Doc's Talk: The Struggle Between Khamenei And Rafsanjani Over The Iranian Leadership – Part VII: Rafsanjani Creates A Schism In Khamenei's Camp

Monday, October 21, 2013

The Struggle Between Khamenei And Rafsanjani Over The Iranian Leadership – Part VII: Rafsanjani Creates A Schism In Khamenei's Camp

Y. Mansharof, E. Kharrazi, and A. Savyon *

Recently, Hashemi Rafsanjani has successfully created a schism in the camp of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in two aspects. First, in the ideological aspect, Rafsanjani has forced his position in favor of direct talks with the U.S. on Khamenei, thus compelling him to become more flexible in this major ideological issue. In the second aspect, prominent figures in Khamenei's camp, such as conservative Majlis member Ahmad Tavakkoli; advisor to the commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and Expediency Council member Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi; Majlis speaker Ali Larijani; and others who previously expressed firm ideological stands against any dialogue with the U.S. are now beginning to explain why Iran should conduct direct talks with the U.S.

This paper will review notable statements by these regime officials:

Ahmad Tavakkoli: Obama Has Surrendered To Iran And Has Recognized Iran's Nuclear Right

<![]-->

Ahmad Tavakkoli

In an interview with the Iranian Arabic-language channel Al-'Aalam, conservative Majlis member Ahmad Tavakkoli said that U.S. President Barack Obama had surrendered to Iran by recognizing Iran's nuclear right. Tavakkoli explained that the U.S. had backed down from its traditional stand vis-à-vis Iran, and that it was now willing to talk with Iran without any preconditions – preconditions that it had expressed by demanding that Iran stop supporting Hizbullah, stop violating the human rights of regime opponents, and stop developming weapons of mass destruction. This, Tavakkoli said, means that Iran could take advantage of this opportunity and agree to talk with the U.S. He added that Tehran expects actions, not just words, from President Obama, and expects him to use his presidential veto against Congress in order to reject the additional sanctions proposed by Senators Menendez and Graham, which are set for discussion later this month – which Tavakkoli says will prove his sincerity in this matter.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

"Now, for the first time, [the Americans] are interested in negotiations [with Iran], without setting preconditions. Iran has, over the years, conducted unofficial negotiations with the Americans on the issues of Afghanistan and Iraq, [but] now we are in a situation where senior White House officials have understood that they cannot solve regional issues, incuding Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and that they need relations [with Iran].

"In his speech at the U.N., the American president spoke respectfully of [Iranian] Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his [nuclear] fatwa, and appears to have surrendered and in effect recognized the Iranian people's nuclear right. He [Obama] has fallen from a superior status to an inferior status. We took advantage of this opportunity to resolve the injustices done [to us] by the U.S. in various areas, including in the nuclear issue, by means of negotiation.

"In all these 30-plus years [since the 1979 establishment of the regime of the Islamic Revolution], when the Americans invited us to talks, this was in fact an invitation to a prosecution [against us]. It was they who determined the agenda of the meeting, and they accused us: Why are you supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon, claiming that this [organization] is the embodiment of terror; Why are you developing WMDs, and why are you violating human rights? In recent years, the nuclear issue has also been added to this [litany of accusations]..."

The American Superpower Has Announced That It Will Conduct Relations Of Mutual Respect With Iran

"What matters is actions, even though declarations precede actions. If we want to set preconditions [for the Americans], we will become like them. We also realize that there are disagreements within the U.S. [Therefore], it is enough that the superpower backs down from the condition it has been demanding for 30 years and that it declares that it will conduct relations of mutual respect with Iran for a new process to begin. But we must be alert, and must wait for a measure on their part. Each side needs to understand the situation of the other, and must commence practical actions.

"We are not expecting a miracle, and we know that in the U.S. there are obstacles in Obama's path. But we are facing a president who heads a presidential system, a president with the right of veto over Congressional decisions under certain circumstances. Therefore, we cannot say that if our opponents in the U.S., for example the Zionists, want to block Obama's path, we will not welcome this opportunity [to talk with the U.S.] which may not yield results. We indeed welcome this opportunity, and are aware that this path will not be without difficulties, but that there are practical and and clear tests [of Obama's sincerity].

