In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Question:
International and regional positions and political statements have been following one another regarding the nuclear deal with Iran since its signing between Iran and the "P5+1" group on 24/11/2013. These positions and statements show a confusion and conflict of vision... Iran considers what happened as a victory and that it has gained international recognition of its right to enrich uranium. America denies that the agreement stipulates recognition of Iran's right to enrich and says that the agreement makes the Jewish entity more secure and that it will lead to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear state. Meanwhile, the Jewish entity considers the agreement bad and a historical mistake... This has created confusion for me, and perhaps for others, in knowing the reality of this agreement... The question is: What is the reality of this agreement and the positions that accompanied it? Does the agreement have a relationship with a role for Iran in the region, such as the current events in Syria, for example? Furthermore, what is the reason for this frantic effort exerted by Obama in approving and defending the agreement, to the extent that I heard a politician say, "It is as if Obama is more interested in the agreement than Iran"? May Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
Let us first review the reality of what took place in the agreement according to what was published by various media outlets:
1- Iran's Commitments in the Agreement:
a- Iran committed to stopping uranium enrichment beyond 5%, dismantling the technical connections required for enrichment beyond this percentage, and committed to diluting its entire stockpile of 20% enriched uranium to below 5%, or converting it into a form unsuitable for any further enrichment processes... It committed to stopping any progress regarding increasing its stockpile of 3.5% enriched uranium so that the quantity at the end of the six-month period mentioned in the agreement is no more than it was at the beginning, and converting any additional quantities of 3.5% enriched uranium into oxide.
b- Iran committed to stopping any progress in enrichment capabilities by not installing any additional centrifuges of any kind, not installing or using any next-generation centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and disabling about half of the centrifuges installed in Natanz and three-quarters of the centrifuges in Fordo so that they cannot be used for uranium enrichment. It also committed to limiting the production of centrifuges to those necessary to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot store additional quantities of centrifuges during the six months.
c- Iran committed not to operate the Arak reactor, to stop progress on the plutonium extraction path, not to install any additional components for it, and not to transfer any fuel or heavy water to it. The agreement also stipulated preventing the separation of plutonium from spent fuel and providing long-required design information about the Arak reactor, which provides sensitive detailed information about the reactor that was not available before.
d- Providing more opportunities for inspectors to enter the Arak reactor and providing certain key data and information that were required under the Additional Protocol to Iran's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran also committed to providing daily access for IAEA inspectors to enter the Natanz and Fordo reactors, and inspectors will be allowed to review camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring regarding enrichment at these two sites... Iran also committed to allowing the IAEA access to centrifuge assembly facilities, production facilities, storage of centrifuge components, uranium mines, and uranium processing plants.
e- Iran committed to forming a committee with the P5+1 countries and the IAEA to monitor implementation and address any problems that may arise. The joint committee will also work to facilitate the settlement of past and present concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program, including the potential military dimension of the Iranian program and Iran's activities at Parchin.
2- Iran's Gains Under the Agreement:
a- Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif announced that his country would suspend uranium enrichment to the 20% level for six months, while continuing other parts of the enrichment program. The minister pointed out that the major powers pledged not to impose additional sanctions during the six months, while suspending some existing punitive measures in the field of the oil embargo, as well as sanctions against Iran's petrochemical industries, automobile production, insurance, and trade in precious metals.
b- In a document distributed by the White House regarding the interim agreement, sanctions on Iran will be eased in exchange for suspending some aspects of its nuclear program, according to Reuters on 24/11/2013. The document indicated the possibility of Iran obtaining revenues amounting to $1.5 billion from trade in gold and precious metals and the suspension of some sanctions on the Iranian automotive sector and Iran's petrochemical exports. Iranian oil purchases will also be allowed to remain at their current significantly reduced levels, and $4.2 billion from these sales will be allowed to be transferred in installments if Iran implements its commitments. The White House confirmed that the agreement eases sanctions on Iran by a value of $7 billion in the form of trade exchange.
c- A number of members of the participating delegations in the Geneva talks said that the agreement provides for reducing Iran's nuclear program in exchange for limited easing of sanctions on Tehran worth seven billion dollars in the form of trade exchange.
