Ayatollah Khamenei urges Iran to prepare for 'new world order'

[Ars Moriendi]

Ayatollah Khamenei urges Iran to prepare for 'new world order'

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/khamenei-new-world-order.html

http://www.al-monitor.com/files/live/sites/almonitor/files/images/almpics/2014/09/RTX18NFG.jpg?t=thumbnail_570
Iraqi women walk past a poster depicting images of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Baghdad, Feb. 12, 2014. (photo by REUTERS/Ahmed Saad)

In a meeting with the Assembly of Experts, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that the world is entering a “new order” as the West's influence wanes and that officials in the Islamic Republic need to be aware of the changes and prepare to play a role in the new context.

After World War II, Western countries took over the management of the world, especially in countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, said Ayatollah Khamenei. They did this by promoting a specific type of cultural values and using military and political might. Khamenei said that both of these types of power have been challenged and are now uncertain.

Ayatollah Khamenei said that this “order was in the process of change,” and “When the world is changing, when global order is changing and a new order is being formed, naturally we have a more important duty.”

The first thing to be done is to understand the new world order correctly, Khamenei said. “The power of the West on their two foundations — values and thoughts and the political and military — have become shaky. We have to understand this” rather than submitting to the idea of Western superiority.

The second task is “to prepare ourselves to play a role in this new order.” He said that Iran needs to use all of its capabilities, both inside and outside the country. Externally, he said, Iran has strategic depth and interests via Islam, language and Shiism.

Ayatollah Khamenei added that Iran has influence in Asia and Latin America, and that officials should focus on science, the economy and culture.

In regard to culture, the supreme leader said that there are some in the Islamic world and even in Iran who believe the West’s claims that Western values are superior. He said that these values have caused the foundation of family life to become unstable. He added that some in the West feel that feminism is a “trap” for women. He criticized that the issue of homosexuality had become a question of values in the West in that if a politician opposed it, “It would be construed as a negative point on his record.”

In the military realm, Khamenei said there are those who have resisted the West’s superiority in political and military matters and have felt pressure for their resistance. He added that since WWII, the United States has preached democracy and human rights but has been involved in the overthrowing of a number of governments.

He also blamed the West for the rise of fundamentalists like the Islamic State and other fundamentalist groups. He recounted how during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Lebanese Sunni cleric Sheikh Saeed Shaaban had warned him about Western plans “to entangle Iran on the eastern border.”

Khamenei said that he was "incredulous" because Afghanistan was on Iran's Eastern border, and this statement predated the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He said after he was told this, the Taliban gained power and even in Western media, the Taliban was discussed in a way that “promoted them.”

----------------------

Just figured it'd be a relevant read for those that have a thematic focus on the NWO.

[Jackson]

I quite agree with him, as long as he doesn't have any major imperialist leanings like some other followers of Islam.

[Freeroostah]

Go Iran!

[Ars Moriendi]

I quite agree with him, as long as he doesn't have any major imperialist leanings like some other followers of Islam.

I think that Iran nowadays is more a soft-power regional leader than anything else. In military theory, the Iran-Iraq War of the 80s is studied as an example of a catastrophic confrontation, and a good part of the Iranian intelligence goals somehow reflect what they had to live during those days.

Being a Shia-majority nation in an overwhelmingly Sunni region has forced Iran to be pretty cautious, and most of their goals in the Mid East and West Asia are about favouring and funding allies, and getting other governments to play ball by offering good deals. They do that with Armenia and Afghanistan for example, using electricity and gas investments, among other things, to get influence.

In the Muslim world they've become the master of proxy wars and proxy groups, they have interests vested in Lebanon through Hezbollah, in Syria through Assad, in Palestine through Islamic Jihad, and of course in Iraq which is now greatly dependent on Iranian military and financial aid to stay aflote. Probably you can add to that Bahrain's Al-Wefaq fighting the monarchy, and if you believe Western media, the Houthis in Yemen.

All in all, I think they have their hands full and their tactics are anything but reckless. Even their ballistic development is purposedly kept under 1000 miles.
I doubt Imperialism would arise in Iran anytime soon. Simply not worth it.

[Xanthias]

a "new order" ? "When the world is changing ... naturally we have a more important duty" ? How does he all spit this out of his ass ? The country is an immense shit, and when he talks about science, he primarly meant "Atomic bomb - BOOM-" because I can't see how he wants to promote "science, culture & Co" with the very deeply closed regime he has put in place, with all the tortures of true iranians that have the same idea than him but more in the western way, and ironically he sends them more in jails than "promoting" them, really silly and weird stuff he wants to make people believe only outside of his country.

[Jackson]

I think that Iran nowadays is more a soft-power regional leader than anything else. In military theory, the Iran-Iraq War of the 80s is studied as an example of a catastrophic confrontation, and a good part of the Iranian intelligence goals somehow reflect what they had to live during those days.