"The oppresive sanctions must be lifted from Iran, in order to prove good intentions. Perhaps the American statesmen will deliver declarations opposing this [lifting of sanctions], in favor of their interests, but we need to know what they will actually do. In Iran too there are those who oppose [dialogue with the U.S.] and those who approve. They they have the right to express their opinions. But the regime has institutions that make decisions in accordance with the laws, and that examine the issues soberly. We must not be pessimistic, but we must also not be over-optimistic.

"We can arrive at a solution that will preserve the interests of the Iranian nation in the world in a logical framework – that is, [under which] we will lift the curtain that they placed in front of the eyes of the world so that it becomes known that we do not intend to develop nuclear weapons.

"We do not yearn for negotiations, in and of themselves, with those who perpetrated so much injustice against us. We are negotiating only with the aim of attaining results. Wasting time and sitting around with arms folded do not serve our interests. If they really aspire to solve the issue, as they say, and if they are honest, then the signs of this will rapidly become clear; within less than three months it will be possible to see this. Obviously, it will not be possible to solve everything within three months. But the signs will become evident, and they will be enough [to let us know whether we should] continue on the path. But if they begin to drag their feet and make excuses, it will become clear that the talks are only talks, and a waste of time – and we do not want to waste time..."

The American Attempt To Paralyze Iran Has Failed

"We have no obligations. We will act according to how they act, and we will make decisions in accordance with the circumstances... People in the U.S. think that they are God and that if they wish it, everything will change – and that if they level sanctions on Tehran, Iran will be miserable and will be unable to do a thing. They are mistaken. The U.S.'s aim was to paralyze Iran by means of the sanctions, [so] they kept making them harsher. But they accomplished nothing. The extremist American officials thought that by increasing the sanctions they could subjugate Iran, but that did not happen.

"On the other hand, now that the harsher sanctions have proven fruitless, some American officials think that at the very least, this opportunity should not be missed. Both camps exist in the U.S., and right now Barack Obama represents the latter camp. We must see which camp wins out, and act accordingly.

"The Iranian people knows that relations with the U.S. will not solve all its problems, and that its problems are not the result of an absence of relations with the U.S. The Americans will not get their wish of paralyzing Iran, which holds fast to its position."

Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi, Advisor To IRGC Commander: "We Are Not Denying The Fact That We Need Dialogue With... The U.S."

At Tehran Friday prayers on October 4, Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi, advisor to the IRGC commander and a member of Iran's Expediency Council, explained to the public why Iran is entering into negotiations with the U.S.:

"In recent weeks we have witnessed a new stream and a new approach [towards the U.S.], which at first glance appear different than what we are used to. But, as has been emphasized a number of times, all [Iranian] moves will be in the framework of regime diplomacy. This move [i.e. the Iran-U.S. dialogue] is being carried out as part of the regime's tactical shift and maneuvering aimed at resolving international issues. This change, which is meant to be a breakthrough, has been defined by [Leader] Khamenei as 'heroic flexibility'... The aim of the talks with the U.S. is to obtain nuclear energy... Today we are promoting a different approach, that Islam does not prevent. You must remember that even the Infallible Imams tried different paths and methods at various times to achieve the goal...[1]

"We are not denying the fact that we need dialogue with the world and with the U.S. They need it as well. At the very least, we need these talks to put a stop to their evil acts, such as the oppressive sanctions on us, and [therefore] we are compelled to obtain a breakthrough in our relations [with the U.S.]."[2]

Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani: "We Can Establish Relations" With The U.S.

Majlis speaker Ali Larijani hinted, during an October 7 visit to Serbia, that it was possible to arrive at an agreement with the U.S.: "We believe that under the different conditions that exist now an opportunity has been created for several countries [i.e. the U.S.], which up to now have had a different attitude towards Iran, to try and resolve the issue, in light of [the current] reality. In New York [during Iranian President Rohani's visit] new ground was paved, by means of which we can establish relations [with the U.S.] – obviously, without reiterating past [hostile] statements. The time of past statements is over, and we must talk in accordance with today's reality."[3]

Endnotes:

[1] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1018, The Struggle Between Khamenei And Rafsanjani Over The Iranian Leadership – Part IV: Rafsanjani Calls For Moderation In The Spirit Of 'Islamic Realism'; Khamenei Is Ready For 'Heroic Flexibility' By Iran But Without Compromising Revolutionary Principles, September 23, 2013.

[2] ISNA (Iran), October 4, 2013.

[3] Mehr (Iran), October 7, 2013.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk