Sunday, May 25, 2014

Khamenei Speaks Against Detente with the West

Calls Iranians Promoting Compromise ‘Traitors’
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei today gave a forceful and at times angry speech against détente with the West. He called those who promote compromise “traitors.” He also labeled the U.S. and its allies as “evil” and “anti-human.”

Khemeni made the comments at a speech to members of Majlis, the Iranian parliament, who had gathered at the Leadership House. He later tweeted main parts of his speech.

“Those who encourage compromise… are indeed guilty of treason,” Khamenei said. (Twitter, 25 May)

He also told members of Majlis that the Islamic Republic would only be able to achieve its goals through combatting the West. He made it clear that the “combat” is endless and defines the essence of the regime.

“We cannot achieve the elevated goals of the Islamic system without the continuation of the idea of combating (the West), Khamenei told MP's. (Press TV, 25 May)

Khamenei went as far as saying that confronting the “arrogant front” (U.S. and its Western allies) was the only way to resist the “anti-human” drive by the West.

Khamenei added that the struggle against “evil powers” would end only after the world “rids itself of the camp of arrogance led by U.S.” He did not elaborate what he meant by getting rid of the U.S. camp.

“The reason behind the emphasis on combatting (the West) is not the Islamic establishment’s warmongering, but wisdom and logic necessitate that one equip oneself in order to pass through a region swarming with pirates, and have the ability and motivation to defend oneself,” Khamenei added.

Khamenei did not elaborate what types of equipment Iran would need for “combatting” the West and pass through the region “swarmed with pirates.”

In his twitter account today, Khamenei also added a large poster with the script saying: “Be Angry with U.S. and Die in Your Anger!” (Twitter, 25 May)

Photo credit: Twitter/@khamenei_ir


Anonymous said...

This entire system came to power with an unchanging policy of enmity towards the US and other countries in the Western hemisphere. Khomeini, as the father of the Islamic revolution, created an edict which commanded that there must be a state of war between the two nations. He essentially declared war on the US, in 1979, which is still on to this day. Hostile behavior versus, first and foremost, the US has always been a blueprint of the clerical establishment. Nobody is allowed to abolish Khomeini's edict or charter a new course (allowing for rapproachment), not even the Supreme Leader.

Nader Uskowi said...

Khamenei did not make that important speech for historical reasons, so let’s not confuse the issue here, as in comments above. Khamenei’s railing against the U.S. and his not so-subtle reference to those seeking compromise as “traitors” were made in the context of the current nuclear negotiations and the leading role of Iran’s moderates in these talks.

Khamenei has drawn his sword against Rafsanjani, Nateq, Rouhani, Zarif and all the moderates. He fears a negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue and lifting of sanctions would be credited to the moderates and they could parlay this victory to capture the Assembly of Experts (and the Majlis) in next elections. A moderate-dominated AOE can change the supreme leadership as an institution, either making it into a council of leadership, with three members or so, or put a 10-year limit or so on the terms of a leader, as in China. Khamenei and his “revolutionary” cohorts want to kill that possibility now.

The institution of supreme leader needs to be reformed. People did not make a revolution to change life-long shahs for life-long supreme leaders; and without such reform, forces of moderation cannot have a chance to rule the country, even though they enjoy the overwhelming support of the people, as Rouhani’s election showed.

So Khamenie’s speech today was not just repeating revolutionary slogans of the Islamic Republic, but more importantly was a manifestation of deep fissures within the leadership on the very future of the Islamic Republic. In foreign policy, that would mean moderation as opposed to perpetual “combatting” against the West.

reader said...

Nader: With respect, your hard translation of the Khamanie’s speech got me really worried that he was perhaps directly challenging Rouhani’s stand and indeed the wishes of the majority, who voted for him. I think his speech was softer than your translation suggests. I am not an expert in Persian language and nor am I terribly literate in English language, but I interpret his speech differently.

کسانی که می‌خواهند، سازش و تسلیم در برابر زورگویان را ترویج و نظام اسلامی را متهم به جنگ طلبی کنند، در واقع مرتکب خیانت می‌شوند.

Those who want to promote capitulation and compromise with the bullying powers accusing the Islamic system of war mongering, are indeed committing treason.

Nader Uskowi said...


The English translation of the parts of Khamenei's speech posted here are from Khaemeni's own Twitter account (English version) and state-owned Press TV, and not mine. However, I do believe what we said in the post reflects what he actually said in Farsi.

Here's the English translation of the passage you posted here: Those who want to promote compromise, and want to surrender to bullying (powers), and accuse the Islamic system of warmongering, indeed commit traitorous acts.

Khamenei is talking to Iranian political class, and not the Iranian opposition, or foreign powers. And he is speaking in the context of ongoing negotiations with the West.

Anonymous said...

I just listened to zibakalam and rasaie debate. His speach is as if he openly accused zibakalam and his types of treason. This is very dangerous.

Nader Uskowi said...

BTW, Keyhan has also emphasized this part of Khamene's speech in bold-letter headline:
ترویج سازش و تسلیم در برابر زورگویان‌خیانت است
'Promotion of compromise and capitulation with bullying powers is treason.'

reader, he is talking about people who could compromise and capitulate to foreign powers, no?

