“Rumi Integral Part of Iran’s Rich History, Culture, Literature”

ByIFP Editorial Staff

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, in a message, has paid tribute to and slammed efforts by Turkey to associate itself with prominent Iranian poet Rumi, who was one of the world’s most famous literary figures known for his mystic poems.

In a Sunday message to commemorate the national Rumi day, the Iranian foreign ministry said “Rumi’s divine language is a universal language associated with divine nature and breathes life into it.”

“Maybe this very universality of Rumi’s language has prompted some to associate their names with Rumi’s and leave no stone unturned to take possession of this master of mystic poetry and make imaginary and illusory and untrue statements to create the impression that Rumi had deviated from the Persian literature and culture,” the message said, alluding to efforts by Turkish officials to call Rumi a Turkish poet.

“The reality is that Rumi has written poems only in Persian,” the Iranian foreign ministry said.

“In our estimation, Rumi is an integral part of the lofty history, culture and literature of Iran and the whole cultural world, which has long been associated with the Iranians’ behaviour and language.”

“Still, we believe that Rumi’s poetry can link nations and bring about further convergence among people who are attached to this renowned Iranian poet,” it added.

It also noted that “in a world devoid of mysticism, love and spirituality, understanding Rumi’s message can solve many of the problems of the human community.”

The message referred to Rumi as the “connecting point between poetry, mysticism and philosophy in the Persian literature.”

“He was a rare genius of history who learned mysticism with great master Shams, and created everlasting works of mysticism and the school of love in the Persian language, so much so that his magnum opus, Masnavi, was called The Quran in the Persian language,” it added.

“Today, September 30, is the day when this prominent Iranian poet is commemorated. On this occasion, we congratulate all intellectuals, culture-loving Iranians, all Persian-speaking people and all those who love the Persian language and those who regard Rumi’s poetry as an integral part of their identity,” it added.

The message came after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in his address to the UN General Assembly earlier this week, referred to Rumi as a Turkish poet, which is a distortion of history, as the renowned Persian poet is just buried in Konya, the modern-day Turkey, and all his poems are in Persian.

Effective mechanisms necessary for creating global peace, collective security

Muslim scholar

TEHRAN, Sep. 23 (MNA) – Ilgar Ibrahimoglu, Chief Editor of Baku-based ‘Deyerler’ news portal, stressed the need for effective mechanisms for creation of peace and collective security in the world.  

Muslim scholar Ilgar Ibrahimoglu, who is the chairman of DEVAMM (the Centre for the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion), as well as the Chief Editor of Baku-based ‘Deyerler’ news portal, said in an interview with the Islamic World Peace Forum (IWPF) that global peace and security would come into effect when “effective international mechanisms to restrain aggression appear.” He went on to criticize the UN for its failure to influence the course of events in a constructive way due to being run by the US and its allies.

“The most world powers keep either a neutral position of observer, or sail in the wake of American foreign policy,” he added.

“The mechanism of organized resistance is strengthening in the Middle East,” he stressed, which necessiates integration of efforts to “develop mechanisms for mass security.”

Following is the full text of the interview:

Given the slogan of the UN General Assembly this year in line with the International Day of Peace (September 21, 2018), which is “The Right to Peace - on the 70th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, what practical measures do you propose to materialize this slogan?

Similar to many other conceptual solutions of UN, this postulate will come to an effect, when effective international mechanisms to restrain aggression appear.

There is no doubt that US and its allies run the show in UN and many other important international institutions. UN, declaring attractive slogans, just in words, is deprived of real opportunity to influence the course of events and manage world processes in a constructive way.

The most world powers keep either a neutral position of observer, or sail in the wake of American foreign policy.

Unfortunately, many countries with Muslim populations, especially the Persian Gulf countries, not only support US policy, but also are very active sponsors of international terrorism. Indeed, because of their direct intervention and as a result of their financial support, the inextinguishable fire of the war flared up in the Middle East, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and millions became refugees.

Sailing in the wake of Zionist policy, these states with outwardly Muslim positioning actually are satellites of Israeli regime and active gendarmes of Middle East nations that wish justice and dignity.

Indeed, there are many people in the West who know the actual state of affairs. But the voice of fair and impartial people of the West is drowning in a stream of disinformation, poured on the public from Mass Media that under the control of oligarchic capital.

But, along with this, it is necessary to note that the world around us is changing slowly but definitely. It is no longer possible to deceive millions of people blatantly and unceremoniously, to create a distorted reality, to change concepts with impunity.

Let’s consider at least the situation with the "White Helmets" in Syria. Despite powerful disinformation, the United States and its allies failed to press the positioning of this terrorist structure as a public organization. And such examples are too many.

The mechanism of organized resistance is strengthening in the Middle East, more and more countries are shaking off the shackles of colonial rule and choosing a difficult but dignified life.

Thus, it is necessary to continue integration efforts, to conduct educational and enlightening work, to develop mechanisms for mass security, etc.

Given the recent developments in the world and in the region (ISIL, Saudi’s attacks in Yemen, war crimes of Zionists in region, Syria and insecurity and instability in the Middle East) what are the international requirements for creating a world full of peace and security?

The problem of global security is the main issue of the modern world. But, unfortunately, the most who speak about it are the representatives of the circles, which are precisely the source of international tension and even chaos. Here there is a substitution of concepts. According to their point of view, mass security is the lack of any resistance against their hegemonic aspirations.

Thus, humanity will only reach a global security system, when it can create effective and working mechanisms that are capable to ensure justice in international relations, to punish aggression, and to hold out against terror. And in this case, the policy of transparency and clearness in covering these issues becomes very vital. Including, via creation of international schemes of views exchange, like your forum.