3- Iran considered this a success. Its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, praising the agreement, said: "The nuclear negotiation team must be thanked for this achievement, and this success is also due to divine care, prayers, and the support of the people," (Fars News Agency, 25/11/2013). Rouhani said in an interview with Iranian television broadcast yesterday evening (26/11/2013) that the right to enrich, which is part of Iran's nuclear rights, will continue. He added, "Enrichment continues today, and will continue tomorrow, and will never stop; this is a red line." In the same interview, the Iranian president expressed optimism about reaching a full agreement regarding his country's nuclear program. He said in this context that the road is long, and that walking it will be possible with the assistance and support of the people. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the evening before yesterday (25/11/2013) in a television interview that his country will continue to enrich uranium, adding that Tehran will speak about that with the Americans.
4- Is this really a success? Anyone who examines the terms of this agreement sees that Iran has made major concessions in its nuclear program and accepted what the West wanted to stop enrichment and reduce the 20% enriched uranium to below 5%, or convert it into a form that does not keep it as it is. It committed not to enrich above 5%, not to continue its activities in reactors that produce heavy water, and committed not to produce plutonium, which is necessary for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. It committed not to install new centrifuges, to open the doors to inspectors daily, and to film all the work being done so that the nuclear facilities remain under international monitoring... So how is this considered a success? The Iranian officials' consideration of this agreement as a success and a great victory is nothing but a cover-up for the reality of their concession and their link to America, to silence any voice that might protest against them from their people, and to prepare the atmosphere for establishing overt relations with America.
These concessions by Iran contradict its claim of having independent sovereignty and respecting its independence; otherwise, how could it allow this and place itself under permanent monitoring and daily inspection, as happened in Saddam's Iraq before the American occupation when its facilities were placed under daily monitoring and inspection to search for weapons of mass destruction? Iran has thus prevented the development of its nuclear power, especially while it sees the Jewish state constantly developing its power, whether conventional or unconventional... Every person of sight and insight realizes that this is not a success. For a state to return to enrichment at a level of 3.5% - 5% after reaching 20%, and to work on certain arrangements to disable the effectiveness of what was previously 20% enriched, is not a success in any way. Rather, it is a matter that America plotted in the corridors of politics with Iran to bring the American-Iranian relationship from secrecy into the open to perform a role drawn for it in the region without the restrictions of sanctions... Many people have come to realize that Iran is loyal to America, and this was confirmed to them especially after the events in Syria. In fact, this has been the case since the date of the declaration of the Republic, but cooperation between them was taking place secretly in all issues, especially on the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan, as former officials in Iran admitted.
The current Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was a diplomatic representative in America for the Iranian Republic in 2001 and asked his government at that time to cooperate with America in its invasion of Afghanistan, and some Iranians accused him then of being an American agent. Now Iran wants to adopt an overt approach in dealing with America to participate in implementing American projects overtly and have a regional role assigned to it by America. America has assigned it a role in Syria to support Bashar al-Assad's regime until it finds an alternative that preserves the structure of the Syrian regime, which is subordinate to America.
5- America was behind this agreement that took place, and it was meeting with the authorities in Iran secretly months before the announcement of the agreement on 24/11/2013. America realized that Europe wanted to disrupt the agreement between America and Iran; therefore, it matured the agreement before informing the Europeans. The French newspaper Le Monde reported on 24/11/2013 news stating that senior American and Iranian officials held secret bilateral talks over several months that played an important role in the preliminary agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached from Saturday night to Sunday, 24/11/2013, according to what was mentioned today, 24/11/2013, by the Associated Press quoting American officials. The Associated Press indicated that the United States of America informed its allies, other members of the P5+1 and (Israel), of its secret meetings eight months after they were held, i.e., at the end of September 2013 after the call between Obama and Rouhani... The French newspaper explained that the meetings were being held in Oman... Three officials in the American administration confirmed to the Associated Press that these secret negotiations are what laid the foundations of the agreement reached on Saturday night regarding the Iranian nuclear program in Geneva.
6- Therefore, Obama was remarkably interested in concluding this agreement to the point that he stood on the lookout for any opposition in Congress and reassured the Jewish entity that this agreement preserves their security. He was in a hurry to conclude it, and all of this is clear in his statements:
The American President Obama stood justifying the policy of overt rapprochement with Iran, saying: "We cannot close the door to diplomacy, and we cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems." He said, "If Iran seizes this opportunity and decides to join the international community, we can begin to put an end to the suspicion that has existed for many years between our two countries," (Al-Jazeera, 26/11/2013)... American President Obama said, speaking about the agreement: "What we have done with Iran represents tangible progress, the most important since I took office... and today's announcement is just a first step that achieves a great deal."