Being a Shia-majority nation in an overwhelmingly Sunni region has forced Iran to be pretty cautious, and most of their goals in the Mid East and West Asia are about favouring and funding allies, and getting other governments to play ball by offering good deals. They do that with Armenia and Afghanistan for example, using electricity and gas investments, among other things, to get influence.

In the Muslim world they've become the master of proxy wars and proxy groups, they have interests vested in Lebanon through Hezbollah, in Syria through Assad, in Palestine through Islamic Jihad, and of course in Iraq which is now greatly dependent on Iranian military and financial aid to stay aflote. Probably you can add to that Bahrain's Al-Wefaq fighting the monarchy, and if you believe Western media, the Houthis in Yemen.

All in all, I think they have their hands full and their tactics are anything but reckless. Even their ballistic development is purposedly kept under 1000 miles.
I doubt Imperialism would arise in Iran anytime soon. Simply not worth it.

Thanks, very interesting information.

Yeah my impression of them is generally OK, they do seem more restrained and sensible than some others.

That is why i sometimes get a little agitated at Europe and America's generally negative stance towards them, as they seem to me as more reliable than some others in the region. However, i assume there are supposedly good reasons for this state of affairs (although whether or not it's in the public's interest is another issue), although the people that are involved do not necessarily want to talk openly about it (not surprising).

I certainly think if the western world in general tried to use more dialogue and less bombs and threats we would all be in a better position, but i probably don't know half of what people high up the chain of command in places like the USA know, let alone whether i would act in the same way or not if i did know.

[Ars Moriendi]

How does he all spit this out of his ass ? The country is an immense shit, and when he talks about science, he primarly meant "Atomic bomb - BOOM-" because I can't see how he wants to promote "science, culture & Co" with the very deeply closed regime he has put in place, with all the tortures of true iranians that have the same idea than him but more in the western way, and ironically he sends them more in jails than "promoting" them, really silly and weird stuff he wants to make people believe only outside of his country.

I'll just keep the Westernizing put downs on Iran, and simply point out a revelant fact regarding Iranian R&D published 2 years ago:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/culture/2012/10/the-science-war.html


While Israel still leads in the number of patents it registers in the US, the last two indexes that were checked reveal that the gaps between Israel and Iran and Turkey are narrowing. The Technion researchers warn that if this trend continues, Iran and Turkey are expected to close the gap within a few years.

The researchers note that the rapid progress in the Middle Eastern countries is the result of high investments, new initiatives to construct research centers, collaboration with high-quality universities of developed countries and more


But the highest scientific research activity rate is to be found in Iran. According to the Thomson Reuters report, the scope of Iran’s research activity is growing at a yearly rate that is 11 times greater than the rest of the world’s countries

[Shah-Jehan]

^ The high rate of Iranian scientific growth is a very known fact,

[Petalpusher]

I ve always seen Iran as the final destination of this war drive. Iran can't be acceptable for many reasons (not only the nuclear). It was so important to put down Assad in Syria and finally get a good grip around the region. It didn't go exactly as expected but they will find a way, specially now and conveniently.. Poutine has a situation on his own. Blaming Assad for ISIS? No one seriously believe that, but it's a new angle lately.
The Empire certainly won't target Iran directly any time soon, still the matter of its containement and control is profound.

[Ars Moriendi]

I ve always seen Iran as the final destination of this war drive. Iran can't be acceptable for many reasons (not only the nuclear). It was so important to put down Assad in Syria and finally get a good grip around the region. It didn't go exactly as expected but they will find a way, specially now and conveniently.. Poutine has a situation on his own. Blaming Assad for ISIS? No one seriously believe that, but it's a new angle lately.
The Empire certainly won't target Iran directly any time soon, still the matter of its containement and control is profound.

I agree. Although I'd add that Russia, just like Iran (and maybe China down the road in the future) is also being targetted through difamation and sponsoring of proxy "revolutionaries" just like they did in Maidan last year.

What sort of confirms this tendency is how close Moscow and Tehran have been getting since the whole Ukrainian mess started. And I don't mean the well publicized oil-for-goods agreement that will make it quite possible for both of them to bypass their respective sanctions, but a deeper connection in diplomacy and Eurasian affairs. I'm thinking that in the short to medium term, we'll be seeing the beginning of a minor form of coordination between the CSTO and the Iranian military exercises.
Just a guess from my part though, could be wrong.

[Ars Moriendi]

Thanks, very interesting information.

Yeah my impression of them is generally OK, they do seem more restrained and sensible than some others.

That is why i sometimes get a little agitated at Europe and America's generally negative stance towards them, as they seem to me as more reliable than some others in the region. However, i assume there are supposedly good reasons for this state of affairs (although whether or not it's in the public's interest is another issue), although the people that are involved do not necessarily want to talk openly about it (not surprising).

