‘IRGC has always been target of American and regional states animosity’

By Javad Heirannia

TEHRAN - Shireen Tahmaasb Hunter, a professor of political science at Georgetown University, tells the Tehran Times that “The designation of IRGC as a terrorist organization by the Trump administration is another step in Washington's policy of incrementally increasing pressure on Iran in the hope of forcing it to negotiate, and in the process agree to change some aspects of its foreign policy, notably those vis a vis the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

“I suppose who persuaded Trump to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization are trying to create a situation wherein war becomes inevitable,” Hunter says.

She adds that “IRGC has always been the target of American and regional states animosity.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: What was the goal of the designation of IRGC as a foreign terrorist group?

A: The designation of IRGC as a terrorist organization by the Trump administration is another step in Washington's policy of incrementally increasing pressure on Iran in the hope of forcing it to negotiate, and in the process agree to change some aspects of its foreign policy, notably those vis a vis the Arab-Israeli conflict. Washington hopes that these pressure would convince Iran to stop its financial and military help to groups such as the Hizbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and, in general, end its hostile policies toward America. Because the IRGC has been active in places such as Lebanon, Iraq and Syria and its Quds branch is committed to liberating Palestine, it has always been the target of American and regional states animosity. Moreover, America believes that the IRGC yields the real power in Iran rather than the official government. So they want the IRGC to begin feeling the pain of sanctions more directly. By designating IRGC as a terrorist organization America, or at least John Bolton and Michael Pompeo, are also signaling to Tehran that US is determined to increase pressure on Iran, including possibly running the risk of direct military confrontation with it.

Q: What will be the impact of this decision on regional security?

A: Much would depend on the response of the Iranian government and the IRGC. If the IRGC carries through with its promise of making the region unsafe for American troops, then the risk of an all-out regional conflict will sharply increase. Any attack by the IRGC on American forces will create irresistible pressure in Washington for American retaliatory attack on Iranian targets. This could easily escalate to a much broader conflict. I fear that any military encounter between the IRGC and the American forces would lead to US attacks on Iran. However, the extent of these attacks cannot be predicted. I suppose who persuaded Trump to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization are trying to create a situation wherein war becomes inevitable.

Q: Some argue that “This is the first time in the history of international relations when the government of one nation-state single-handedly has designated a military segment of another recognized nation-state as a terrorist organization”. What is your opinion?

A: I am not aware of any previous situation where a branch of a country's army was designated as a terrorist organization. However, America sees the IRGC more as a para-military outfit specifically designed to export Iran's Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East and the Muslim world. It also sees it as guilty of carrying out mots of Iran's military operations in places like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It does not see it as a legitimate part of Iran's Armed Forces (Artesh).

Q: Can we see more sanctions from President Trump administration against Iran?

A: Pompeo /Bolton policy towards Iran has been that of pressuring it to a point where it could no longer resist and thus is forced to accept America's conditions. Failing that, they hope that more pressure will result in the toppling of the current regime from within. Therefore, they will try whatever instruments of pressure that remain against Iran. However, it is difficult to see what more America can do to pressure Iran short of launching a military attack. A naval blockade perhaps? But that is an act of war and will certainly lead to armed conflict. In general, the current escalation of crisis between US and Iran does not bode well for the future. Authorities in Tehran should not wait for Trump's departure to de-escalate the crisis. Most probably he will be reelected.

Christchurch carnage must silence the breed of Islam-bashers

Dr. Abid Hussain

TEHRAN - Daoud Nabi was the first victim of the Christchurch mosque shootings on Friday. He was standing at the door when the terrorist barged inside Masjid Al Noor mosque brandishing his semi-automatic weapon.

“Salam brother,” Nabi greeted the attacker, which was overheard on the Facebook live stream of the shooting. Those were his last words. In a split second, the elderly man was lying in a pool of blood.

Nabi is being hailed as a hero on social media for conveying the real message of his religion – peace – to his assassin. In two words, he demolished the myth of Islam being the ‘religion of terrorism’.

The horrific attacks at two mosques, which claimed the lives of 49 people, the worst ever mass shootings in the history of New Zealand, have busted many a myths.

The critics of Islam have often proclaimed that every Muslim is not a terrorist but every terrorist is a Muslim. The message they have sought to convey is that there is something inherently wrong with Islam which sanctions the macabre acts of terrorism and violence.

These mass shootings in Christchurch have completely smashed that irrational theory. Didn’t the Christ ask you to put forth another cheek if someone slapped you? So if Christianity is a religion of peace why did a Christian man commit this heinous crime? The answer is simple. It has nothing to do with religion.

But it has everything to do with white supremacist terrorism, which is no different from ISIS or Taliban or those hate-mongering Hindutva groups in India.

The enemies of Islam have been unfairly accusing and maligning the religion of Islam. Islam does not have a copyright on terrorism as you wanted the world to believe. No religion promotes or propagates terrorism but unfortunately there are terrorists and extremists found in every religion, in every school of thought.

Be it the Hindutva terrorists in India, the Buddhist terrorists in Myanmar, the Christian terrorists in West or the Muslim terrorists in the Middle East.

This horrific event should silence all those who have been desperately trying to project Islam as a religion of violence and labeling all Muslims as terrorists.

It is time to stop ascribing religion as a motivation for such mindless acts of terrorism. Terrorist is simply a terrorist. Terms like Islamist terrorist, Christian terrorist, Hindu terrorist are oxymorons. It is never wise to give religious legitimacy to terrorists by prefixing their religious affiliation. Terrorism has no religion even if the terrorist invokes religious justification for his unjustifiable actions.

Just like this event should stop Islam-bashers from equating Islam with terrorism, it should also put an end to myriad hypocrisies.

Whenever a person affiliated to Islam would carry out such an act he would immediately be dubbed an ‘Islamist’. But if it was carried out by, say a white supremacist, who also happened to be a Christian, they would at once invoke the mental illness theory. It has happened many times in the past.

This blatant hypocrisy should end. The person who carried out this heinous crime was in no way mentally sick. He was fully aware of what he was doing. He had meticulously planned it, and he had chosen his targets carefully and was aware of the consequences of his actions.

Another important point is about the capital punishment for such horrendous crimes. New Zealand government abolished the capital punishment in 1960s. Now this person who is responsible for killing 50 innocent people and destroying 50 families with a meticulously planned act of terrorism and with full knowledge of its consequences at the most will spend rest of his life peacefully in a jail with best possible facilities at his disposal.

Question is not whether capital punishment would have prevented him from doing it. It might not have acted as a deterrent and in many cases it does not but it is not primarily a matter of deterrence, it is a matter of justice.

The old father whose young son was killed by this terrorist will now have to mourn all his life while the perpetrator will be enjoying lavish facilities behind the bars. He does not have to work now and gets everything on platter. He is now a lifetime VIP. That’s precisely why it is a mockery of justice.

It is true that there is a possibility of the misuse of capital punishment and there is a problem of uncertainty and the fact that once implemented it can't be reversed but that in no way justifies an absolute abolition of capital punishment.

In cases like these, capital punishment is fully justified and should be applied to serve justice. If you have killed someone deliberately then you don't deserve to live either. As the Holy Quran has beautifully mentioned: “In Qisas, there is life for you”.

My heart bleeds for the victims of this massacre. They were ordinary people like us who just wanted to live peacefully. They had simply gone to a mosque to pray, to connect with their Creator, to ask simple things from Him. In the end they ended up losing their lives because of one white supremacist terrorist and his warped worldview inspired from the likes of Donald Trump and Candace Owens.

They say if you are killed unjustly you die a martyr and all these victims are indeed martyrs. They have got an exalted place in heaven. But they need justice too. And we need to be their voice now.

Writer is a medical practitioner and commentator based in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

India hits back at Pakistan PM, says offers for dialogue ‘not serious’

TEHRAN - The blame games continue between India and Pakistan, as the two estranged South Asian neighbors accuse each other of creating roadblocks for peace process.

On Friday, India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan that the Indian government was unresponsive to his peace overtures, saying Islamabad’s offers for dialogue were not serious.

At a media briefing in New Delhi, India’s foreign ministry spokesman Raveesh Kumar said Pakistan’s attempts to mainstream terrorist groups operating from its soil belied claims of Khan.

Citing instances of Pakistani ministers meeting “proscribed terrorists” and expressing support for them, the spokesperson said if Pakistan is ready for talks it should take action against the terror groups.

The remarks were in response to Khan’s interview to a Turkish media group earlier this week, where he said India was not responding to his peace initiatives and that any war between two nuclear-armed nations would be suicidal.

In the interview, Khan expressed his desire for talks with India. He said that even a Cold War was not in the interests of the two countries.

“Two nuclear-armed countries should not even think of war; not even a Cold War because it could worsen any time. The only way is bilateral talks. Two nuclear-armed countries at war is like a suicide," he was quoted as saying.

He said that India did not respond to his peace overtures. India has been maintaining that terror and talks cannot go together. "India was offered to take one step towards and we shall take two. But India rejected Pakistan's offer for talks several times," Khan said.

Khan also said that India would never be able to suppress the rights of the Kashmiri people

Responding to his remarks, India’s foreign ministry posed a series of questions to Khan and his government noting that even before Khan was sworn in as the prime minister in August, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had called him and congratulated him on his election win.

“When they say they are ready for talks, then why do their ministers share platform with internationally designated terrorists. There have been many instances in the past few months when their ministers have shared a platform with such people,” Kumar asked.

“If Pakistan is ready for talks then why no action has been taken against terrorists involved in the (2008) Mumbai and (January 2016) Pathankot terrorist attacks,” he said, adding, organisations such as the JuD and its charity front, the Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF), were no longer on the list of proscribed organisations after an ordinance banning them lapsed.

“It is clear that the explicit support that banned organisations used to get from Pakistan is still continuing. There has been no change in that,” Kumar said. “So this statement that they want to have talks, there is no seriousness in it and it should be backed up by some action.”

Responding to questions on Afghanistan and whether India had changed its policy vis a vis talks with the Taliban, Kumar said India’s position was “very clear and consistent.”

“We have said in the past that we support the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. We have also said that we support the process which is inclusive in achieving this goal,” he stressed.

Indian army chief Bipin Rawat’s last week said that India should consider talks with the group that controls large area of the war-ravaged country. His comments coincided with a visit of U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad to New Delhi.

“Many (countries) are engaging with Taliban for having peace. We should engage unconditionally to the extent of having a sense as to what is happening. India has contributed immensely to peace in Afghanistan and plans to do so.”

“We have interests in Afghanistan. We can’t be out of the bandwagon,” he said.