(NBC News online, 23/11/2013)... Obama said during his participation in an event in San Francisco on 25/11/2013 that "great challenges remain, but we cannot stand against the diplomatic option, and we cannot rule out diplomatic solutions to the problems facing the world." Obama added, "We cannot close the door to diplomacy, and we cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems," noting that "in the coming months, we will continue our diplomatic efforts with the aim of reaching a solution that definitively addresses the threat of the Iranian nuclear program"... Obama said on 24/11/2013 that the agreement represents an important step towards a comprehensive settlement of the issue of this program, and said it would close the path for Tehran to manufacture a nuclear bomb. Obama warned that his country would stop easing sanctions on Iran if it did not adhere to the terms of the agreement within six months.
Likewise, Kerry stated that the agreement will make it difficult for Iran to rush toward making a nuclear weapon. Speaking about one of the most controversial issues in the ten-year-long nuclear crisis, he said the agreement does not guarantee any recognition of Iran's "right" to enrich uranium. He added, reassuring the Jewish entity: "This agreement will make the world safer and Israel and our partners in the region safer." (AFP, 24/11/2013).
As a reaction, the White House moved quickly to counter the influence of members of Congress loyal to the Jewish lobby. The White House requested support from heavyweights, Scowcroft and Brzezinski, to pressure Congress to stop such measures. They requested—in a letter—Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) to support negotiation with Iran because it is in the American national interest. The letter stated: "...negotiation supports the national security of the United States, Israel, and other partners in the region." The letter also warned against imposing new sanctions on Iran: "imposing more sanctions now, in light of these unprecedented negotiations, means confirming to the Iranians that the United States is not ready to conclude any agreement with the current government in Iran." The letter mentioned: "We call on all Americans and the US Congress to stand firmly with the President in the difficult negotiations with Iran." (Scowcroft, Brzezinski... Strategic Culture Foundation Online, 20/11/2013). It is clear from all this that America acted as if this issue were its fateful issue!
7- Europe's attempts to disrupt the agreement and then its approval: America realized that Europe did not want the American-Iranian agreement because Europe knows that Iran is loyal to America, and easing sanctions on it means that America is drawing a role for Iran to perform to serve America's interests in the region, which requires lifting restrictions on it to facilitate its movement. Therefore, France openly tried to complicate the agreement in the first round held on 15/10/2013, and Britain tried from behind the scenes as is its custom, but America was serious about concluding it, so Europe was forced to agree.
Thus, the Europeans were unable to obstruct the agreement after they realized that America had laid its foundations, erected its pillars, and prepared its bricks... Therefore they agreed, and it seems they wanted to exploit it internationally, especially since the agreement actually limits Iran's nuclear activity toward producing nuclear weapons because it prevents it from increasing enrichment above 3.5% - 5%, and what it worked on enriching at a rate of 20% will be eliminated, and the nuclear reactors will remain under daily monitoring and inspection. Accordingly, British Foreign Secretary William Hague praised the agreement on his Twitter page on 24/11/2013, saying: "The agreement was important and represents a first important and encouraging stage with Iran, and it will freeze work on its nuclear program for six months and return some parts of it to its previous stages." French President Francois Hollande described the agreement as an "important step in the right direction towards the normalization of relations between the West and Iran. And that it respects the demands set by France in the field of uranium stockpiles and enrichment, suspending the operation of new facilities, and international control." (AFP, 24/11/2013).
8- There remains the position of the Jewish entity...: The position of the Jewish entity in considering the agreement bad is neither new nor strange. This state that has usurped Palestine has charted a policy for itself since its inception, which is to resist the emergence of any influential material power in the region—not just a nuclear power, but even a sophisticated conventional power, and not only in a large state like Iran but even in a small state. It objects to the arming of Jordan even though it considers Jordan a strategic partner; nevertheless, it objects to its armament! Akhbar al-Lubnaniyya published, quoting Arab WikiLeaks based on a document on 13/03/2006, in which Ambassador Richard Jones speaks about the requirements of the Jewish state from America in February 2006 regarding arms control for the states of the region. It mentioned regarding Jordan: "...the Hebrew state sees Jordan as a 'strategic partner'...