I certainly think if the western world in general tried to use more dialogue and less bombs and threats we would all be in a better position, but i probably don't know half of what people high up the chain of command in places like the USA know, let alone whether i would act in the same way or not if i did know.

A good thing that you could research and consider regarding the Western foreign policy regarding Iran, are the interests of both Israel and the Gulf Arab States. As you know, AIPAC is the most influential advocacy group in Washington, while the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, and even UKIP, have a "Friends of Israel" committee that systematically promote the Israeli vision over the topic.

Likewise, the Gulf Cooperation Council has funneled plenty of money through investments and purchases across Western Europe. They also have a definitie vision regarding the Iranian dossier, which has in turn resulted in the creation of an unoffical Saudi-Israeli Alliance.

All of these people have the means and capacity to extract specific concessions from deeply corrupt power structures, and achieve the geopolitical decisions that benefit them the most.

[Harkonnen]

The most important part of the article:


He said that Iran needs to use all of its capabilities, both inside and outside the country. Externally, he said, Iran has strategic depth and interests via Islam, language and Shiism.



I quite agree with him, as long as he doesn't have any major imperialist leanings like some other followers of Islam.

Are you blind or cannot read?

He said that Iran needs to use all of its capabilities, both inside and outside the country. Externally, he said, Iran has strategic depth and interests via Islam, language and Shiism.

He is clearly declaring a ideological war on the world. Of course he is using all of the popular catchphrases such as 'NWO' that will sink to his two digit IQ crowd like hot knife to butter. It is tactics of distorting the issue, which the OP uses himself fex in this thread http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?138818-Excellent-Speech-Against-Muslim-Grooming-Gangs-In-Rotherham&p=2939051&highlight=#post2939051 about muslim groom gangs in Britain. He does not want to discuss the topic, because it does not fit his ideas, so he just points that the topic starter is a jew, so it must be some NWO 'conspiracy thing.' Similarly in a more mainstream media the man in the muslim grooming gang video, would be easily silenced by the nwo(yeah lol) by calling him a racist, but he knows it does not work here, so lets pull out the good ol jewcard.




I doubt Imperialism would arise in Iran anytime soon. Simply not worth it.

There is really no doubt that Iran as a Islamic state is imperialistic to it's core. Of course it knows that it can not win a conventional war so it's automatically a no-no. But there is the war of the minds. And like Khomeini himself admitted they are going full steam after the minds of all the loonies of the West (though they dont discriminate the third world either, like was pointed out in the article.)


You know there are lot of kiddies here, and they need a saviour, so who knows maybe daddy moslem will save them (I'm laughing silently here, just so you know)

[Ars Moriendi]

The most important part of the article:

Are you blind or cannot read?

He said that Iran needs to use all of its capabilities, both inside and outside the country. Externally, he said, Iran has strategic depth and interests via Islam, language and Shiism.

He is clearly declaring a ideological war on the world.

Saying that a country needs to use all of its assets to exert influence is certainly not a declaration of war. It's just a normal part of foreign affairs.
France capitalizes on its chief position as main centre of Francophony regarding African countries (just like the UK does in the framework of the Commonwealth of Nations), or how the Vatican City capitalizes on its position as centre of Roman Catholicism, to send envoys to most Latin American countries (with a Catholic majority still).

Iran is a major Islamic country in terms of population and economy (it receives refugees and develops investment in neighbouring countries), it is the main centre of Farsi (which allows it to develop cultural ties with Afghanistan where a similar version of Farsi is the lingua franca), and it is also the most important Shia-majority country, in a context where Sunnism is much more majoritary.

If it were declaring war, the country would signal someone specific and argue that it needs to be destroyed. The statement isn't aimed at galvanizing people for an attack, it's aimed at highlighting the country's advantages for the future, which won't necessary be characterized by peace and order.


Of course he is using all of the popular catchphrases such as 'NWO' that will sink to his two digit IQ crowd like hot knife to butter. It is tactics of distorting the issue, which the OP uses himself fex in this thread http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?138818-Excellent-Speech-Against-Muslim-Grooming-Gangs-In-Rotherham&p=2939051&highlight=#post2939051 about muslim groom gangs in Britain. He does not want to discuss the topic, because it does not fit his ideas, so he just points that the topic starter is a jew, so it must be some NWO 'conspiracy thing.'

In that post you quoted, I didn't even use the word "jew", nor imply it tacitly. I made a comment on the person adding the thread, merely taking into account his posting history and ideological belonging. Furthermore, I was replying to a post written by Longbowman, who himself questioned the relevance of adding a street speech about an event that is self-evidently criminal and disgusting, and doesn't require much debate.


Similarly in a more mainstream media the man in the muslim grooming gang video, would be easily silenced by the nwo(yeah lol) by calling him a racist, but he knows it does not work here, so lets pull out the good ol jewcard.