I am absolutely convinced that mass security in the world will come with the appearance of the Hidden Imam (a.f). Humanity craves justice and a dignified life. During many-many years several leaders appeared, too many slogans were put forward, which corresponded to these efforts. And the more Muslims seek justice in international and interstate relations, the more terms will be created for the sacred Appearance.

In the light of the objectives and measures of Islamic World Peace Forum in the field of establishing just peace in the world, what measures do you propose for promoting just peace discourse in the world?

Here, it is very important to create horizontal links between representatives of nations, states, and societies. The more strong ties and constant contacts in this field, the more opportunities to achieve mutual understanding and sincerity in matters of international peace and security. These ties are designed to unite all people of goodwill, and create terms to hold out against disinformation, chaos, terror.

Do you think that international organizations and international human rights defender and responsible for establishing peace in the world have not yet been able to act in their true responsibility for peace in the world?

Certainly, international organizations and international human rights defenders, who responsible for establishing peace in the world, are still far from accomplished mission. There are both: objective and subjective reasons.

It is important to know the essence of the Imperialist-Zionist policy of aggression and suppression of dissent, the mechanisms of substituting concepts and ideas, support of terrorist groups and creation of conditions to control chaos. International structures are far from being totally aware of these matters. And the more it is explained by convincing and irrefutable arguments, the more people of goodwill cooperate in the creation of mass security systems, the faster and more effective will be the work of international human rights organizations and structures, who are responsible for establishing peace in the world.

Haji Ilgar Ibrahimoglu is the imam of “Juma” mosque in Icheri-sheher, the chairman of DEVAMM Center for Protection of Conscience and Persuasion Freedom, President of the International Religious Liberty Association and a scholar at the Islamic World Peace Forum

Iran will wait for Trump to lose power: Researcher

Madrid, Sept 28, IRNA – A researcher with the US Princeton University and Iran’s former nuclear negotiator Seyyed Hossein Mousavian in an article published in Al-Jazeera website discussed reasons why Iran does not want to negotiate with the US President Donald Trump.

Full text of the article reads as follows:

Before his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, US President Donald Trump tweeted, 'Despite requests, I have no plans to meet Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Maybe someday in the future. I am sure he is an absolutely lovely man!'

The tweet came after weeks of speculations that a meeting between Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani might take place on the sidelines of the UNGA sessions.

Indeed, such a meeting did not happen, not because the US president tweeted his refusal, but because the Iranian side is simply not interested. Last year, the Iranian government had to turn down requests from the White House for such a meeting eight times and this year President Rouhani again emphasized that his government is not interested in holding direct talks with the present US administration.

There are several reasons why Iran really doesn't want to talk to Trump.

First, it sees no reason to abandon the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which took many years of hard negotiations to conclude. Former US President Barack Obama also saw the JCPOA as the 'most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime, ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history,' based on 'unprecedented verification.'
The provisions of the deal addressed the main concern of the international community: that Iran's nuclear program remains compliant with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and limits its work to civilian projects. It was ratified by all governments involved and endorsed by the United Nation's Security Council in Resolution 2231.

While such an approach might have worked with North Korea, it is highly unlikely that it would yield a positive result with Iran. This behavior has left Tehran doubting the readiness of the Trump administration to negotiate in earnest. Furthermore, by withdrawing from a deal approved by a previous US administration and the UN Security Council, the world's top rule-enforcing entity, the Trump White House casts doubt on its own commitment to observing agreements and being a reliable negotiating partner.

Third, the present US administration has been seemingly pushing for regime change in Iran. Top officials such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton have been at the forefront of such efforts. What government on earth would engage with a partner that is publicly pushing for its violent overthrow?

Fourth, Iran would not negotiate with a hostile government which might itself soon lose power. The possibility of Trump getting impeached is growing by the day. The process of impeachment could soon be triggered over violations of the emoluments clauses of the US Constitution or over alleged complicity with Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. And if the Democrats gain control of Congress in the November midterm vote, that possibility would get that much higher.

But even if Trump does not get impeached, he is likely to lose his bid for re-election in 2020. His current approval rating is lower than that of any of the nine presidents who preceded him. The fact that leaders of the whole world burst out laughing when he claimed in his General Assembly speech that his administration has accomplished more than any other in US history is highly indicative of where he stands in the eyes of the world and his own people.

Given these unfavourable circumstances, Iran may wait for Trump to lose power and seek to engage with his successor who in all likelihood would be a better negotiating partner. And the Iranian government is not in a hurry at all. Its European partners, who stood by the JCPOA and their commitments despite pressure from the Trump administration, just offered to establish a legal entity that will process payments to Iran and effectively circumvent the US sanctions. China and Russia are also likely to join this new arrangement. 

In other words, Iran can easily wait another two years for a new administration to be elected in the US. In the meantime, if Trump somehow decides to drastically change his rhetoric and approach, the Iranian government might reconsider and talk to him.

Bolton’s Red Sky Worldview: ICC, International Law, and Iran

by Richard Falk 

Bolton’s Game: Not Sovereignty, Not International Law—Clearing the Path for U.S., Geopolitical Primacy

To be sure, on September 10th John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Adviser, pushed all the thematic buttons that might be expected of a luncheon speaker invited to address the Federalist Society, long known as the ideological home of rabid advocates of the so-called ‘new sovereignty.’ The hallmark of this pre-Trump neocon law bastion of Scalia worshippers was their role in the career nurturing of such jurisprudential embarrassments as John Yoo and Jack Goldsmith. Yoo the notorious author of the torture memos and Goldsmith the public servant usually give credit for crafting an expert approval text validating ‘extreme rendition’ of CIA suspects to notorious ‘black sites,’ known around the world as safe havens for torture, surely a crude instance of ex parte criminal legalism. It should be noted that both of these individuals are senior faculty members at two of America’s finest law schools, UC Berkeley and Harvard, both of which exhibit institutional pride in the fact of treating legal ethics as integral part of professional education.

