Question:
What is the reality of Iran regarding US policy? In other words, does Iran have a project in regional events that is independent of America? Furthermore, can we say that Iran has a mission in the region, namely the Ja'fari Madhhab (School of Thought)? Finally, what is America's true stance on the Iranian nuclear weapon?
Answer:
To answer this, we must briefly review the reality of the Iranian regime and the course of its policy since the outbreak of the revolution and the declaration of the Republic, and how all of this relates to America:
1- America's role in the Iranian Revolution was clear from its beginnings. During Khomeini's presence in France in Neauphle-le-Château, envoys from the White House visited him, and an agreement was reached for Khomeini's cooperation with America. At the time, American newspapers spoke about this and the meetings that took place there. This was recently revealed by the first president of the Iranian Republic, Abolhassan Banisadr, on December 1, 2000, with Al Jazeera, stating that White House envoys came to Neauphle-le-Château in France where Khomeini was residing. They were received by Yazdi, Bazargan, Mousavi, and Ardabili. There were many meetings between the two parties, the most famous being the October meeting that took place in the suburbs of Paris, where agreements were signed between the Reagan-Bush group and the Khomeini group. Khomeini stated that he was ready to cooperate with America on the condition that it does not interfere in Iran's internal affairs. After that, Khomeini returned on February 1, 1979, aboard a French plane to land in Tehran. America pressured Shapour Bakhtiar to hand over power to Khomeini and threatened the leaders of the Iranian army if they obstructed Khomeini's path. Consequently, Khomeini became the Guide and the Ruler. A constitution was prepared similar to the constitutions existing in other Islamic countries according to Western capitalist systems. Iran's constitution emulates Western constitutions; the system of government is a republic, with ministerial divisions, parliamentary work, the separation of powers, and the distribution of authorities, all according to capitalist systems. As for what is mentioned regarding "the official religion of Iran is Islam and the Ja'fari Twelve-Imam Madhhab," it is like what exists in most constitutions in Islamic countries. These do not mean that the state is established on the basis of Islam or that its mission is to carry Islam; rather, they relate to ceremonies, holidays, and what pertains to the requirements of dealing with people regarding their beliefs, acts of worship, and some life matters. The Iranian constitution did not stipulate that this religion or this Madhhab is a mission for the state or a goal for foreign policy, which is national and patriotic, following the current international system by belonging to international and regional organizations based on the capitalist system, such as its membership in the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. All its international relations are not established on the basis of Islam. Hence, it is not observed that the state in Iran has a special mission or a specific project emanating from Islam. Rather, the reality of the Iranian regime is observed to have a national and patriotic character, reflected in its policy of preserving the existing regime and the entity of the state and its territories. At the beginning of the revolution, we contacted Khomeini and advised him not to cooperate with America and to declare an Islamic constitution, which we explained to him. We documented this in a book we sent to him, detailing the contradictions of the Iranian constitution, but he did not take the advice and continued with a constitution that contradicts Islam, in a republican system on the Western capitalist model.
2- As for the issue of the Madhhab that was designated as the official Madhhab of the regime, it was not designated as a mission or a project it carries. The regime did not establish its system on this Madhhab, nor did it draft its constitution based on it, nor are its articles derived from it. Rather, the basic articles related to the system of government, foreign policy, the army, and security are taken from the capitalist system. It resembles the Saudi regime, which exploits the Madhhab prevalent in the land of Hijaz—the Hanbali Madhhab and Najd—to achieve the interests of the regime. However, Iran exploits the sectarian aspect to gain followers and supporters or those ready to work with it. Sectarian sentiment is incited in them, making it easy to use them for Iran's national interests, not to serve the Ja'fari Madhhab or the Shiites. The proof is that it does not support the Shiites or the Ja'fari Madhhab except where Iranian national interests lie. If secularism serves its interests, it puts Islam, the Shiites, and the Madhhab behind its back. It supports the Iraqi regime and the Syrian regime, which are secular regimes subordinate to America. Since Shiites are primarily located in the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, and because those areas also contain Saudi oil fields, Iran has supported uprisings there on several occasions to weaken Saudi Arabia. It used a similar policy in Bahrain, which prompted Saudi Arabia to send its forces to Bahrain.