Nevertheless, given the geographical proximity and potential strategic changes, Israel cannot afford to reduce the qualitative gap between the Israel Defense Forces and the Jordanian army. Likewise, Israel cannot risk equipping Jordan with SAM missiles or any other systems that cover its entire airspace..." End quote. This is the policy of the Jewish state for the states of the region, small and large. Not only this, but it stipulates in its talks with the Authority regarding a mini-state for it, if it sees the light, that this mini-state be demilitarized... Therefore, the Jewish state is not satisfied with Iran being a peaceful nuclear state, nor that it does not reach a military nuclear state; rather, it wants to strip the nuclear capability whatever it is, peaceful or non-peaceful, in Iran and in every state in the region. It has a precedent in that; it attacked the nuclear facilities of Iraq during Saddam's time with a green light from America, and it was preparing more than once to attack nuclear facilities in Iran, but America was preventing it... We saw how the Jewish state danced with joy when the tyrant of Ash-Sham agreed to destroy chemical weapons...
The Jewish state knows that it has no inherent power of its own, but rather:
ضُرِبَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الذِّلَّةُ أَيْنَ مَا ثُقِفُوا إِلَّا بِحَبْلٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَحَبْلٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ
"Except for a rope from Allah and a rope from the people..." (Surah Aal-i-Imran [3]: 112)
And they have cut the rope of Allah since long ago... but the rope of the people has been extended to it since Britain created it, France nourished it, and America embraced it. Thus, it adheres to America in its policy. Accordingly, it is expected that it will exert every effort through the Jewish lobby in America to influence during the coming six months to make the final solution with Iran include more restrictions on it than the restrictions placed in the current temporary solution... But in all cases, America puts its interest above the Jewish entity. Rather, America is the one that decides the security of the Jewish entity, and it is not the entity that imposes its security on America, especially since Obama is in his last electoral term, so the influence of the Jewish lobby on him is relatively decreasing.
Nevertheless, the Jewish state sees its survival in America's help for it. America prevents the states of the region from having nuclear weapons and allows the Jewish state to have a military nuclear industry. The agreement included some reassuring matters for the Jewish state. Israeli Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said in an interview with the Hebrew Radio Network Two on the same morning, "The major powers insisted in the last hours preceding the announcement of the agreement on introducing amendments to the draft agreement, based on the desire of Israel." The Jewish state will try with America to see if it can add other conditions and restrictions in the final solution. Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid said in an interview with IDF Radio on Sunday morning, 24/11/2013: "Israel must coordinate with the United States and other world powers in order to reach a better final agreement after six months." He added that "although the agreement is bad, we must work with the Americans and others so that the final agreement ensures a complete dismantling of the Iranian nuclear project." It is clear from all this that the Jewish state, with support from America, wants to monopolize nuclear weapons in the region and prevent any other state in the region from possessing any advanced power; rather, it wants to prevent those states from any theoretical scientific capability to produce nuclear energy... What is painful is the fragility, rather the betrayal, of the existing states in the Muslim lands that fear scientific research in producing peaceful nuclear energy, let alone nuclear weapons, at a time when the Jewish state produces nuclear weapons overtly, not secretly, and even objects to whoever attempts that from the states of the region.
Therefore, the statement of the Prime Minister of the Jewish entity Netanyahu that "the agreement is a historical mistake and a bad agreement that gives Iran what it wanted: lifting part of the sanctions and keeping a basic part of its nuclear program" (AFP, 24/11/2013)—this statement can be understood in the context of what we said earlier about the desire of the Jewish entity that there be no significant power in the region other than itself and that it wants to completely dismantle Iranian nuclear energy.
9- As for why America exerted such effort in concluding this agreement, knowing that the Iranian nuclear issue has been going back and forth for several years, why is Obama now exerting a frantic effort to conclude the Iranian nuclear deal to the extent of stating, "What we have done with Iran represents tangible progress, the most important since I took office..."? The answer to that is that conditions have arisen in the region during these three years, and what has arisen is the general atmosphere spreading in Syria in the name of the Khilafah. This is a new event that was not witnessed in the Arab Spring revolutions, which, although they arose with self-movement, were under slogans closer to secularism or a mixture of it with what is called American Moderate Islam! This enabled America and the West to penetrate those revolutions and tamper with them... However, the movements taking place in Syria have been dominated by Islamic feelings that are consistent in many of them with the correct Islamic ideas and concepts that call out: "The Ummah wants a Khilafah once again"... This rising Islamic atmosphere in Syria has increased the intensity of the dilemma for the West in general and America in particular, as they realize the greatness and power of the Khilafah, and that other powers, in the presence of the Khilafah, would be of no significance, if they did not become a thing of the past... Then there is another factor that increases the dilemma, which is that America is drowning in its crises, which weakens the effectiveness of its direct influence to eliminate this growing Islamic atmosphere in Syria. Therefore, America is looking for traitorous helpers in the region to be its front line in confronting this great Islamic atmosphere.