John Bolton was the safest of choices as a featured speaker, having earned his Federalist Society credentials many times over.  He seems perversely proud of leading the unprecedented effort on behalf of George W. Bush in 2002 to ‘unsign’ the Rome Statute, the treaty that brought the International Criminal Court (ICC) into force in 2002, and now has 123 sovereign states as parties, including all NATO members except the U.S. and Turkey. At the talk, Bolton paused to boast of orchestrating this unusual move to highlight and underscore this repudiation of the ICC by the Bush presidency, and in the process, of the crusading success of a transnational civil society movement and a coalition of moderate governments around the world to institutionalize individual accountability of political leaders and military commanders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.  It should be humiliating that such a global undertaking to strengthen international criminal law enforcement is regarded as posing a direct threat to Americans and governmental policy. It puts a preemptive twist on the previous reliance on ‘victors’ justice’ to ensure that none of the Allied crimes during World War II would be subjected to legal scrutiny while the crimes of German and Japanese political leaders and military commanders were being prosecuted.

Actually, even if Bush had not bothered to have the Clinton signature removed, the U.S. would never in this dark period of anti-internationalism have joined the ICC. To become a party to the treaty would have needed the additional step of ratification of the Rome Statute, and that would require an affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate. A favorable outcome would have been even more unlikely than for Donald Trump to nominate Anita Hill or Robert Mueller as his next choices for the U.S. Supreme Court. In this sense, only the up tempo language of Bolton is notable for its willingness to denigrate and even smear the ICC.

Slick Willy Clinton had his own reservations about the treaty and never took the normal step following an official signature of a negotiated inter-governmental agreement of submitting it for ratification. Indeed, it is a technical violation of customary international law that imposes a good faith obligation on governments to seek formal adherence of signed treaties in accordance with constitutional procedures of the particular state. In other words, even the supposedly liberal side of American political life has opted out of its earlier tradition of supporting the institutional development of the Rule of Law on a global level as an aspect of its commitment to the role of law and institutions as essential ingredients of a peaceful and just world order.

Congress removed any doubt as to its hostility toward the ICC when in 2002 it passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, authorizing the President to use all necessary means, even force, to prevent prosecution at The Hague of Americans accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity. What is especially disturbing about such a slap at criminal accountability is the absence of slightest show of concern as to whether the allegations in a particular case were well grounded in evidence or not.  When Bolton alluded to this bit of ultra-nationalism he appropriately noted that the legislation enjoyed bipartisan support, which suggests that the American posture of claiming ‘lawless geopolitics’ for itself is a fixed feature of world order for the seeable future no matter who occupies the Oval Office. It is ironic that while criminality is ensured of impunity, the practice of impunity, a dubious encroachment on the logic of legality, is not only claimed but offered that most unusual feature of international enforcement.

Bolton implied that the problems of criminality in world affairs are associated with the leaders of the foreign adversaries of the United States, identifying such individuals as Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, and Qaddafi. His assertion implied that the good behavior of the United States and its allies was such as to be inherently benevolent and the bad behavior of its adversaries would require more than law to deter: “The hard men of history are not deterred by fantasies of international law such as the International Criminal Court.” We can only meekly ask, “Are the supposedly soft men  of history, such as Trump or G.W. Bush, any less undeterred?” “And why should we ever expect these hard men to be deterred if the ICC and international law are but ‘fantasies.’

Getting back to Bolton’s luncheon remarks, his own summary of his feverish assault on the audacity of the ICC to consider investigating Israel’s international crimes, and the alleged crimes of the Taliban and the United States in Afghanistan reads as follows:“This administration will fight back to protect American constitutionalism, our sovereignty, and our citizens. No committee of foreign nations will tell us how to govern ourselves and defend our freedom. We will stand up for the US constitution abroad, just as we do at home. And, as always, in every decision we make, we will put the interests of the American people first.”

These are predictable sentiments, given the occasion and taking into account Bolton’s long advocacy of a militarist foreign policy that disregards the restraints of law, morality, and political prudence. It is the ethics and politics of this disregard that is Bolton’s real message. We should be attentive to this real message hidden within the fiery ‘sovereignty, first’ verbiage, which is that the geopolitical practices of the United States will not be subject to legal accountability no matter how flagrant the violation of fundamental norms might be in the future. Bolton may overstep the bounds of the liberal order when he attacks the ICC as an institution, which had not been previously treated as a threat to American foreign policy. Only recently did it dawn on Washington policymakers that the ICC might at some point actually challenge what the U.S. and its allies, most notably Israel, are doing in the world.

Previously, the U.S. was a supporter of criminal accountability of foreign leaders, especially if they were adversaries of the U.S.. It should be remembered that even during the Bush presidency, the government sent dozens of government lawyers to Iraq to help prepare a war crimes prosecution of Saddam Hussein and his entourage after their capture. This capture occurred in the course of a war of aggression initiated against Iraq in 2003 without any prior provocation. The U.S. attack, regime change, and long intrusive occupation took place, it should be recalled, despite the failure of the U.S. Government to secure the support of the UN Security Council despite a feverish attempt to gain authorization.

In other words, so far as even the Boltons of this world are concerned, there is nothing wrong with criminal accountability of leaders and military personnel so long as the indictments, prosecutions, and punishments are confined to enemies of the United States. Such a self-serving geopolitical appropriation of international criminal law should not be confused with legitimate law, which presupposes that the rules, norms, and procedures apply to all relevant actors, the strong as well as the weak, the victors as well as the defeated, geopolitical wrongdoers as well their adversaries.