Iran does not care about the sectarian aspect if it conflicts with its national interests. Azerbaijan, since it wanted to liberate itself from the grip of the Soviet Union at the end of 1989, and people broke the borders with Iran to unite with it, experienced massacres in early 1990 by Russian attackers who entered Baku to prevent the establishment of a regime not subordinate to them and to bring their agents from the old communists to power. Despite this, Iran did not help the people of Azerbaijan against this Russian attack that violated the rights of Muslims who wanted to free themselves from the Russian yoke and the clutches of the communists, knowing that the majority of Azerbaijan's population are Muslims who follow the official Madhhab of Iran. It did not help Azerbaijan against the Armenians, whom the Russians supported in occupying about 20% of Azerbaijan in 1994, displacing more than a million Azeris from their lands, and this tragic situation still exists there. In fact, Iran developed its relations with Armenia at the expense of Azerbaijan! Iran did not stop there but supported movements that have no relation to Islam, such as the movement of Michel Aoun or secular movements like Nabih Berri's movement and others in Lebanon who follow America's path.
3- All the political actions in the region carried out by Iran have occurred in agreement and harmony with American projects:
a- In Lebanon, it established a party for itself from the followers of its Madhhab and armed it, so it became a private army there, separate from the Lebanese army. The Lebanese regime recognized it and its weapons, knowing that the Lebanese regime is a secular regime that follows American policy. The Lebanese regime did not allow other parties to carry weapons or recognize the weapons of other parties. Iran's party in Lebanon supported the Syrian regime, which is linked to America, just as Iran did. America did not prevent the Lebanese regime from allowing Iran's party to intervene in Syria to support the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad. Rather, there is implicit American approval for this party's intervention in Syria without being obstructed by the Lebanese army.
b- When America occupied Iraq, it encountered resistance it did not expect. So it brought Iran into Iraq to help it influence those belonging to its Madhhab, to prevent them from moving against the occupation, and even to make them stand against the resistance, confront it, and give legitimacy to the occupation and the regime it established there. This was especially true after 2005 when America allowed the coalition of pro-Iranian parties to reach power under the leadership of Ibrahim al-Jaafari and then Maliki. These governments were established by America and are linked to it. The Maliki government, supported by Iran, signed security and strategic agreements with America to maintain its influence after its official occupation of Iraq ended. This indicates American satisfaction with the Iranian role, whose officials admitted to cooperating with America in the occupation of Iraq and in working to secure stability for American influence in Iraq. Iran opened an embassy in Iraq immediately after the occupation. As soon as al-Jaafari was elected, Iran's foreign minister at the time, Kamal Kharrazi, visited Baghdad in 2005 at the height of the occupation. Both sides condemned the acts of resistance to the occupation under the name of condemning terrorism in Iraq. Al-Jaafari visited Iran and signed several agreements, including a cooperation agreement in the field of intelligence to establish security and monitor crossings and borders, connect Basra to the Iranian electricity grid, and establish an oil pipeline between Basra and Abadan. Iranian President Ahmadinejad visited Iraq at the beginning of 2008 while it was under direct occupation. Ahmadinejad often caused a stir with his statements against America and against the Jewish entity, but they never exceeded mere words not followed by action. At the same time, Ahmadinejad was one of the Iranian presidents most closely aligned with the American line, through his visits to Iraq while it was under American occupation. Two weeks before leaving office, he renewed his visit to Iraq to renew support for the Maliki regime, which is subordinate to America and maintains American influence there. Likewise, Ahmadinejad visited Afghanistan in 2010 while it was under American occupation and provided support to the Karzai regime, the servant of the American occupation.
c- It did the same in Yemen, where it gained the Houthi group and armed them against the regime of Ali Saleh, the agent of the British. It also supports those in charge of the secular Southern Movement in Yemen who advocate for secession, and they are also American agents, to create a secular system in southern Yemen loyal to America.
d- As for Iran's relationship with the Syrian regime, it is old, dating back to the outbreak of the first uprising in the early eighties of the last century. It supported the Syrian regime in its suppression of the Muslim people of Syria in that era to maintain it within the American project supporting the regime led by its agents, the House of Assad. Iran knows it is a secular, Ba'athist, nationalist regime, the twin of Saddam's regime which it was fighting, and it has no relation to Islam; rather, it fights Islam and its people. Iran realizes it is linked to America, yet it did not take up the defense of the rights of Muslims. Instead, it did the opposite, fighting them and supporting a criminal, kufr regime, and it continues to do so. The Iranian regime maintains close relations with the Syrian leadership, encompassing military, economic, and political ties. Iran has transferred many weapons to support the Assad regime and provided it with oil and gas at reduced prices due to the lack of energy reserves in Syria. Political relations can be observed particularly in the Iranian intervention in the Syrian uprising when the Assad regime was on the verge of collapse. Were it not for the Iranian intervention by sending forces from the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's party forces, and Iran-affiliated Maliki militias, Bashar and his regime would have collapsed. The massacres in Qusayr, Homs, and today the chemical massacres in Ghouta and others are witnesses to that intervention.