As for America's crisis at home, in addition to the economic crisis that America is still suffering from, both the Democrats and the Republicans are at odds with each other on all major issues. Local partisan politics has replaced the American national interest and has become more important than managing people's affairs. Many observers have noted that the differences between the two main parties regarding raising the debt ceiling and Obama's healthcare project demonstrate the deterioration of the American political system. Frank Vogl wrote in the Huffington Post: "The American political system is broken, and Congress is losing the public's trust, as the percentage of those who trust it has plummeted to 10%, according to the latest Gallup poll. According to a commercial public opinion poll, 85% of senior American businessmen believe that the main problems facing America are caused by the campaign finance system, and 42% believe that the system is a total failure." (Huffington Post, 26/07/2013).
As for abroad, the American political situation is worse and more dangerous than it is at home, even though America's hegemony has precedence over all regions of the world. Immanuel Wallerstein said, commenting on the decline of America's influence throughout the world: "A large percentage of people, if not all of them, feel the relative decline of the power, status, and influence of the United States, and people inside the United States accept this feeling reluctantly." ("The Consequences of US Decline," Al-Jazeera, 02/11/2013).
Brzezinski had said in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in Montreal in 2010: "The world's major powers, old and new, face a new reality. Despite their military power being greater than ever before, their ability to impose their control over the world is at its historical lowest levels..." This is in addition to America's suffering in Afghanistan and in other regions of the world...
Because of these crises that are tightening around America's neck and hindering its direct influence... and because its agents, whether those it created abroad or Bashar and his cronies inside... because all these have not been able throughout these three years to establish a stable and effective presence in Syria—rather, the chants of the Khilafah strike their ears, eyes, and hearts... for all that, America wanted the states of the region around Syria to be a front line for it in standing in the face of the emergence of any new rule that adopts the Khilafah as a system for the state, life, and society. Consequently, America's eyes fell on two states to task them with the mission, both being its followers: Turkey and Iran. As for Turkey, there are no restrictions on its movements. As for Iran, the sanctions and their consequences formed a restriction on it, limiting its effective international and regional activity, as it was in a semi-isolation. Because it is more active against the Khilafah than Turkey—since the Khilafah in the culture of the rulers of Iran is considered a rejected matter to them, which makes them active in fighting it, while in the heritage of the Turks there are long eras of the Khilafah, which makes the regime in Turkey go in circles when fighting the Khilafah... Thus, the new plan required activating the role of these two states in the mentioned manner. Consequently, America made the issue its own, requiring the lifting of restrictions on Iran to facilitate its movement. Thus, Obama exerted this frantic effort to lift the sanctions for this specific purpose, i.e., to stand in the face of the Islamic movements in Syria to establish the Khilafah, and not to lift the restrictions on Iranian activity for nuclear weapons. Rather, peaceful nuclear activity had restrictions and more restrictions placed on it that returned Iran from the 20% enrichment level it had reached to about 3.5%, in addition to inspections and conditions... Accordingly, the easing was only to facilitate its movement and encourage it to be active in the face of the work for the Khilafah in Syria and not to be active in the nuclear field!
Thus, Obama counted this nuclear agreement as one of his greatest works during his term. For Obama to be able to move Turkey and Iran to stand in the face of the work for the Khilafah in Syria—whether by criminal physical acts inside Syria or by treacherous political acts in Geneva and elsewhere... so that they can find a subsequent agent rule for a previous agent and frustrate the work for the Khilafah... for Obama to be able to do that, it would be among the strongest works of his term. No wonder, then, that he said in his statement: "What we have done with Iran represents tangible progress, the most important since I took office..." if he is able... and perhaps he thinks he is able because of what he saw of the two states proceeding according to what Obama drew for them, as they hastened to meet and visit in a hurry, following the footsteps of their leader Obama, who was likewise proceeding in a hurry to conclude that agreement!