What is sad about the Bolton worldview, and indeed the new sovereignty ideologues that shape the public image of the Federalist Society, aside from its influence in the Trump Era, is that it completely misunderstands the relevance of international law in this period of global interdependence and planetary challenge. State-centric world order as beset by geopolitical rivalries is a blueprint for civilizational collapse in the 21st century, and probably represents the worst possible way to uphold core sovereign rights and national interests over time.

What is still sadder is that the Bolton/Trump worldview, which seems so outlandish and anachronistic is not that extremist, compared to Democratic establishment approaches, when it comes to behavior. It represents a surreal rhetorical extension of the bipartisan consensus that is complacent about the failures of the neoliberal international order, including especially the destructive impacts of predatory globalization on democratic forms of governance, on safeguarding of social and economic rights, and on ecological sustainability.

As many have noted Hilary Clinton’s push toward a confrontation with Russia was more in keeping with Bolton’s preferred foreign policy than the more accommodationist proposals of Trump during his presidential campaign. It is against such a background that I reach the lamentable conclusion that when it comes world peace and global justice the Democratic Party establishment has little to offer when it comes to foreign policy, and may be more inclined to initiate wars and raise geopolitical tensions than even their reactionary and militarist Republican rivals. Bernie Sanders, although international affairs is not his strong suit, at least gestured toward a less militarist and dysfunctional  foreign policy. For the Democratic Party to generate enthusiasm upon American youth and the deeply discontented in the country it must reinvent itself by embracing progressive and forthcoming policies than in the recent past and positions that are more constructive and programmatic than even the Sanders foreign policy. Without such bold moves there will be a loud sigh of relief when Trump loses control of Congress in November, and even louder one when Trump leaves the White House, but the American ship of state will still resemble the maiden voyage of the Titantic.

As if to confirm the analysis above we should take account of Bolton past warmongering toward North Korea including advocating a preemptive strike, and recently articulating grossly unlawful threats of force directed at Iran. It should be appreciated that contemporary international law, as embodied in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter forbids threats as well as uses of aggressive force.

Such a prohibition underlines the criminality of Bolton’s recent formulations of military threats directed at Iran: “I might imagine they [“the mullahs of Tehran”] would take me seriously when I assure them today: If you cross us, our allies, or our partners; if you harm our citizens; if you continue to lie, cheat and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay.” Such chilling words must be understood in the context of Bolton’s past advocacy of bombing Iran and of the Trump approach to the region that can be summarized in a few words: ‘do what Netanyahu wants.’

Even if war and aggression do not actually occur, and we must pray that they do not, this kind of geopolitical bullying by a leading official of a country that has up to one thousand military bases spread around the world should be criminalized, and not just criticized as intemperate.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Washington amplifies war threats against Iran, bullies the world

by Keith Jones 

US President Donald Trump used his second day of high-profile appearances at the United Nations Wednesday to amplify Washington’s war-threats against Iran and bully countries around the world.

At a UN Security Council session ostensibly devoted to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, Trump put the world on notice: the US—acting in flagrant violation of the UN-backed nuclear accord that it, the four other permanent UN Security Council members, and Germany reached with Tehran in 2015—will launch the next volley in its economic war against Iran in little more than a month. Starting November 5, the US will enforce a total embargo on Iranian oil exports, the principal source of funds for its state budget, and freeze Iran’s central bank out of the US-dominated world banking system thereby crippling the rest of its foreign trade.

Companies and countries that fail to abide by these “tougher than ever before” sanctions will, Trump vowed, face “severe consequences.” That is fines, exclusion from the US market, and other “secondary sanctions.”

The US sanctions against Iran are both illegal and an act of war. They are aimed at crashing Iran’s economy and impoverishing its people so as to either force Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime to surrender to US diktats or goad it into military action.

In his UN Security Council appearance Trump tried to legitimize this reckless, criminal enterprise with the most hackneyed denunciations. The fascist-minded billionaire accused Iran of being “the world’s leading sponsor of terror” and fueling “conflicts across” the Middle East “and beyond.”

As if the world could forget that it was US imperialism that was the principal bulwark of the bloody quarter-century long dictatorship of the Shah; that in the four decades since the 1979 Iranian Revolution Washington has waged an unrelenting campaign of economic pressure and military threats against Iran; that since 2001 the US has invaded and occupied Iran’s neighbours, Iraq and Afghanistan; that these wars are part of more than a quarter-century of ruinous wars Washington has waged across the Middle East with the aim of securing unbridled hegemony over the world’s most important oil-exporting region; and that in its regime-change wars and intrigues the US has repeatedly aligned, in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, with al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists.

Trump, who doubled as chair of the Security Council session and head of the US delegation, led off the main discussion at Wednesday’s meeting with a brief ten-minute speech in which he repeated many of the threats he had made in a longer rant before the UN General Assembly Tuesday.

He denounced Iran and Russia for “enabling” the “butchery” of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. He boasted of the missile strikes the US mounted on Syria in April 2017 and April 2018 and he signaled that the US stands ready to intervene on a much wider scale should Assad and his allies launch an offensive in Idlib.

Trump, who in his first appearance at the UN General Assembly last year threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea, told the Security Council he believes the US can now work with Pyongyang. But, he insisted, there would be no lessening in the brutal sanctions that have been imposed on North Korea until it has completely “denuclearized,” and he underlined the point by denouncing unnamed countries for purportedly violating the sanctions.

The only new element in Trump’s Security Council remarks was an entirely gratuitous attack on China, which he claimed “is attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 (congressional) election … against my administration.”

Trump coupled this inflammatory charge to the trade war that he has launched against Beijing, with $250 billion in Chinese exports now subject to punitive US tariffs. “They do not want me, or us, to win” the elections, asserted Trump. “Because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade. And we are winning on trade, we are winning at every level.”

The Security Council meeting was tension-filled, a product of the mounting tensions between all the great powers as they strive to assert the economic and strategic interests of their rival capitalist elites under conditions of economic crisis, trade war, surging geopolitical conflict and mounting class struggle.