e- In Afghanistan, Iran supported the American occupation and supported the constitution it drafted and the government it formed headed by Karzai, serving America. Iran secured the north of the country when America failed to defeat the Taliban. Former Iranian President Rafsanjani stated, "If our forces had not helped in fighting the Taliban, the Americans would have drowned in the Afghan swamp." (Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, February 9, 2002). Mohammad Ali Abtahi, former Iranian Vice President for Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, stated at the Gulf and Future Challenges conference held in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi on the evening of January 13, 2004: "Were it not for Iranian cooperation, Kabul and Baghdad would not have fallen so easily. But we received a reward and became part of the axis of evil!" (Islam Online, January 13, 2004). President Ahmadinejad repeated similar remarks while visiting New York to attend UN meetings in an interview with the New York Times on September 26, 2008, where he said: "Iran provided a helping hand to the United States regarding Afghanistan, and the result of this aid was the American President's direct threats to launch a military attack against us. Also, our country provided aid to America in restoring calm and stability to Iraq."
4- As for the issue of the nuclear program, it has been stalling for years. Although the Jewish entity, with European support and encouragement, has threatened more than once over these years to strike this program, America stood in the face of the Jewish entity and prevented it from achieving that. It still prevents this entity to this day. The US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, visited the Jewish entity on August 12, 2013, for this purpose. The Kuwaiti News Agency (KUNA) reported on August 12, 2013, citing the Jewish entity's army radio, that: "Dempsey's visit comes days after a similar secret week-long visit by the US Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh to 'Israel,' during which both sides refrained completely from talking about the nature of the discussions. Welsh's visit remained confidential at the request of the American side amidst tension in the region and against the backdrop of Israeli threats to strike Iran." KUNA added: "Analysts believe that the US military commander will try to convince his hosts to refrain from making dramatic decisions in the near future against Iran to give diplomacy a chance after Hassan Rouhani's inauguration as President of Iran." America allowed the Jewish entity to strike the Iraqi nuclear reactors that were under construction during Saddam's era in 1981, but it prevents this entity from striking Iran's nuclear reactors, which have begun enriching uranium until the enrichment rate reached 20%. This indicates that it is in its interest to maintain the Iranian regime that works for its benefit in the region. It wants it to remain a bogeyman that frightens the Gulf states so it can concentrate its influence in these countries and use it to maintain its influence in the Islamic world.
Going back a little, we find that the reality of the nuclear talks since their beginning in 2003 is that America focused on sanctions without taking any actual action against the nuclear facilities. It frustrated the European Union and angered the Jewish state. Every time talks are held, America presents additional sanctions as a solution to the issue without any military action. America has repeatedly intervened to calm "Israeli" fears. America wants the Iranian regime to remain standing and for the nuclear issue to remain raised so that it does not reach a nuclear bomb, while at the same time it is not settled finally. Rather, it remains, as we said, a bogeyman that frightens the Gulf states as a prelude to the continuation of American military forces in the Gulf, in addition to America exploiting it to install the missile shield in Turkey and Central Europe under the pretext of deterring Iranian nuclear weapons and protecting against them! This is besides justifying the increase in the Department of Defense budget.
5- As for the enmity that appears on the surface between America and Iran, it can be understood as follows:
a- The atmosphere was charged, and public opinion was mobilized against America before and after the revolution. It was considered responsible for the people's tragedies, accused of supporting the Shah and his injustices, and described as the Great Satan. Therefore, Iran's rulers could not announce the resumption of direct talks between the two parties and subsequently the resumption of diplomatic relations, especially since America's contacts with Khomeini in Paris and America's pressure on the Iranian army not to intervene against Khomeini's revolution... all of this was not a secret. For this reason, the Iranian regime needed heated events with America to create justifications for sitting with them. Thus was the hostage crisis at the American embassy on October 4, 1979, which resulted in the severance of diplomatic relations between Iran and America to strengthen Khomeini's position, strike his opponents, and cover up the reality of the relations between the two parties. American sources later mentioned that it was an arranged American play. Likewise, Abolhassan Banisadr mentioned in his interview with Al Jazeera referred to above that "it was an agreement with the Americans and of their planning, and that he accepted it after Khomeini convinced him of it." Both parties signed what became known as the Algiers Accords on January 20, 1981, under which the hostages were released. This happened on the day US President Reagan took office. America implicitly recognized the new regime led by Khomeini when this agreement stipulated the commitment of both parties to mutual respect, non-interference in each other's affairs, and the preservation of the interests of both countries through the appointment of a third party, and subsequently the return of 12 billion dollars that the new regime demanded from Iran's frozen assets.