I didn't use the "jewcard" seeing as I made no reference to the poster's ethnicity, nor I mentioned anywhere a supposed racism to delegitimize the thread. Once more, I replied to Longbowman, trying to explain why I think such a speech was added. Seeing as nobody is challenging the problem of grooming gangs, nor trying to defend the behaviour of these people, adding that a speech is simply a statement of support to the politician/street talker making the speech.



There is really no doubt that Iran as a Islamic state is imperialistic to it's core.

Assertions such as this one require proof.
Iran hasn't invaded a neighbouring country in centuries, and has no land claims to any territory outside of its borders. Hardly the most typical case of imperialism, seeing as it refrained from developing an aggressive foreign policy, during the same time that the Scramble of Africa was taking place.


Of course it knows that it can not win a conventional war so it's automatically a no-no. But there is the war of the minds.

That doesn't mean much.
The American politicans argue that RT is trying to subvert the opinions of people. Russian officials say the same thing regarding CNN, BBC or Fox News, affirming that they brainwash people into hating Russia.

Egypt argues Al Jazeera and Qatar are lying regarding its human right abuses, while the Saudi Al Arabiya focuses more on the newfound security in the country.
Again, all countries and all opinion-makers with any real weight in the world, will try their best to influence public opinion. It's hardly new, conspirational or terribly immoral.


And like Khomeini himself admitted they are going full steam after the minds of all the loonies of the West (though they dont discriminate the third world either, like was pointed out in the article.)

Aas I stated in the previous part, presenting an editorial line that highlights one's merits while focusing on the flaws and mistakes of one's opponents is hardly a surprise.



You know there are lot of kiddies here, and they need a saviour, so who knows maybe daddy moslem will save them (I'm laughing silently here, just so you know)

You are not a precisely mature person to have the right to deride other posters as "kiddies".
Your overall tone is hysterical, by adding visually aggressive font sizes and outlandish unsubstantiated assertions dealing with a supposed ideological war; your writing style barely follows a cohesive line, seeing as you can dedicate half of your writing to a different thread that has no relevance to the current one, while managing to slander other poster (me in this case) by pretending he said things that weren't actually said; and your premises are never once given factual backing or elaborated (Ideological war, "jewcard", Iranian imperialistic tradition) so that people can actually start to believe what you're saying.

The last part of your post is almost ununderstandable, as you seemingly pretend that the point of all of this thread was to tell people to follow Islam. If you'd care to read the whole thread and the comments made, Islam as a religion barely has any role, and furthermore, nobody has ever pretended to be representing a "saviour" figure anywhere.

This is a thread that tries to shed some light, regarding the way in which public affairs in Iran may be conducted in the future (seeing as Khamenei is the most important figure in the country), possibly highlighting the difference between their State policies and those of the West that factually pretend nothing will happen in the medium term, and deride people that question that position as lunatics or simply conspirationists.

[Incal]

Is that retard still alive?

[Ars Moriendi]

Is that retard still alive?

Did you think he had died and been replaced?

[Han Cholo]

Did you think he had died and been replaced?

He is probably confusing Khamenei for Khomeini.

[Incal]

Did you think he had died and been replaced?

Nope, I just thought he was dead for good.

[Ars Moriendi]

He is probably confusing Khamenei for Khomeini.

Noted.
It makes sense, the names are similar enough to be confused by people.

[Incal]

He is probably confusing Khamenei for Khomeini.

This.

[Harkonnen]

Saying that a country needs to use all of its assets to exert influence is certainly not a declaration of war. It's just a normal part of foreign affairs.
France capitalizes on its chief position as main centre of Francophony regarding African countries (just like the UK does in the framework of the Commonwealth of Nations), or how the Vatican City capitalizes on its position as centre of Roman Catholicism, to send envoys to most Latin American countries (with a Catholic majority still).

Iran is a major Islamic country in terms of population and economy (it receives refugees and develops investment in neighbouring countries), it is the main centre of Farsi (which allows it to develop cultural ties with Afghanistan where a similar version of Farsi is the lingua franca), and it is also the most important Shia-majority country, in a context where Sunnism is much more majoritary.

If it were declaring war, the country would signal someone specific and argue that it needs to be destroyed. The statement isn't aimed at galvanizing people for an attack, it's aimed at highlighting the country's advantages for the future, which won't necessary be characterized by peace and order.

How is it normal part of foreign affairs? I thought you were anti-NWO? Is this not just nother form of NWO,just not a western liberal one, but a moslem totalitarian one. Personally I'm against other nations trying to influence the sovereignity of a nation state, but if you think it is fine, then what can I say. Why is it ok for moslems to do it, but not for western cowboys? If nothing else, I demand a equal treatment for these two sides from you.