French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May both solidarized themselves with the US campaign for regime-change in Syria, with May thanking the US for spearheading last April’s airstrikes, in which both France and Britain participated. Both also said Russia needed to be called to account for the Skripal affair, recycling the utterly unsubstantiated claims that the Kremlin ordered a chemical-weapons hit on a one-time double agent.

However, both Macron and May felt compelled to restate their support for the nuclear deal and warn about the repercussions of repudiating an agreement negotiated by the great powers and at the behest and largely in conformity with the aims of Washington.

Macron and May’s remarks merely reiterated what they and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have been saying for months. However they were given added force by Tuesday’s joint declaration from the foreign ministers of the three countries and Russia and China that the European Union is setting up a “special purpose vehicle” to enable European companies and ultimately others to carry on trade with Iran in defiance of the US sanctions.

The European imperialists, as demonstrated by their history and their frantic efforts to rearm, are no less rapacious than Wall Street and Washington. But they are irate that the US has sabotaged their plans to conquer the markets and lay claim to the energy reserves of Iran, a country that business publications describe as the world’s last “liberalizing” large economy and which has a government eager to extend them lucrative concessions.

Even more grating is their fear of the economic and political fallout of the military-strategic collision that Washington is precipitating. A war between the US and Iran would engulf the entire Middle East, send oil prices soaring, precipitate a surge in refugees, and result in a bloody repartition of the region under conditions where the European powers do not as of yet have the military means to determine or decisively shape the outcome.

Many informed observers question whether the “special vehicle,” the details of which have yet to be hammered out, will prove effective in sustaining anything more than token levels of trade between Europe and Iran in the face of Washington’s capacity to inflict punishment on those who defy its sanctions. Already a “Who’s Who” of major European-based companies have announced they are pulling out of Iran.

Politically, however, the “special vehicle” represents an unmistakable challenge to Washington—all the more so that it is being mounted in conjunction with Russia and China—and one with potentially tectonic implications for the world economy and geopolitics, given the vital importance to American imperialism of maintaining the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and principal medium of trade.

Not surprisingly, the European announcement has enraged the Iran regime-change hawks at the helm of the Trump administration. Appearing at a United Against Nuclear Iran conference in New York later Tuesday, alongside the director of Israel’s Mossad spy agency and the Saudi Foreign Minister, Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acted as a tag team.

Bolton ratcheted up the war threats against Iran. Addressing Tehran, he thundered, “If you cross us, our allies, or our partners; if you harm our citizens; if you continue to lie, cheat, and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay. … We are watching, and we will come after you.”

Pompeo used similar language, but also lashed out at the P-5, the other great powers that negotiated and continue to uphold the Iran nuclear accord: “I was disturbed and indeed deeply disappointed to hear remaining parties in the deal announced they are setting up a special payment system to bypass US sanctions. This is one of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional and global peace and security.”

Iran has emerged as a focal point of US-European tensions. But the rift is deep with Germany, the EU’s dominant power, insisting that Europe can no longer rely on the Trans-Atlantic alliance, forged to wage the Cold War, and must develop the military and financial infrastructure to assert its own predatory interests on the world stage, independently of, and, when needed, against America.

Trump, for his part, further stoked tensions with Europe in recent days. According to news reports, he railed against the EU, saying its trade practices were “worse” than China’s in a meeting with Macron Monday. And in his General Assembly speech the next day, he attacked Germany, saying it “will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course” and scrap the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project.

Over the course of his two days at the UN, Trump threatened, bullied and denounced much of the world, giving voice both to the insatiable aspirations of US imperialism for world hegemony and the acute dissatisfaction of its ruling elite at the vast erosion of its economic and geopolitical power. More than a quarter-century of mounting imperialist violence has failed to reverse this decline. But the response of the American oligarchy is to double-down on aggression and militarism, setting a course for war with Iran, while mounting military-strategic offensives against Russia and China, and roiling its ostensible European allies.

World Rejects Trump’s Unilateralism

TEHRAN (FNA)- On Tuesday, September 25, the international civil society rejected US President Donald Trump’s call for rejecting globalism and embracing patriotism at a speech to the United Nations General Assembly that was interrupted by derisive laughter from world leaders.

In the course of the bombastic address, Trump highlighted the achievements of his presidency, lashed out at enemies – Iran foremost among them – and railed against multilateralism in its spiritual home, the UN General Assembly (UNGA).

In one of the more remarkable moments in the history of the annual UN summit, the chamber broke out in spontaneous laughter at Trump’s claim that “in less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country”. Clearly taken aback, Trump said, “I didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s OK.”

But he also didn’t expect that Washington’s traditional allies in Europe would also reject his one-man foreign policy and “nationalism”. His damaging actions and obnoxious is the reason why the world is in turmoil now. World leaders laughed at him and didn’t stand by idly in the face of his assault on globalism, multilateralism, human rights and international institutions.

What Trump and his one-man foreign policy has done to the world is not a joke and certainly the UN General Assembly is not a comedy club for a thunderous recitation of his “America First” policies or go-it-alone views that have strained US relationships with the world and destabilized the planet.

While addressing the assembly, for instance, French President Emmanuel Macron discredited Trump after the US president urged the world to isolate Iran, accusing it of sponsoring terrorism and sowing "chaos, death and destruction" in the Middle East. This is while the country is still in the 2015 nuclear deal despite Trump's withdrawal from it, and 12 reports by the International Atomic Energy Organization have substantiated that.

Macron, nevertheless, called for "dialogue and multilateralism" on Iran, shortly after Trump promised hard-hitting sanctions against Tehran. Just like his Chinese, Russia, British and German counterparts, Macron credited the historic nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reached between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries in 2015.

