show has the familiar yet faint odor of American impatience to it. It's not like we have never meddled in another society before when it suited our purposes and I have no reason to believe the Bush administration hasn't learned from its mistakes in Iraq. No point Bush selling us on a deadly threat. Let the Arabs do it themselves.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 No point Bush selling us on a deadly threat. Let the Arabs do it themselves.

Scrib, the folks you are referring to are Persians. It might not make a huge difference to most of us in the West but it makes a huge difference in the region.

[bishop]

you're right, even though it's hardly an important distinction in this situation.. the nearly psychotic statements by their government and their development of nukes is what matter most imo. and in terms of connecting iran with arabs, nobody's aided palestinian terrorism more than iran.

maybe the muslim world is itching for yet another fight? i've read several pieces in the past talking about the widespread sense of humiliation in the arab world because they've been repeatedly stomped by western armies (which includes israel).. can't say that that's really the case, but it's a possibility. and, the muslim world is chock full of 20-something kids with absolutely nothing to do - why not go and be a martyr?

there definitely does seem to be a link between the palestinians and iran (this link has existed for decades).. hamas just recently reached out to iran for instructions on how to govern as well as financial aid:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/684030.html

as i see hamas as a terrorist organization, little different than al-qaeda, i wouldn't be very disturbed if israel resumed assassinating their leaders and members. and any and all "assistance" from iran should be prevented. with iran developing nukes the spectre of a "dirty bomb" is definitely a very real possibility - and these savages really believe it when they clamour for israel's destruction.

and as far as iran goes... i agree with scribbler in that i can't make any sense out of their recent behavior. iran can certainly cause trouble, but there's little chance that they'd actually win a war against us.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RickSp Scrib, the folks you are referring to are Persians. It might not make a huge difference to most of us in the West but it makes a huge difference in the region.

You may be correct, but tell Saddam Hussein that. At his trial last week he yelled at the judge, "Down with the traitors. Down with Bush. Long live the Arab nation."

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

bishop have you considered that in the eyes of some those who win the war can lose the peace.

The disruption caused to the middle east would be horrendous, there are many soft targets and without doubt if nuclear weapons were used the literal world fallout would bring about a tremendous change to the lives of everyone.

You have already demonstrated their high expectations of glory after death. The West is a soft target for we do care about our lads dying as individuals as much as for the good of society and peace.

We can only hope rhetoric is maintained and this wicked banter is only a new form of "cold war" with a different protaganist

[bishop]

Quote by: arawn bishop have you considered that in the eyes of some those who win the war can lose the peace.

could you restate that? i couldn't understand what you were trying to say...

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

There was an expression after the second world war felt by many in the "wining" countries of europe that whilst they won the war they lost the peace. This was based upon the high level of cash injected to help rebuild Germany, in a similar way too the injections for Japan. Lesson's having been learnt from WW1.


So i have distorted this view to imply that undoubtedly the West would win, but if Iran chose to utilise nuclear armanents the loss to everyone would be terrible and thus no winners.

Does that help........

[bishop]

gotcha, although i don't usually buy into that sort of lofty rhetoric.. imo, the absence of war does not in itself constitute peace. the situation in the middle east is full of violence - both overt and subtle.

i agree that we're still playing a zero-sum game where a nuclear cannot nuke another nuclear power without expecting to be annhiliated in return.. but, that is a huge assumption using logic - and i'm not confident that people in that part of the world are even remotely logical. i see very little evidence, in fact, that these people can promote rational and peaceful policies.. the saber-rattling that iran has been engaging in is just one example of irrational behavior that does absolutely nothing towards the promotion of peace.. if they act like this now, what should we expect once they do possess nuclear weapons?

these savages go to suicide bombing school for fuck's sake.. i'm not about to assume that they even care about the consequences of their actions - especially knowing how pathetically brainwashed and full of hate they are. it's kind of like seeing a jew try to rationalize with a nazi - it just won't work.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel We can only hope rhetoric is maintained and this wicked banter is only a new form of "cold war" with a different protaganist

That's a bad analogy. There was no actual war between the Soviets and the U.S.. It was the THREAT of war in that conflict, and the threat of nuclear war at that. But the fanatics have made no bones about the fact that they ARE at war with us and they now say nuclear weapons are cool. And with trashed embassies and KFCs in the background of your statement you must admit they are proving they are at war with us.

Are you saying they would NOT use a nuclear device against us if they could?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 You may be correct, but tell Saddam Hussein that. At his trial last week he yelled at the judge, "Down with the traitors. Down with Bush. Long live the Arab nation."

Saddam Hussien clearly understands who are Arabs and who are Persians. Without a doubt. Were you not referring to inflammatory statements made by Iranians, who are indeed Persian and not Arab?

Quote by: Scribbler1 Are you saying they would NOT use a nuclear device against us if they could?

If the rulers of Iraq used a nuclear device against the United States or even Israel, they would face almost assured nuclear anihilation. That sounds like a pretty compelling reason against the first use of nuclear weapons. As a potential deterrant however there may be some appeal. The lesson Bush and Saddam appear to have taught North Korea and Iran is that Saddam's big mistake was not having WMD.