b- The rulers in Iran have worked for a long time to prepare the atmosphere for the resumption of these relations, even though secret contacts and cooperation are ongoing between them, as Iranian officials themselves revealed. They continued in this manner, as if maintaining this situation between the two countries benefits both. Iran appears as if it is hostile to America to cover up its dealings and its alignment with it within its colonial projects, acting as a helpful factor in implementing those projects. America appears as if it is hostile to Iran and working against it, thereby controlling the Europeans and the Jews, and deceiving the public opinion hostile to Iran in America and the West to achieve its interests in the region. Some rulers who took office after the declaration of the Republic were accused by Iranians of being American agents, such as President Banisadr, who was ousted because of the presence of a strong trend at the time opposing relations with America. However, President Rafsanjani, whose relationship with America was revealed through facts like Iran-Gate and Iran-Contra, did not fall because such a trend no longer existed then. Successive presidents have been described sometimes as reformers and moderates, and other times as conservatives and hardliners, but no change has been observed in Iranian policy despite the toughening of rhetoric at times and its softening at others; it remains mere words not followed by actions and not applicable to realities. Likewise, the American position toward Iran has not changed despite the toughening of rhetoric at times by Republicans—placing it on the list of "Axis of Evil" countries—or its softening by Democrats, yet America has not taken any decisive and serious steps toward Iran. When the new Iranian President Rouhani formed the government, he said: "His government will adopt in its foreign policy the prevention of threats and the elimination of tensions." (Reuters, August 12, 2013). He chose Mohammad Javad Zarif for the post of Foreign Minister, a former UN ambassador who was educated in the United States and was a primary participant in several rounds of secret negotiations to try to overcome the decline in relations between Washington and Tehran (Reuters, August 12, 2013). Rouhani stated more explicitly after his election: "We do not want to see more tension between Iran and the United States. Wisdom tells us that both countries need to think more about the future and try to sit down to find solutions to past issues and correct the matter." (Reuters, June 17, 2013). US President Obama responded by saying: "The United States remains ready to engage in direct talks with the Iranian government with the aim of reaching a diplomatic solution that fully addresses the international community's concerns about Iran's nuclear program" (same source). This means that Iran wants to end the phase of its secret path with America and begin the phase of an overt path with it, but in different forms where it appears as an influential regional state that must be included in the region's issues.
6- Based on what we mentioned above, we conclude the following:
The issue of the Madhhab that Iran designated as the official Madhhab of the regime was not designated as a mission or a project it carries. The regime did not establish its system on this Madhhab, nor did it draft its constitution based on it, nor are its articles derived from it. Rather, the basic articles related to the system of government, foreign policy, the army, and security are taken from the capitalist system; it resembles the Saudi regime, which exploits the Madhhab prevalent in the land of Hijaz—the Hanbali Madhhab and Najd—to achieve the interests of the regime. As for Iran's foreign policy, it is consistent with American interests in the region, as well as in the Greater Middle East and Islamic countries. For example, Tehran assisted Washington in stabilizing the American occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade or so. It also acted through its party in Lebanon to shape the political landscape there, and recently collaborated to maintain American hegemony in Syria by supporting Assad. Consequently, Iran works in Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq to serve American interests. Outside the region, it can be said that America succeeded in exploiting Iran's behavior to promote its missile shield program and link the Gulf Cooperation Council countries in unbalanced security agreements, as well as selling the Gulf states weapons worth billions of dollars out of fear of Iran!
Iran follows America's path while realizing the meaning of this path and knowing its limits. It does not exceed them even if it raises the tone of its rhetoric for deception or to cover up the truth, as happened during the Ahmadinejad period, which witnessed great service to America in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Therefore, America sees the regime in Iran as a servant to its interests to a large extent, so much so that decision-making circles in America see no reason to work on changing the regime. This is what Robert Gates stated on December 12, 2008, at an international security conference in Bahrain regarding relations between America and Iran and what they should be. He said: "No one is seeking regime change in Iran... What we are looking for is a change in policies and behavior, so that Iran becomes a good neighbor to countries in the region, instead of being a source of instability and violence."