Reality slapped Trump in the face again when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took aim at him in yet another defiant speech. In a direct reference to the United States and its Middle Eastern allies, Rouhani condemned the “recklessness of some states for international values,” and the fact that while most leaders use their time on the UN stage to list the international agreements they have made or helped to protect, Trump clearly delighted in telling the world how many such pieces of paper he had voided.

Trump may not fully understand why his second address at the General Assembly was met largely by silence from the “globalist” enemy and why world leaders laughed at him. As Rouhani made clear, they all care about facts, as “confronting multilateralism is not a sign of strength. Rather it is a symptom of the weakness of intellect - it betrays an inability in understanding a complex and interconnected world.”

By most accounts, the law of the survival of the fittest, protectionism and isolationism that Trump advocated at the UN will only lead to heightened tensions and conflicts across the globe. It is up to world leaders, therefore, to say no to Trump’s erosion of multilateralism.

World leaders have a duty to stand up for global peace and security. Under International Law and the UN Charter, they must safeguard multilateralism and collective action in international affairs, and reject Trump’s “doctrine of patriotism” and “economic terrorism.” They must reject the obsolete manifesto for ‘nativitism’ and ‘nationalism’ that Trump advocates in the world.

5 Reasons Why Washington Was the Main Culprit in Ahvaz Terror Attack

TEHRAN (FNA)- On Sunday, September 23, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani couldn’t be more accurate when he said the United States is a "bully" that wants to create insecurity in the Islamic Republic, following an attack on a military parade that killed 26 people, including members of the country's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

Rouhani further accused the US-backed Persian Gulf Arab states of providing financial and military support for anti-government terrorist groups inside Iran.

This is not out of the ordinary. President Trump’s last year visit to Saudi Arabia, during which he loudly pushed for general hostility toward Iran, can’t help but also be noted for being followed so quickly by virtually unheard of terror attacks and unrest in Iran. On balance, the Trump administration isn't eyeing America's safety as much as a regime change:

1) Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, while addressing a recent rally staged by the anti-Iran terrorist group of Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MKO) in Paris, called for regime change in Tehran. MKO or MEK was once listed as a terrorist organization in the US and Europe and is still widely viewed as a death cult built around the personality of its leader, Maryam Rajavi. During the gathering, Giuliani said, “We are now realistically being able to see an end to the regime in Iran… which must be replaced by a democratic government which Rajavi represents. Next year I want to have this convention in Tehran”!

2) In May, Trump abrogated the 2015 international nuclear deal and ordered a campaign of intense economic pressure, threatening sanctions against any foreign company doing business with Iran and calling for an end to trade in Iranian oil by November. In the Paris convention, Giuliani said the recent wave of protests in Iran was being orchestrated from outside. “Those protests are not happening spontaneously,” Giuliani said. “They are happening because of many of our people in Albania [which hosts an MKO compound] and many of our people here and throughout the world.” “Our people” means the US and the MKO and other terrorist groups, which have no support in Iran and are widely hated for their use of violence and close links to Saudi-Israeli intelligence services.

3) The policy of the Trump administration is not officially to call for regime change, but top officials have often made that clear in public. Outlining his approach in May, Pompeo said it was up to the Iranian people to relieve the pressure on the country by changing their government. However, regime change is on the agenda, as it involves waging economic war against Iran and backing terror attacks within the country, like the one that was carried out in Ahvaz, for which the terrorist groups of ISIL and Al-Ahvazieh with links to the US and Saudi Arabia claimed responsibility.

4) The Trump camp itself is open to the dark arts. Trump has selected John Bolton as his national security adviser. Bolton’s appointment, along with the nomination of Iran deal critic Pompeo as secretary of state, helped to kill and bury the nuclear agreement and pave the way for confrontation with Iran. Bolton has spent the better part of a decade calling for the US to help overthrow the government in Tehran and hand power to the terrorist group of MKO. Also speaking at the Paris convention, Bolton said the Trump administration should embrace the MKO’s goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize the group as a “viable” alternative. “The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until its 40th birthday,” Bolton said. The 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution will be on February 11, 2019.

5) The Trump administration views terror attacks and protests as the best avenue for regime change in Tehran without a US military intervention. To that end, Pompeo says the US is stepping up its propaganda broadcasts to Iran with help from Persian-language TV channels based in Europe and the US, and portrays the sanctions as targeting the government, even though the unjustified economic pressure ultimately touches Iranians of all walks of life.

Overall, the notion that Iranians are clamoring for the fall of the Islamic Republic and welcome American assistance in precipitating that fall is the same kind of “we will be greeted as liberators” nonsense the Bush administration believed in the lead-up to the illegal Iraq War in 2003. Iranians want a better life, but the Syria-style collapse of their economy, society, and state is surely not the kind of change they have in mind. After all, we now know that their guild-related protests discouraged the US since their numbers never went beyond a few thousand, which never lasted more than a week, despite what had been promised by the US and its puppets. Picking up the MKO and the son of the deposed Shah has been the best service the US could render to the government in Iran as it encouraged even those few thousands to go back home after they came to see the truth.

In addition, the fact that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and of course Israel are influencing the Trump administration’s anti-Iran strategy is further evidence that Washington didn’t act alone in supporting the terrorists that carried out the September 22 attack in Ahvaz. The aim of their plan is not for Iran to pursue internal reform and external dialogue as Trump would like to claim, but for the Islamic Republic government to collapse entirely so that it can no longer stop their regime-change fantasies and undermine their illicit interests and designs in the region. Little wonder they hardly cared when the Southwestern city of Ahvaz was violently attacked.

Nearly 1,000 Israeli settlers storm al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied al-Quds

Nearly a thousand Israeli settlers have stormed the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in the Israeli-occupied Old City of East Jerusalem al-Quds amid an escalation of acts of violence by Israeli forces and settlers against the Palestinian people.