Mark Pyruz said...

The American political equivalent to this speech is: "no deal is better than a bad deal."

Nader Uskowi said...

The Iranian political meaning of this is that he's the "revolutionary" leader, advocating perpetual, never-ending "combating" with the West, and stirring public opinion against the moderates for their "capitulation."

Anonymous said...

once again, a lousy attempt

"no deal is better than a bad deal."

doesn't include calling people treasonous for desiring compromise rather than combat.

when will you cease trying to apologize for the reckless rhetoric and overt hostility?

reader said...

In the past, he was relatively measured in his speeches and sermons and deliberately maintained a balancing but ambiguous position between the conservatives and reformists. I am really concerned that he may be in a similar state of the mind as Sadaam was prior to the destruction and demise of Iraq. It appears that he now sees himself as a more of a political rather than spiritual leader – a dangerous development indeed. The danger is that the conservatives may use his speech to disqualify the reformist candidates from any future election and turn the country into a fully dictatorial and authoritarian system.

PS: your translation of the passage that I picked up from Fars News is clinically accurate and better than mine.

A.A. said...

The status quo which is promoted by Khameinei and his clique can't last for long. Every system of this kind has a expiry date. In the case of Iran, it would probably be the best for the regime to follow the "Chinese way", since it offers the least chance for a "fallout". But first of course, they need the realization that some has to be changed. In the end, if this regime fails it can put the blame only on itself, just like the Shah regime before them.

Anonymous said...

Mark PyruzMay 25, 2014 at 8:46 PM
Agreed,I think hes also making it very clear that those who are hoping for a "detente" or a "grand bargain" with the west are out of luck.

Nader Uskowi said...

Rafsanjani has been pushing to reform the system by replacing the current supreme leadership with a three-member revolutionary or leadership council. Grand ayatollahs in Qom are generally supportive of the idea. Hence the critical importance of the next round of Assembly of Experts elections, believed to be scheduled for early March 2016 along with Majlis elections.

A model adopted from China, of changing the leadership, including the supreme leader, every ten years has also been discussed in recent years.

The hard-right, trying to prevent any changes to the current life-long supreme leader model, has in the past few days been floating the idea of electing a deputy leader as a sort of crown prince; like the days of Khomeini and Montazeri before the crown prince was dumped. Majlis’s chairman of cultural committee, Ahmad Salek, was the latest hardliner who yesterday spoke of the necessity to appoint a deputy leader.

The lines are drawn, and the real “combat” Khamenei was referring to in his speech is between him and his supporters of the current system, a Taliban or ISIL-inspired emir, as opposed to Rafsanjani and the moderates, calling for a leadership council or Chinese-inspired term limit on supreme leader. And the moderates of course enjoy the overwhelming support of the people, as Rouhani’s election showed us.

That’s the essence of the political struggle that has already been started and will intensify as we approach the March 2016 date. Attacking the U.S. and the West is a means to attack the moderate wing; as when the moderates talk about the Taliban experience in Afghanistan, which in reality is hitting at the hard-right “revolutionaries.”

Anonymous said...

Uskowi,a "refomed" Islamic Republic is the worst possible scenario for Iran. This regime needs to disapear. The majority of people born during and after the choas of 1979 don't want these people to rule their lives.And please don't say who will replace these criminals because Iran has plenty of educated and patriotic people to form political parties and run the affairs of state.

Anonymous said...

@Uskowi,how can you say that the Rouhani "election" or better put selection has the overwhelming support of the people when in reality forty five percent or more didn't bovver to vote for this regimes shenanigans?

B.M.A said...

Uskowi in the head of the leader !!

No offense but you diluted your views by entering deep into the head of the Leader and reading his views and aspirations from there !!.YOU aspire to be a prophet Uskowi arent you?

Anonymous said...

some claim others aspire to be a prophet.......and yet they themselves are at a loss

Nader Uskowi said...

B.M.A., my comments are not based on prophecy, but analysis of Iran's politics!

Nader Uskowi said...

Anon 11:12 AM, it's so easy to dismiss everything related to iranian politics as you are doing here. No need to offer any analysis, no need to think about the issues, the answers are known and pre-determined. And doing this in the name of intellectualism.

Rouhani carried every single province, except three that was carried by Rezaie. Rouhani carried Shia-dominated as well as Sunni-dominated cities, he carried Tehran as well as Qom and Zahedan. He carried all demographics. His opponent, Saeed Jalili, the favorite of the supreme leader and the hard right could only muster 11% of vote. I call this an overwhelming victory. Now you give us your analysis of the election.

Anonymous said...


You seems to know everything that goes in the Leaders mind. You insinuate that Saeed Jalili is the Leaders favourite, pray tell exactly where does that leave Rouhani who has remain the leader's rep in NSC since he was removed as the head of that department by Ahmadinejad? Why would he leave Rouhani in such strategic position which makes him appear to the public as one of the trusted confidant of the Leader in spite of the fact that Rouhani has never hide his intention of contesting for the presidency one day, thereby adding currency to his ambition?