I specifically wrote a ideological war. Do you not understand the concept?
Anyway only a postmodern man would not take this as a declaration of war. For someone who has written on the corrupting effect of postmodernism to the western world, you do not seem to understand the concept too well. It almost looks as if you would accept anti-postmodernism only if it comes through means of Islamic ideology, but for some reason you seem to have problems with organic forms of European anti-postmodernism, ie with dudes like myself who will recognize their roots and absolutely refuse to deny them over foreign, alien and non-organic values. Indeed a postmodern man is more likely to accept Islam through his worship of the exotic, in which case, fex if you were a Islamic supremacist (which I think is possible that yo are, although it is equally possible that you are just another western loonie) you really should be thankful for postmodernism.




In that post you quoted, I didn't even use the word "jew", nor imply it tacitly. I made a comment on the person adding the thread, merely taking into account his posting history and ideological belonging. Furthermore, I was replying to a post written by Longbowman, who himself questioned the relevance of adding a street speech about an event that is self-evidently criminal and disgusting, and doesn't require much debate.


I'm sorry but if Longbowman is a loonie, it does not mean that you are not a loonie too. You can not just shift guilt.



I didn't use the "jewcard" seeing as I made no reference to the poster's ethnicity, nor I mentioned anywhere a supposed racism to delegitimize the thread. Once more, I replied to Longbowman, trying to explain why I think such a speech was added. Seeing as nobody is challenging the problem of grooming gangs, nor trying to defend the behaviour of these people, adding that a speech is simply a statement of support to the politician/street talker making the speech.


On the contrary you were attacking the man who was trying to challenge the problem and not sweep it out of sight. A disgusting act in my books.




Assertions such as this one require proof.
Iran hasn't invaded a neighbouring country in centuries, and has no land claims to any territory outside of its borders. Hardly the most typical case of imperialism, seeing as it refrained from developing an aggressive foreign policy, during the same time that the Scramble of Africa was taking place.


Iran has not attacked because it is too weak for such action.



That doesn't mean much.
The American politicans argue that RT is trying to subvert the opinions of people. Russian officials say the same thing regarding CNN, BBC or Fox News, affirming that they brainwash people into hating Russia.
Egypt argues Al Jazeera and Qatar are lying regarding its human right abuses, while the Saudi Al Arabiya focuses more on the newfound security in the country.
Again, all countries and all opinion-makers with any real weight in the world, will try their best to influence public opinion. It's hardly new, conspirational or terribly immoral.


http://deskarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Eschers-drawing-hands.jpg




You are not a precisely mature person to have the right to deride other posters as "kiddies".
Your overall tone is hysterical, by adding visually aggressive font sizes and outlandish unsubstantiated assertions dealing with a supposed ideological war; your writing style barely follows a cohesive line, seeing as you can dedicate half of your writing to a different thread that has no relevance to the current one, while managing to slander other poster (me in this case) by pretending he said things that weren't actually said; and your premises are never once given factual backing or elaborated (Ideological war, "jewcard", Iranian imperialistic tradition) so that people can actually start to believe what you're saying.

The last part of your post is almost ununderstandable, as you seemingly pretend that the point of all of this thread was to tell people to follow Islam. If you'd care to read the whole thread and the comments made, Islam as a religion barely has any role, and furthermore, nobody has ever pretended to be representing a "saviour" figure anywhere.

This is a thread that tries to shed some light, regarding the way in which public affairs in Iran may be conducted in the future (seeing as Khamenei is the most important figure in the country), possibly highlighting the difference between their State policies and those of the West that factually pretend nothing will happen in the medium term, and deride people that question that position as lunatics or simply conspirationists.



Please try to stay on topic. I am not the topic here.

[Ars Moriendi]

This was particularly hard to break down into definite thoughts, odd post. I'll try to address every part of what I think you tried to say. Had to focus in specific sentences at times, but unfortunately in some parts I simply couldn't know what you were referring to.


How is it normal part of foreign affairs?

I believe this would be self-evident.
Foreign Affairs is the mechanism by which a country attempts to fulfill a set of goals:

- Expand the amount of commercial and economic parnters, so that its national industries and services can grow, while acquiring better technology and more efficient procedures. This also applies to topics linked to environmental efficiency (all countries sharing a river have to ensure equity in the distribution).
- Increase the influence and power it may have over regional, maybe even global, problematics. This allows the country to defend its position on different matters, while potentially finding allies for future conflicts. By doing so, it can potentially benefit of the new arrangements that are made.
- Defuse threats to its national interests by different channels. Press and cultural influence can sway the population of other countries, economic ties and investments can exert pressure against any potential aggressor, and a regional political/military bloc can allow the country to drastically increase the costs of an aggression by a foreign actor.

What the statement by Ayatollah Khamenei says, is for the most part linked to the second item of Foreign Affairs, with a potential long term relation to the third item.

