Atomic Bomb Is Definitely Haram in Islam

Ayatollah Khamenei:

TEHRAN (kayhan Intl)-- Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that Iran could have taken the step to develop nuclear weapons but it did not and will not because their use is "haram", or forbidden in Islam.

The Leader made the remarks as he highlighted the role of science in human life and destiny, saying science unlocks the true benefits of knowledge only when it is paired with the right understanding of humanitarianism.

"In the case of the key and very beneficial nuclear science...  when it was paired with a thirst for more power, it resulted in the creation of the atomic bomb and turned into a major threat to the world and humanity," the Leader said.

"Although we could have taken steps on this path, based on Islamic ruling we firmly and bravely said we won't take this path," Ayatollah Khamenei told a group of academics.
"Both building and stockpiling it is wrong, as using it is haram," the Leader said.

"If we had a nuclear weapon, it would have been obvious that it would have been impossible for us to use anywhere," he said. "Under Islamic principles it is definitely haram."

Iran vehemently denies having ever sought an atomic bomb and says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy production and medical purposes only.

In May last year, President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from a landmark 2015 deal that gave Iran relief from sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear program.

Ayatollah Khamenei said while Iran sees no shame in learning new sciences from others, it does not want its universities to duplicate the American education system and copy the "wrong Western culture."

"Imitating others will kill innovation and the real vigor that comes with science," he said.
The Leader advised Iranian officials to protect the young elite generation from becoming subjected to the phenomenon of brain drain that is being encouraged by certain groups.
He said the Iranian prodigies are the valuable assets of their own country and must be protected against attempts to lure them out of the country using financial incentives and other false promises.

The Leader also hailed the Iranian scientists' achievements in defense, medical sciences, engineering, nanotechnology and peaceful nuclear energy despite the increasing foreign pressure.

"We live in a different situation than others," Ayatollah Khamenei said. "We need to think Iranian, act Iranian and live Iranian and this trend can be accelerated by adopting the Islamic-Iranian blueprint for progress."

He said Iranians need to attain such high scientific standards that "in 50 years' time, all elites wishing to acquire the latest scientific findings should learn the language of Farsi. This is something that can be achieved through reliance on Iranian genius, intellect and persistence."

How Trump can forge a new path towards diplomacy with Iran

By: Hossein Mousavian*

Tehran, March 7, IRNA - Iranian ex-diplomat and former nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian in an article revealed the way US President Donald Trump can forge a fresh way in diplomacy towards Iran.

'Even if Washington and Tehran want to remain eternal enemies, at least they could refrain from insulting each other's people, history and culture,' Mousavian said.

The full text of Mousavian’s article that originally appeared in middleeasteye.net is as follows:

In a statement issued on February 20, more than 50 pro-diplomacy organizations representing millions of American voters urged US policymakers to respect the Iran nuclear deal, which verifiably blocks Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon, supports good-faith diplomacy and opposes war with Iran. 

Earlier last month, as millions of Iranians rallied to mark the 40th anniversary of the 1979 revolution that ended 2,500 years of monarchy in Iran, US President Donald Trump tweeted in Persian and English: “40 years of corruption. 40 years of repression. 40 years of terror. The regime in Iran has produced only #40YearsofFailure. The long-suffering Iranian people deserve a much brighter future.” 

In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted: “#40YearsofFailure to accept that Iranians will never return to submission. #40YearsofFailure to adjust US policy to reality. #40YearsofFailure to destabilize Iran through blood & treasure.”

Nuclear fallout

Both Iranian and US leaders concur that Washington has imposed the most biting sanctions ever on Tehran. It bears noting, however, that with the exception of a brief period from 2013 to 2016, when Tehran and Washington negotiated at the highest levels to resolve one of their most complicated disagreements - the nuclear issue - the US policy towards Iran has been constantly focused on economic sanctions, pressure and regime change. 

The question remains whether Trump wants to continue on this ineffective and costly path, or pursue a new approach with Iran to break decades of deadlock in their bilateral relations. “Change and our attitude will change,” Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said. Trump could, in fact, end decades of US-Iran animosity by adopting a five-pronged strategy.

Even if Washington and Tehran want to remain eternal enemies, at least they could refrain from insulting each other’s people, history and culture.