I won't try to tell you I know what goes on in the leader's head because I don't but it is on record that he stated publicly that he had no favourite candidate among the contestants prior to the election in 2013.

Please I would appreciate it if you can prove otherwise with evidence to back it. He never campaign for any of the candidates or probably you got your assertion from western MSM. I meant no offence but for some time now MSM have proven unreliable not with there contribution to hype the false allegation that leads to the genocide and war crimes in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Uskowi,

As far as thinking about the issues and offering actual analysis of the regime's so-called "elections" (which, of course, don't touch the actual ruler, the Supreme Leader), I think the following is well worth reading:

Nader Uskowi said...

You don't need to be confident of Khamenei to know where he stands politically. He has never been shy expressing his views. Please read the main body of this post again. Khamenei clearly was reasserting his position as the head of the "revolutionary" faction of the country's political class, believing in perpetual struggle, or "combatting" as he puts it, against the U.S. and the West, and see this permanent combatting as the essence of Islamic Republic's foreign policy, and indeed the mission of the Islamic revolution. Khamenei was not also shy to attack the moderates for wanting to compromise with the West.

So the discussion here has been about a growing political struggle between the revolutionary, hardline camp led by Khamenei, and the moderate camp of Rafsanjani, Nateq, Rouhani... The differences are deep and reveals how each camp regards the mission of the Islamic Republic. Where do we see this struggle manifest itself clearly? The elections for Assembly of Experts in March 2016. Appreciate if you provide us your own assessment on these topics.

Anonymous said...

Uskowi,instead of supporting Rouhani one of the architects of the criminal islamic regime,why don't you support the various opposition that is against the islamic system? By supporting people like Rouhani you are legitimizing the criminal system and delegitimizing the very wide and various opposition that is in existence against this oppressive regime.

Nader Uskowi said...

An analysis that Rouhani won an impressive victory in the election does not necessarily mean I need to support him. The discussion in this post is ultimately about contradictions between the hardliner "revolutionary" camp led by Khamenei and the moderates led by Rafsanjani. Iranian opposition would be part of the equation if they could provide a united and organized alternative to the two camps.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Uskowi, are you suggesting that the ruling Islamist regime would allow any non-Khomeinist opposition to be "part of the equation" (to use your own words). The past 3 decades of experience would suggest that all non-Khomeinist political groupings (from monarchist to nationalist to liberal to non-Khomeinist Islamists to Mojahedin, Fadaiyan, Tudeh, Paykar, etc, etc, etc) have been dealt with by mass executions, assassinations, imprisonment, torture, rape, forced confessions, beatings, etc. Yes or no?

Anonymous said...

AA at 3:49 AM

Looks like you are a new vise man, and could you say, when is your "expiry date" for countries such as the US ,israel and so addition to the Islamic Republic?

I believe that, as long as the Supreme Leader Khamenei or his future desired apointee are at the helm, the Islamic Republic has ahead a very long time abilities for survival.


Nader Uskowi said...

Anon 5:55 PM,

Oppositions do not need their governments' blessing to be part of the equation. They become part of the political equation of a country when they have the popular support and the force behind that position, up to and including the support and force to overthrow the government. The Iranian opposition is no exception.

But the discussion here is not about political development theories. It is about the current internal political struggle within the Islamic Republic. It appears that you don't want to contribute to that discussion, which is fine with me. Looking forward to see you in discussions of other topics in future.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Uskowi, you state: "They become part of the political equation of a country when they have the popular support and the force behind that position". Are you suggesting that none of those other, non-Khomeinist political orientations have any popular support? Really!?! Do 3 decades of unprecedented violence and repression (exponentially greater than that of the Shah's regime, as shown by the much, much higher number of executions carried out by the IRI) not largely account for the complete absence of any large, organized non-Khomeinist political force inside the country at this time (as compared to the multiple oppositional trends under the Shah)??? That is the reality of the IRI, not any "political development theories".

As far as the infighting between the 2 Khomeinist factions (the dominant Khamenei clique versus the secondary Rafsanjani clique), these "alternatives" are not of any significant, substantive difference, but one of style and tone. After 3 decades, has either of these 2 factions brought Iran one iota closer to democracy, liberty (political, social, and personal), civil and human rights, true political openness and accountability, pluralism, etc. But indeed, there is a struggle between 2 Khomeinist factions that has nothing to do with the aforementioned issues of actual substance.

Anonymous said...


The biggest problem is that it is the US and its pupets; by zionists' permission, who do not want to apply that "Chinese way" to truly open relation with the Islamic Republic and many other oppressed countries of the world, such as Cuba, North Korea (before the 2000 year) and many others.

The case of North Korea illustrates the best those intentions of the US (west), where they could reach an agreement before that 2000 year, and there wouldn't be nuclear weapons in the NK's possesion today, but they had decided on a bet, that starving the NK population will bring regime change first......and there will not be a nuclear issue.


Anonymous said...

As the saying goes ,"There is no fool like an old fool." Khameini is an perfect example.