Whe he says that Islam is an asset of the country, he is stating that Tehran's voice regarding regional and cultural affairs is very relevant to the future of the Muslim World. It can use its large population, large economy, and rapidly modernizing scientific and military sector to influence the decisions taken by its neighbours.

When he says that language is an asset of the country, he is referring to the fact Iran is the main centre of the farsi language, the most important one within the Iranid branch. Afghanistan's lingua franca is mutually inteligible with farsi, and Tajikistan's language can also be related to it. This means that on top of economic cooperation, Iran has a chance to use its culture to build durable links with specific countries in the region.
For example, in the Afghan province of Herat, Iran has not only financed the distribution of electricity and natural gas, but has also built libraries and cultural centers aimed at introducing the Afghan population to the Iranian worldview. Language of course plays a big factor on this.

When he says that Shiism is an asset of the country, he is considering the great influence that Iran plays over this sub-branch of Islam, for the most part minoritary everywhere else in the Muslim World, as a way to build an alternative bloc and alliance to the main Sunni camp.
By having the position of main Shia voice in the world, Iran can link itself to the populations of other nations with sizeable Shiite populations, like Azerbaijan (where it is playing a mediator role in the conflict with Armenia), Iraq (where its proxy militias are the main military force defending Baghdad), in Bahrain (where it has denounced systematically the Al Khalifa Monarchy for its abuses), or to Lebanon (where it has funded and supported Hezbollah, today the most powerful entity in the whole country).
In other words, Iran's natural position as leader of any potential Shiite network, is a positive asset for the Iranian Foreign Ministry.


To resume, what Khamenei is doing is reminding the people (this is a public statement after all) of the assets the country has, in order to give an optimistic idea regarding the way Iran will fare under the new global order.


I thought you were anti-NWO? Is this not just nother form of NWO,just not a western liberal one, but a moslem totalitarian one.

The "NWO", as most commonly understood, is a global police State where a single government pushes all people into serving the same power structure, while erasing any sort of differentiation between humans, in order to promote consumption as a prime value. I do not abide by the term "NWO" per se, seeing as it's been subjected to plenty of hollow literature, but I do see in a mostly negative light the initiative that I just described.

Khamenei could hardly be considered to be suggesting a "moslem totalitarian world order". He is the leader of a country whose Shia religion is minoritary, and often times being persecuted in plenty of Middle Eastern country, for the most part by other Muslims. Most of his statements regarding religion are restricted to West Asia, and for the most part simply aim at defusing sectarian tensions, while defending Iran's role (normal for any person representing any country) as a peacemaking actor in the region. Trying to equate the political structure of the Islamic Republic with the transnational global governance initiatives is a fundamental categoric mistake.


Personally I'm against other nations trying to influence the sovereignity of a nation state, but if you think it is fine, then what can I say.

Your sentence has a fundamental mistake. You cannot "influence sovereignty". Sovereignty simply means the legal prerrogative of a country to apply its law and public policies over its territory.
Sovereignty is binary, you either have it and exercise it (1), or you don't have it and cannot exercise the prerrogative (0). Like all law-inspired concepts, it exists or it doesn't. No middle ground.

What you're referring to, is not sovereignty. It's the foreign policy and maybe internal law arrangements. An example should make it easier to understand:

Returning to the case of Iran, and approaching the best example of political influence in Iraq, what they're doing currently regarding the turmoil in the country, is to use proxy militias to fight of the Islamic State, while using monetary and humanitarian aid to pacify the country. It is certainly granting them a powerful status in terms of regional influence, and it is shaping (for better or worse) the internal social mechanics of its neighbour.

Is it challenging Iraqi sovereignty? No, as in legal and political terms, Baghdad has the prerrogative to administer its country however it sees it fit. Would having an anti-Iranian rhetoric hurt the Iraqi government? Probably, which is why it will likely not happen. But the legal principle of sovereignty is never brought into doubt.

A real challenge to Iraq sovereignty, is the doing of the Kurdish government in Arbil, seeing as it is using natural resources legally belonging to the Iraqi nation, and selling them without its consent, while threatening to dismember the country by creating a new State. Is it challenging Iraq's sovereignty? Yes, seeing as both the Iraq law and the Iraqi territorial integrity are both being targeted.

---
Next part of your post:

Normative behaviour is not anyhow present in my posts. You're saying you're against the Iranian foreign policy. That's fine, nobody is telling you to have a particular opinion.

What is false, however, is you saying that I'm fine with this or that. If you care to re-read my posts, I'm not here attacking or defending anything about this statement. As I said in my previous post, the point of this thread is to shed some light regarding the near future of Iran's foreign policy. It's not a matter of my opinion being right or wrong.



Why is it ok for moslems to do it, but not for western cowboys? If nothing else, I demand a equal treatment for these two sides from you.

I tried to give some meaning to this statement, but I'm afraid it's not clear what you mean.