First is intention. Washington must convey to Tehran its intention to abandon its regime-change policy, something that is only attainable if Washington shows its sincerity through both words and actions. Empty words followed up by hostile actions would only demonstrate Washington’s disingenuousness and lack of seriousness, likely leading to the opposite of the intended results. 

Second is language. The US has always talked down to Iran, employing disrespectful and offensive language towards the country, calling it a “pariah state” and adding it to the “axis of evil”. To be fair, Iran has used the same derogatory language in reference to the US, which it brands as the “Great Satan”.

Even if Washington and Tehran want to remain eternal enemies, at least they could refrain from insulting each other’s people, history and culture. Ayatollah Khamenei recently clarified that Iranians would chant “Death to America” as long as Washington's hostile policies continued, but noted that the slogan is directed at US leaders, not the American nation.

Diplomatic approach

Third is approach. A termination of hostilities will be impossible as long as Washington thinks it can coerce Iran into submission. A diplomatic approach must replace the threat of war and coercive policies - but diplomacy is not about issuing maximalist demands to a sovereign state and expecting total capitulation.

Fourth is having a pragmatic plan of action. A number of reports by US think tanks have recommended a “grand bargain, big for big” approach, but this is not realistic. A more practical approach is to begin with “small for small” measures.

The existing mistrust between Iran and the US runs deep, and Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal has only exacerbated the situation. Therefore, the more realistic path forward involves smaller confidence-building steps, such as Iran-US cooperation on counter-narcotic and anti-piracy operations.

Fifth is the end state. Washington and Tehran will only enter such a roadmap if they can see the end state. During nuclear negotiations, the end state for the US was to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon; for Iran, it was 'nuclear rights' under the non-proliferation treaty and the lifting of sanctions. Negotiating for the mere purpose of negotiating is not in the interests of either country.

Resolving the current animosities between Iran and the US can be based on non-intervention and a joint respect for sovereignty. There can also be win-win solutions for some of the ongoing practical issues, such as a fair regional arrangement for conventional and unconventional weapons in the Middle East. 

Sustainable peace

While Iran has voluntarily limited the range of its ballistic missiles to 2,000 kilometres, Israel and Saudi Arabia both possess missiles with more than double that range. And while Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear weapons arsenal, Iran - which does not have any nuclear weapons - is under pressure and biting sanctions. 

Repeated UN resolutions have called for establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East. The implementation of UN resolutions, without double standards, will open the path towards sustainable peace, potentially resolving many of the disputes between Tehran and Washington.

A day after Trump’s hostile remarks about Iran during his State of the Union address, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran was ready to establish 'friendly relations' with the US if it apologised for past wrongs.

A change in relations is possible, but it requires patience and the right approach. A real change - a big change - would take many years, requiring both sides to embrace the obligations and opportunities that come under the banner of peace. 

*Hossein Mousavian is Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Princeton University and a former spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiators.

Netanyahu Notorious for Fabricating False Evidence: Ex-US Adviser

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A former US government adviser dismissed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent claims about “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” and said the only time Netanyahu is not telling lies is “when he is asleep”.

“Netanyahu and his government are well known for disseminating lies and fabricating false evidence, as they did for the purpose of pushing the US and NATO to intervention, war and regime change in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and other countries,” Paul Larudee from San Francisco said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

“The only time we can be certain that Netanyahu is not lying is when he is asleep,” he added.

Larudee is an Iranian-born American political activist and human rights volunteer, who works with the International Solidarity Movement. He is a former contracted US government adviser to Saudi Arabia and a founder of the Free Gaza and Free Palestine Movements.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: In a speech to the UN General Assembly on Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once again accused Iran of developing a nuclear weapons program. He claimed he was revealing the existence of a “secret atomic warehouse” in Tehran but offered no proof of the claim or details. In response, Iranian officials dismissed the claim as a despicable lie and said such lies are aimed at covering up the Tel Aviv regime’s heinous crimes against the defenseless people of Palestine. This is while Israel is the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but its policy is to neither confirm nor deny that it has atomic bombs. The Tel Aviv regime is estimated to have 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. What do you think about Netanyahu’s comments?