Not three days had passed since the agreement on 24/11/2013 before the previous tension between Turkey and Iran disappeared. The Turkish Foreign Minister visited Tehran, and the talks focused on cooperation between them on the issue of Syria and the Geneva conference, and what is hidden is greater... If only they cooperated in righteousness and piety, then we would have prayed for them, but for them to cooperate in standing against the establishment of the Khilafah in Syria, and work on restoring the oppressive, unjust secular rule once again after all that pure blood that was shed and the great sacrifices that were made, then they shall have disgrace in this world and a blazing fire in the Hereafter. Allah (swt) commanded cooperation in righteousness and piety and not in sin and aggression:
وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَى وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ
"And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty." (Surah Al-Ma'idah [5]: 2)
If only they realized that so they might be saved; the wise person is the one who takes heed and is saved.
10- In conclusion, this is a reminder for whoever has a heart or lends an ear while being a witness:
a- We remind the rulers of Turkey and the rulers of Iran that their loyalty to America and their standing in the face of those working to establish the Khilafah in Syria will earn them disgrace in this world and the punishment of the Hereafter. No matter how much they work to please the West in general and America in particular, they will never be pleased with them:
وَلَنْ تَرْضَى عَنْكَ الْيَهُودُ وَلَا النَّصَارَى حَتَّى تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتَهُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللَّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَى وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ بَعْدَ الَّذِي جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ مَا لَكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ مِنْ وَلِيٍّ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ
"And never will the Jews or the Christians be pleased with you until you follow their religion. Say, 'Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance.' If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper." (Surah Al-Baqarah [2]: 120)
And the Prophet (saw) said, as reported by Ibn al-Ja'd in his Musnad from Aisha (ra):
مَنْ أَرْضَى النَّاسَ بِسَخَطِ اللَّهِ، وَكَلَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَى النَّاسِ، وَمَنْ أَسْخَطَ النَّاسَ بِرَضَا اللَّهِ كَفَاهُ اللَّهُ النَّاسَ
"Whoever pleases the people by the wrath of Allah, Allah will entrust him to the people; and whoever angers the people by the pleasure of Allah, Allah will suffice him against the people."
And you undoubtedly see the fates of those who pleased the people by the wrath of Allah... and the wise person is the one who takes heed from others.
b- We remind the rulers of Turkey that the Khilafah is an obligation from their Lord, and of the bright eras of the Khilafah that covered all parts of Turkey for several centuries, and that they were its soldiers—the soldiers of al-Fatih, Selim, al-Qanuni, and Abdul Hamid... It is more fitting for the rulers of Turkey today that those bright eras pull them toward not abandoning the Khilafah, so they do not stand in its way in Ash-Sham or anywhere else. If their resolve falls short of supporting those working for it, then at least let them not stand in their way... and the end is for the righteous.
c- We remind the rulers of Iran, even if they do not see the Khilafah as an obligation from their Lord and their thinking goes when mentioning it to a caliph who was unjust here or there—we remind them that the Khilafah for which the workers are working is the Khilafah on the method of Prophethood, the Rightly Guided Khilafah, of which Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (ra) were its leaders and soldiers... If the rulers of Iran stand in its way, they have contradicted the biography of Ali (ra) who gave the pledge of allegiance to the three Caliphs who preceded him and was a helper to them, sincere with them. So follow his biography, and do not abandon the Khilafah by standing in its way in Ash-Sham or anywhere else. If your resolve falls short of supporting those working for it, then at least let them not stand in their way... and the end is for the righteous.
d- Just as we began by reminding the rulers of Turkey and the rulers of Iran together, we conclude by reminding them together that the Khilafah is the promise of Allah (swt):
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلِفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ
"Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them..." (Surah An-Nur [24]: 55)
And it is the glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah (saw) after this oppressive rule (hukm jabri). Ahmad and at-Tayalisi reported from Hudhayfah bin al-Yaman that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
ثُمَّ تَكُونُ جَبْرِيَّةً، فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةٌ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ
"...then there will be an oppressive rule, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will remove it when He wills to remove it. Then there will be a Khilafah on the method of Prophethood."
And it is coming into existence, by the will of Allah, sooner or later. Whoever supports it or aids it will be among those whom Allah has blessed, and whoever stands in its way will not harm Allah in the least, but rather will be afflicted with humiliation in this world and a painful punishment in the Hereafter. All of that will not delay the establishment and return of the Khilafah by an hour or even a moment...
إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَالِغُ أَمْرِهِ قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدْرًا
"Indeed, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent." (Surah At-Talaq [65]: 3)