Firas al-Dibs, spokesperson of the Islamic Waqf (Endowment) organization, which manages the compound's affairs, told the Palestinian Safa news agency that 924 Israeli settlers forced their way into the holy site through the Bab al-Magharibah and Bab al-Silsilah under tight protection of several groups of Israeli soldiers and special police forces, according to presstv.ir.

The settlers performed acts deemed provocative by Palestinians at the mosque's courtyard in commemoration of the biblical Jewish holiday of Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles).

Heavily armed Israeli police forces set up iron barriers on the doors and confiscated identity cards of Palestinians before allowing them to enter the compound.

The occupied Palestinian territories have witnessed new tensions ever since US President Donald Trump announced his decision on December 6 last year to recognize Jerusalem al-Quds as Israel’s capital and relocate the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the occupied city.

The dramatic shift in Washington’s policy vis-à-vis the city triggered demonstrations in the occupied Palestinian territories, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria, Iraq, Morocco and other Muslim countries.

On December 21 last year, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution that calls on the US to withdraw its controversial recognition of Jerusalem al-Quds as Israeli “capital.”

In an attempt to prevent the passing of the resolution, Trump threatened reprisals against countries that backed the measure, which had earlier faced a US veto at the UN Security Council.

Israel, however, rejected the world body’s resolution while thanking Trump for his decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem al-Quds.

On January 18, the United States reneged on a pledge to contribute $45 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), which supports more than five million registered Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

The announcement to cut aid to Palestinian refugees came after the US president made a threat to cut off aid to UNRWA.

In a series of tweets on January 2, Trump had that the US had paid “the Palestinians hundreds of millions of dollars a year” and yet got “no appreciation or respect.”

From defeat in Yemen to turmoil of the Saudi court

By Hanif Ghaffari

TEHRAN - Over the past few days, whispers were heard about the "vague future" of Bin Salman, the young Saudi prince, in regional and international sources. The fact is that Bin Salman is extremely afraid of his political future, because there is no guarantee that his physical or political removal will not come true in the near future.

The shooting incident in al-Khazami region which led to the injury of the Saudi Crown Prince, (the details of which haven't been yet disclosed) and his subsequent absence, is a prelude to a serious political earthquake in Riyadh. The differences and arguments inside the Saudi royal family and their numerous regional and political defeats will soon provide the ground for the fall of the Saudi regime. The ruler of the Saudi regime was wounded at the al-Khazami Palace in a shooting event in early May and, after this incident, he disappeared for a long time.

Even now whispers are swirling over his removal of his current status. A recent report which was recently published by the Times magazine, indicates the willingness of the Saudi court to abandon Bin Salman. In an article titled "Mohammad bin Salman Days are numbered", Michael Burleigh argues that the Saudi controversial Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has only few days left in power.

Burleigh started his article saying: “Hopes that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would be a reformer who could heal the region have come to nothing.”

In the article, the writer went to highlight how western media had widely-reported the prince’s world tour last March drawing a picture of him as the Saudi strongman who is working for political and economic reforms. However, several doubts have been raised as a result of recent decisions taken by his father, King Salman.

Meanwhile, the Crown Prince’s war on Yemen and the huge amount of money it is draining, in addition to the cold war he launched against Qatar, show clear signs of failure.

Burleigh then points to the existing gaps among the Saudi royals over bin Salman plans:

The gap between the crown prince’s hype and reality has become glaring. Remember the high-tech city of Neom, which was to be conjured up on the Gulf of Aqaba? This $80 billion project and the reconfiguration of the Saudi economy set out in MBS’s “Vision 2030” depended on the flotation of 5 per cent of Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil and gas company. The whole would be valued at $2 trillion and foreign investment would flood in for the entertainment, tech and tourism sectors.

King Salman seems to have cancelled the flotation. A New York float risked Saudi assets being seized because of an American class action against the kingdom for allegedly withholding information about the 9/11 attacks.

He continues: There was also criticism within Saudi Arabia of the decision to sell part of the “crown jewels” to foreigners, not least from princes who feared that it would shed light on their opaque perks and stipends. The economist and entrepreneur Essam al-Zamil was arrested for merely tweeting sceptically about the flotation. As for foreign investment, after the detention and extortion of allegedly corrupt Saudi billionaires in Riyadh’s Ritz Carlton hotel $150 billion has flown out of the kingdom, and foreigners are not rushing to invest their own money.

But the story doesn't end here. In early 2018, news were released of some Saudi officials involved in the Yemeni war. On the eve of the fourth year of the Saudi Arabia's opening fire on Yemen, King Salman bin Abdul Aziz dismissed some of his country's top military commanders by issuing royal decrees. The dismissal of these high-ranking military commanders was made shortly before the trip of Muhammad bin Salman to Britain, France and the United States.

In an article titled "Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman sacks senior generals on eve of UK visit", Times refers to the links between the Saudi Crown Prince trip to London. Richard Spencer, the Times journalist writes: 

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince replaced a number of senior generals and in a rare move… Mohammed bin Salman is expected to be confronted with fierce protests on his visit to Britain early next month after the deaths of thousands of Yemeni civilians in bombardments by the Saudi-led coalition. The war is nonetheless in a state of stalemate.

The fact is that now, bin Salman is blamed by the Saudi court for of defeat in Yemen and the rising expense of the Saudis in this scene. However, the signs of Saudi Arabia's defeat in Yemen, throughout the region and in the world is becoming more and more clear. Under such conditions, Mohammed bin Salman seeks to reduce the cost of this heavy defeat in any way possible, but the harder he tries, Al Saud is more likely to fail.

Along with the ongoing developments in Yemen and the Saudi House, we should point to a more important issue, that is, the general dissatisfaction in Saudi Arabia of the ruling family. In the near future, this issue can turn into Saudis' Achilles heels (even if bin Salman is ousted from power). The corruption of the Saudi House can be in no way ignored. The financial corruption of the Royal Family is such that all Saudi citizens are aware of it. While poverty raises in many parts of Saudi Arabia, Saudi officials continue to plunder their country's resources. Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is enjoying the rich revenues from oil sales and pilgrimages, the people of Saudi Arabia suffer from poverty, injustice, unemployment and other social problems. Experts see the cause of this in the appointment, and not selection of the rulers, the lack of public supervision over the authorities and budget spending, lack of a modern constitution, the monopoly of power in the hands of the Saudi family, and the Saudi family's dependence on the West, especially on the United States. Poverty and unemployment in Saudi Arabia, which is one of the richest countries in the world, have turned to a political bomb which may explode any moment.

‘Impart Islamic knowledge in a way that is relatable, enlightening and entertaining’

By: Syed Zafar Mehdi

TEHRAN - Sheikh Azhar Nasser is a Canada-based, globally-renowned Islamic scholar, lecturer, orator and a social media sensation. He is the founder and head instructor of Tasneem Institute, which offers on-site, weekend crash courses on Islamic sciences to Muslim communities worldwide. He also serves as the religious director of CBE Academy, which specializes in the production of short spiritually uplifting videos.

Sheikh, who has a degree in cultural anthropology from the University of Michigan and has studied under the tutelage of Islamic luminaries like Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Hakim, has been hailed as the ‘best thing to happen to Twitter’.

In an interview with Tehran Times, Sheikh talks about his foray into the virtual world, the power of social media, issues facing Muslims today, the need for unity, growing Islamophobia in the West, and the significance of annual Muharram commemorations.

Following are the excerpts:

Q. You have got massive following on social media, especially Twitter, and your posts generate lot of enthusiasm among youth. How did this journey into the virtual world begin?

A. I have always been active on social media but recently I decided to share a more satirical outlook on the challenges and struggles of the Muslim community. Life can be overwhelming and stressful at times so why not impart Islamic knowledge in a way that is relatable, enlightening and entertaining?

Q. A lot of us underestimate the power of social media. Do you think it can be a powerful tool to bring Islamic awakening and social reformation?

A. Absolutely. We live in an era where I can reach a wider audience with a single tweet than a traditional lecture. Whether it’s a theological discussion or a social justice issue, there is no doubt that a single post on any social media platform has a significantly greater impact than the more conventional methods of spreading knowledge and awareness.

Q. What according to you are the most significant issues facing Muslims today?

A. There are too many to list but perhaps the most disheartening issue facing Muslims today is our lack of unity. We promote inter-faith dialogue but I believe that we must begin with intra-faith dialogue. As an Ummah, we have yet to learn how to co-exist and respect each other’s differences.

Q. We just commemorated the martyrdom anniversary of Imam Hussain (as) and his companions in the desert plains of Karbala 1400 years ago. What, in your opinion, makes these annual commemorations significant and relevant today?

A. These annual commemorations are significant because the values and ideals that were upheld by Imam Hussain (as) on that day transcend time. The battle of Karbala was not simply a military conflict that took place in the barren deserts of Iraq 14 centuries ago, but it is a heart-wrenching saga that represents the two extremes of the human soul.  
Imam Hussain (as) and his companions attained the highest stations of spiritual enlightenment and represent what the Quran calls “the tranquil soul’. His enemies, on the other, fell prey to their lower animalistic tendencies and therefore exemplified what the Quran calls “the commanding soul”.
The question is: where is your soul on this spectrum?

Q. Some days ago, a group of Shia Muslims was attacked in London during a Muharram commemoration. There have been such incidents in other countries as well. How do you see this wave of Islamophobia and hate crimes in Europe, especially in London?

A. Any attack on innocent civilians is an abhorrent act and deserves the strongest condemnation. Unfortunately, there seems to be a concerted effort by Islamophobes to use fear, intimidation and violence to send a message to Muslims that they are not welcome here. Muslims must remain steadfast, hold onto their values and pressure public officials to condemn acts of violence, irrespective of race, religion, gender, etc.

Q. In times like these, how important has it become for Muslims to forge unity and collectively fight forces that seek to sow discord between them?

A. Unity was important when the Holy Prophet (pbuh) first began his prophetic mission in Mecca and it will continue to be the source of our strength until the Day of Judgment.  Almighty Allah says, “And hold on to the rope of God and do not be disunited.” This verse applies to Muslims of all times.

Q. There was a massive attack in Iran few days ago yet we didn't see global outrage, condemnations, or hashtags. On the contrary, the whole world erupts when where is a similar attack in any part of Europe or the U.S. How would you define these double standards?

A. There is definitely a double standard. Without a doubt, greater attention is given to victims of violence in certain parts of the world far more than others. The Holy Quran is explicit in highlighting the sanctity of all human life stating, “whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.” (Quran 5:32)

Q. In your lectures and social media posts, you extensively talk about issues like mental health and depression. Why such issues are considered a taboo in Muslim community?

A. There is a dangerous misconception in the Muslim community that mental health and depression are indicators of weak faith. People who suffer from depression in our communities hesitate to seek help because they are afraid of being perceived as abnormal or spiritually deficient.  
As Muslims, we need to show more compassion, empathy and actively try to help those who are suffering before they reach their breaking points. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) famously said, “Have mercy upon those on earth, so the One in the heavens will have mercy on you.”

Q.  What's the connection between religion and science?

A. From an Islamic perspective, religion and science are largely complimentary. Religion invites people to explore the natural world and marvel at its beauty and complexity.  Allah says in the Quran, “Then do they not look at the camels - how they are created? And at the sky - how it is raised? And at the mountains - how they are erected? And at the earth - how it is spread out?  (Quran 17-20)