Larudee: There are several principles that are applicable to Netanyahu's comments.  First, no one should ever accept the truth of a statement from even the most credible person we know unless they produce evidence. Netanyahu produced none, and he is far from credible. Second, Netanyahu is already in trouble for corruption in his own society and is happy to put fear into the minds of his constituents in order to deflect attention from his own deeds. Third, Netanyahu and his government are well known for disseminating lies and fabricating false evidence, as they did for the purpose of pushing the US and NATO to intervention, war and regime change in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and other countries. These are more than enough reason to dismiss Netanyahu's claims about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and if that is not enough, we have the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran has fully cooperated with inspections, that Iran has not violated any of the inspection requirements, and that they are certain that Iran has no atomic weapons program. The only time we can be certain that Netanyahu is not lying is when he is asleep.

Tasnim: As you know, Israeli troops on Friday killed seven other Palestinians, two of them children, and wounded dozens more in the deadliest day in recent weeks as Gazans stepped up protests along the border fence. Since March 30, Israeli forces have killed at least 191 Palestinians during the demonstrations dubbed the “Great March of Return” along the Gaza border. Most of the dead and the thousands wounded were unarmed civilians against whom Israel was using excessive force. What is your opinion about the developments and the Israeli regime’s crimes?

Larudee: For decades, public figures in the West have said that the Palestinians should use nonviolent resistance. Although it is not the business of the West to tell Palestinians how to liberate themselves, the people of Gaza and other parts of Palestine have tried popular nonviolent resistance for six months now. Is the West intervening in "Israel" in order to protect the population, the way they supposedly did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria?  Why not?  Why are they not intervening in Yemen to defend Yemenis against Saudi Arabia and its allies?  Why are they not holding "Israel" accountable for its crimes? The simple answer is that the US is the biggest criminal of all, and has been repeatedly ranked the biggest danger to peace in all the world. It, therefore, loves criminals that are willing to work with them to destroy other countries.  Israel is just such a criminal state and therefore married to the US. Will Israel's crimes ever become big enough and outrageous enough to provoke action from the rest of the world?  It is hard to know what the threshold might be, or even if there is one.

Tasnim: Israel has rejected international calls for probes into recent deaths and insisted that its open-fire rules for Gaza will not change. Some Western states, particularly the US and Britain, who call themselves champions of human rights, have supported the Tel Aviv regime’s crimes against Palestinians. The UN has also failed to restore the rights of the people. What is your assessment?

Larudee: It is best to treat with great skepticism the claims of so-called champions of human rights, and especially those who are themselves the greatest violators of human rights, or receive most of their funding from such violators. Their deeds speak louder than their words. In the case of the crimes committed by "Israel", the sponsoring countries will condemn or criticize "excesses" while defending Israel's "right to defend itself" and continuing to shower Israel with weapons and money.  The deeds of these so-called "civilized" countries are clearly in support of the genocide of the Palestinians, and the destruction of countries and governments that do not accept US domination. It is best not to put much hope in Western "champions", but rather to be prepared to defend against them.

Why Does the United States Give So Much Money to Israel?

The two countries just signed a new military-aid deal—the biggest pledge of its kind in American history. It have may seemed inevitable, but the record-setting moment is also rife with irony.

EMMA GREEN

U.S. and Israeli officials sign an unprecedented military-spending
deal in Washington, D.C., on September 14.

The United States and Israel have made it official: The two countries signed a new 10-year military-assistance deal on Wednesday, representing the single largest pledge of its kind in American history. The pact, laid out in a Memorandum of Understanding, will be worth $38 billion over the course of a decade, an increase of roughly 27 percent on the money pledged in the last agreement, which was signed in 2007. The diplomatic and military alliance between the two countries is longstanding: Even prior to this week, Israel was, according to the Congressional Research Service, “the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II.” In many ways, Wednesday’s deal seemed predestined.

Yet, it’s also ironic. Barack Obama has a notoriously cold relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—as my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic’s April cover story, “Obama has long believed that Netanyahu could bring about a two-state solution” to the Israel-Palestine conflict “that would protect Israel’s status as a Jewish-majority democracy, but is too fearful and politically paralyzed to do so.” Nonetheless, Obama will leave office having out-pledged all of his predecessors in military support to the country Netanyahu now runs.

Aid to Israel is among the only static issues of this U.S. election season. While the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has made somewhat mixed statements on the Israel-Palestine conflict, he has also made strongly worded promises to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel. For her part, the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has consistently touted her support for Israel, including during her time as secretary of state.