I specifically wrote a ideological war. Do you not understand the concept?

Ideological war refers to a particular ideology or doctrine being promoted by any means necessary against any opposing ideology or belief. The best example historic example that is usually used is the Communist vs Capitalist ideologic war of the XX Century.

I don't see how it applies here, seeing as Khamenei's statement deals with local policies (opposition to feminism) and the material assets that Iran has regarding its foreign policy in their geographic region. Were it an ideological statement, Khamenei would be praising a particular doctrine (in the same way Lenin and Trotsky proclaimed global revolution ovre the same principles), while galvanizing people into attacking its opponents. Not only can you not see this militantism, but it's even hard to argue his statement is ideological by itself.

Finishing with a question might be better: What ideology is Khamenei spousing and what ideologies is he attacking? After all, that would be the basic elements of an ideological war.



Anyway only a postmodern man would not take this as a declaration of war.

Care to substantiate this please?
Postmodernism - Khamenei's statement - ideological war, seems like a tripod of analysis that barely holds any weight.

I won't comment anymore seeing as I don't understand where you're heading with it, but if you do care to elaborate and explain through full concepts, I'd be happy to address it further.


For someone who has written on the corrupting effect of postmodernism to the western world, you do not seem to understand the concept too well.

None of my threads deal with postmodernism as a philosophy. All of my threads deal with geopolitical analysis, military affairs and occasionally cultural/religious studies.



It almost looks as if you would accept anti-postmodernism only if it comes through means of Islamic ideology

I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. The only time that I recall referring to something anyhow related to this, was when I mentioned that Islam is not seen in a positive light by global elites, in one of Wadaad's topics about it.
Saying that Islam is not appreciated by some people, doesn't make me an Islamophilic person. You can ask the Muslims in the board, Wadaad most notaby, if I am such a person.


but for some reason you seem to have problems with organic forms of European anti-postmodernism

I don't know what you're talking about here.


How ie with dudes like myself

I don't know who you are or what you believe in. I've read only two of your posts (both in this thread), and thus I can't know what ideology you spouse.


who will recognize their roots and absolutely refuse to deny them over foreign, alien and non-organic values.

I don't know what you're referring to here. Please be explicit.


Indeed a postmodern man is more likely to accept Islam through his worship of the exotic

Postmodernism and exotism are two different concepts, that while possibly compatible, doesn't mean that they can be assumed to be one single thing.


in which case, fex if you were a Islamic supremacist (which I think is possible that yo are

Not only is your attempt to categorize me in petty labels unnecessary, but also terribly mistaken.


although it is equally possible that you are just another western loonie)

If you want to make psychiatric diagnosis, please use proper terminology and substantiate your claims.


you really should be thankful for postmodernism.

Postmodernism plays no role in my mind nor in my life.


I'm sorry but if Longbowman is a loonie,

Refer to what I said 2 comments above.


it does not mean that you are not a loonie too. You can not just shift guilt.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Rephrase please.


On the contrary you were attacking the man who was trying to challenge the problem and not sweep it out of sight

There were three threads opened on that exact same grooming gang, several of them with several pages of comments already. Nobody is hiding the event.
I didn't attack the poster. I merely concluded something of his motivations considering his ideological belonging and posting history.


A disgusting act in my books.

Sorry to hear.


Iran has not attacked because it is too weak for such action.

Care to substantiate this please? Was there a statement made by a Qajar Emperor about wanting to invade some place were he not hindered by material incapacity?
The only claim I know of from the last few centuries, are the lands that were lost to the Russians (previous under Persian administration) in the second decade of the XIX Century. Barely a noticeable problem nowadays.


[/IMG]

I'm not a big fan of Symbolism. Say what you want to say.


Please try to stay on topic. I am not the topic here.

You took the chance to deride all the posters and insult the nature of this thread, even though nobody asked you to come and even though you're a completely unknown person.
If you choose to sport an ill-educated behaviour and have no manners, it's a natural reaction for people to single out your flaws of character.

[Ars Moriendi]

Being consistent with his previous statement, Khamenei refuses to work with the US latest coalition, as he correctly condludes that their intentions and previous actions in the Mid East, are anything but honest and honourable:

-----------------------------------

Khamenei: Iran rejected US offer to cooperate against IS

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-rejects-us-offer-cooperate-is.html#ixzz3Djch6Qm9

http://www.al-monitor.com/files/live/sites/almonitor/files/images/almpics/2014/09/RTXTL7O.jpg?t=thumbnail_570
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei waves to the crowd in the holy city of Qom, Oct. 19, 2010. (photo by REUTERS/Khamenei.ir)

In his first statements since leaving the hospital after prostate surgery, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that US Secretary of State John Kerry had requested via Iran’s foreign minister that Iran cooperate with the United States and its coalition (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-isis-shiitte-abdollahian-syria-iraq-rouhani-coalition.html) against the Islamic State group (IS) in Iraq, and that Iran rejected the offer. (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-rejects-us-is-coalition.html)

In his post-operation interview to thank the hospital staff and express his appreciation for all Iran's officials and other figures, Ayatollah Khamenei said while he was bedridden he had heard “about the statements by American officials about the fight against [IS], which was really amusing.” He called the statements by US officials “futile, hollow and agenda driven.”