[bishop]

how certain are you that the iranian rulers are rational?

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop how certain are you that the iranian rulers are rational?

As say, opposed to ours?

The first move in a runup to any war is to demonize the opponent. They are monsters, crazy, nuts, etc. In this case, paradoxically, the Iranians, probably for domestic and regional consumption, seem to be trying to help out in the process.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RickSp Saddam Hussien clearly understands who are Arabs and who are Persians. Without a doubt. Were you not referring to inflammatory statements made by Iranians, who are indeed Persian and not Arab?

No I wasn't. I was referring to a part of his trial where Saddam himself yelled this at the judge, just before he condemned the judge's moustache.

Members of the defence team then said they would leave the court and Amin said: 'As you like. Then we will have to appoint other lawyers'. Saddam refused to have lawyers appointed by the court and shouted: 'Long live Iraq. Long live the Arab nation. Long live Iraq.'

FORBES.COM

If the rulers of Iraq used a nuclear device against the United States or even Israel, they would face almost assured nuclear anihilation. That sounds like a pretty compelling reason against the first use of nuclear weapons. As a potential deterrant however there may be some appeal. The lesson Bush and Saddam appear to have taught North Korea and Iran is that Saddam's big mistake was not having WMD.

Conventional wisdom would say you can't so easily predict the actions of fanatics or know with any assurance what they understand about retaliation.

[rmnunez]

Arabs or Persians makes no difference, Muslims is the common denominator. The Iranians are on thin ice, anything they say about nukes will be construed against them by the Bush administration. We are left in doubt from the cleric's comments. It seems he is saying Iran would use its nukes defensively, in response to a threat. That, in itself is escalation as the prevailing doctrine among recognized nuclear powers is defensive in-kind retaliatory use, not use upon threat. The cleric suggests use against a threatening world with nukes, but we know its really just a few states are actually armed with nukes, does this mean Iran would use nukes against non-nuclear armed states seen as threatening, how about preemptively?

[bishop]

Quote by: RickSp Quote by: bishop how certain are you that the iranian rulers are rational? As say, opposed to ours? The first move in a runup to any war is to demonize the opponent. They are monsters, crazy, nuts, etc. In this case, paradoxically, the Iranians, probably for domestic and regional consumption, seem to be trying to help out in the process.

the fact that we have a lot of crazies in our own country doesn't negate the fact that iran is full of their own. and i'm not attempting to demonize the iranians even though i hold them highly suspect. their rulers are just as ill-intentioned as our own - and they have more religious fanaticism than even bush and his cabal imo.

anyways, you didn't exactly answer my question with your response. it was more of a tennis volley back at me than a direct answer. i understand very well how rhetoric is used to manipulate people into supporting a war, and i know our government is run by nutjobs, but my question didn't pertain to either.

if i were a brit and the u.s. was developing nukes, i'd be awfully worried. i would be hesitant to simply write them off and assume that they'd never use their weapons against another country.. and right now, as an american, i'm very worried about iran - who i think might actually use such weapons against another country. (and as an american, i am opposed to our development of bunker buster nukes.)

really, all i'm questioning is the assumption that iran's leaders are rational decision-makers and wouldn't use a nuke even if they had one. that's a legitimate question imo. it's not exactly like that country is run by normal, level-headed people..

[RickSp]

Scrib, seeing that the thread was regarding the statements of Iranian mullahs, I thought your initial comments about Arabs seemed out of place. I understand that you were making a broader statement about people dying over cartoons as well as inflamatory statements by mullahs. I still think your coment about "Arabs" misses some of the complexity of what is going on, but so be it. The Iranians really hate to be called "Arabs" and the Arabs do not feel a great kinship with the Persians.

Bishop, yes, I think the rulers of Iran are rational, more or less. I do not think that they are necessarily any more fanatical that some of the members of the Project for a New American Century, for the sake of comparisons. Unlike the US, Iran has not claimed the right to project imperial power beyond its borders since Darius the Great. Likewise, so far, only one nation has used nukes and continues to claim the right to do so on a first strike basis.

[bishop]

i want to believe that they're rational, but i'm not ready to make that leap of faith. their training their people in the terrorist art of suicide bombers and their leader is a pretty psychotic character. additionally, supposing that there ever IS an internal revolution in iran (or if the state simply fails), there's the long-term concern that nukes could be involved.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RickSp Scrib, seeing that the thread was regarding the statements of Iranian mullahs, I thought your initial comments about Arabs seemed out of place. I understand that you were making a broader statement about people dying over cartoons as well as inflamatory statements by mullahs. I still think your coment about "Arabs" misses some of the complexity of what is going on, but so be it. The Iranians really hate to be called "Arabs" and the Arabs do not feel a great kinship with the Persians.

First of all I promise you I won't lose any sleep if the Iranians are offended that I called them Arabs. And I also don't really care what technical distinctions I am ignoring when I refer to these people as Arabs. I was not discussing ethnicity but the area of the world they come from which is why I didn't refer to a single country when I said "Let the Arabs do it themselves" which was a reference to ALL of the anti social actions in the region. I hope that clarifies things as I don't want to beat this Arab/Persian thing to death.