Voters, however, have more mixed views on this kind of support. While more than 60 percent of Americans were more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians in a 2016 Gallup poll, sympathies differed along partisan lines, with around half of Democrats being more sympathetic to Israelis versus nearly 80 percent of Republicans. In a separate Brookings poll, roughly half of Democrats who responded said Israel has too much influence on the United States government. Boycott, divest, and sanction movements, which call on organizations in the United States and abroad to cut their financial ties with Israel, have long been popular on college campuses, although somewhat marginal; this year, however, they got a boost from the Black Lives Matter movement, which included statements against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in its recently released policy platform.

In general, young Americans are far less sympathetic toward Israel than their older peers: A 2014 Gallup poll found that only half of those aged 18 to 34 favored Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict, “compared with 58 percent of 35- to 54-year-olds and 74 percent of those 55 and older.” Bernie Sanders, who was extremely popular among young people during the Democratic primary season, controversially criticized Israel, winning “applause and cheers” from the audience at one debate for saying, “If we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.”

All of this creates an odd backdrop for a historic military-spending deal. No matter how bad the relationship between the two countries’ top leaders, no matter who gets elected to the White House, no matter how loudly some voters voice their opposition or how charged the underlying ideological debate: The United States has pragmatic reasons to keep providing large sums of money for Israel’s military.

There are straightforward explanations for why this particular deal got done. Politically, the spending package was partly a response to the nuclear deal that the United States and other world powers finalized with Iran in July of last year, and which Obama hailed as cutting off Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons for more than a decade. Netanyahu was harshly critical of that agreement, which he called a “historic mistake” that would ease sanctions on Iran while leaving it with the ability to one day get the bomb. “Even with the deal in place, and taking the nuclear-weapon capability of Iran off the table at least for the next 10 to 15 years, there are still considerable destabilizing activities that Iranians are pursuing in the region that are not consistent with U.S. or Israeli interests or objectives,” said Melissa Dalton, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The new money is an attempt to pacify Israeli concerns about continued threats from Iran, she added.

The money is also an attempt to satisfy congressional Republicans. The Obama administration reportedly asked Netanyahu to get Lindsey Graham, the head of the Senate foreign-affairs appropriations committee, to agree to the deal. After it was signed, though, Graham released a statement indicating that Congress would not necessarily adhere to the pre-determined funding levels. “I find it odd the [Memorandum] only allocates $500 million for missile defense starting in 2018,” he wrote, especially “given provocative Iranian behavior [and] improved Iranian missile technology.” While this may be the U.S.’s biggest-ever military-aid deal, the GOP has pushed for even greater spending.

Defenders of the deal would say it’s necessary. Dalton described the uptick in spending as a natural extension of the long-standing relationship between the United States and Israel, “as well as close ties between those countries and their peoples.” She described the “fraught neighborhood” surrounding Israel: war-torn Syria to the northeast, Hezbollah-influenced Lebanon to the north, and an Islamist insurgency in Egypt’s Sinai to the south, all of which help explain the historically high promise of $5 billion in missile funding over the next 10 years. As National Security Advisor Susan Rice said at the signing ceremony for the deal, “This MOU is not just good for Israel, it’s good for the United States. Our security is linked. When allies and partners like Israel are more secure, the United States is more secure.”

The deal also directs more money back toward the United States. It eliminates a provision in the previous aid agreement that allowed Israel to spend 26 percent of its Foreign Military Financing on weaponry and other resources produced within Israel, rather than in the United States—a provision intended to help Israel build its own defense industry. Now that Israel’s defense industry has developed, Dalton said, that money will go toward purchases benefitting the defense industry in the United States.

While the United States’s new Memorandum of Understanding with Israel is historic in its own right, it’s most remarkable in its apparent inevitability: It is a foreign-policy move seemingly immune to the electoral politics around it. “At the end of the day, we’re electing people to make judgments based on the information and the advice that the receive,” Dalton said. “One of the inputs to that process, certainly, is popular opinion. But I don’t think it should be the sole determinant of foreign policy.” In its own way, that’s a good explanation of why America’s aid to Israel is so big: Military spending does not go up or down in direct relationship to votes or even the news cycle. In this case, it was a record set as if it were on an unstoppable trend line.

EMMA GREEN is a staff writer at ​The Atlantic, where she covers politics, policy, and religion.