Khamenei said, “What was really amusing to me is that I saw the American secretary of state and his spokesman explicitly say, ‘We will not invite Iran in a coalition against [IS].’ First of all, what an honor for us that America is discouraged from working with us in a group effort. That in a job that they are doing, which is wrong, they don’t want us to be there. It is a source of pride, not a source of disappointment.”

“Secondly, I saw that they all lie. Because in the first days that [IS] was taking over [parts] of Iraq, the Americans, through their ambassador, requested of our ambassador in Iraq to sit down and cooperate in regard to [IS]. Our ambassador told us this.”

He said that some officials “didn’t say anything,” suggesting that they favored such a meeting. “But I opposed it,” Khamenei said. “I told them that in this particular situation, we will not cooperate with the Americans, because their hands are polluted. And in this situation, how can we work with someone whose hands and intentions are polluted?”

“After that, the secretary of state said in front of the whole world, ‘We will not request help from Iran.’ He personally requested of [Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad] Zarif to work together against [IS]. Dr. Zarif rejected it.” (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/iran-foreign-ministry-doubts-us-is-coalition.html)

He continued, “His deputy, who is a female, she asked [deputy Foreign Minister Abbas] Aragchi, during the [nuclear] negotiations, to work together. They rejected it.” By this "deputy," he presumably meant Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman.

“After we rejected it and explicitly said, 'We will not work with you,' now they say they don’t want to bring Iran in. Before this, they created a coalition against Syria. They brought together 30, 40, 50 countries and couldn’t do a damn thing against Syria. It’s the same with Iraq. They don’t want to do anything serious. The actions taken against [IS] and what broke the back of [IS] was not the work of Americans. They know this well. [IS] knows this well. The people of Iraq know this well as well. They know that it was the work of the people of Iraq. It was the work of Iraq’s military. They learned how to fight [IS] and it will be them who attacks [IS].

He continued, “America wants to find an excuse, so that what happened in Pakistan, that with an established government and a strong army — Pakistan’s army is a strong army — without permission enters Pakistan, bombs wherever it wants, wants to do this in Iraq and Syria. They should know [if they do] such a thing, the same problems that came about for them in the last 10 years in Iraq will come about again.”

[Ars Moriendi]

The "National Council of Resistance of Iran", the foreign-backed organization seating in Paris that has styled itself as an alternative government of Iran, opposed to the current Islamic Republic, has allegedly managed to get their hands on a confidential report issued by Khamenei's office, in the aftermath of his visit to Syria in September 30th.

While it is clear that any statement emanating from the NCR is bound to portray Iran in a negative light, I feel it is useful to add it here, so that we may be able to contrast the current Iranian decisions, with the various items this report had:

----------------------


Iran: Confidential report reveals Khamenei strategy for Syria and other Arab countries

http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/ncri-statements/terrorism-fundamentalism/17357-iran-confidential-report-reveals-khamenei-strategy-for-syria-and-other-arab-countries

http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/images/stories/2013/maps/syria-iran.jpg

A report by mullahs’ Supreme National Security Council on the latest developments in Syria to regime’s leaders:

Syria is our redline and the Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen axis needs to be preserved and completed at all cost to be used to encircle the rest of the Arab countries

NCRI - Following a visit by Ali Shamkhani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), to Syria on September 30, 2014 and his meetings with Bashar al-Assad and other Syrian government officials, this council prepared a report on the developments in Syria for clerical regime’s leaders.

This report emphasizes that Syria is Ali Khamenei’s redline and that in the past three years he has directed all resources to save Bashar Assad and has ordered that all necessary steps should be taken to preserve and complete the Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen ring in order to encircle the rest of the Arab countries.

Some of the points in this report are as follows:

1. The strategy of the Iranian regime remains investing in and keeping Bashar al-Assad regime in power at all cost. Khamenei has emphasized that “the Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen axis” is crucial “for the Islamic Republic of Iran and there should be no retreat in this regard” and that all “necessary measures” should be implemented to this end. It is through this axis that “we can encircle the rest of the Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Jordan,” and put pressure on countries such as Egypt.

2. The report underscores that until a few months ago, the balance of power in Syria had tilted in favor of Assad and that his enemies had weakened. The developments in Iraq, in particular the removal of Nouri al-Maliki from power and the internal problems in that country, created problems for the regime in Syria namely transfer of forces and ammunition to that country via the Iraqi territory. Moreover, the regime was compelled to return from Syria to Iraq a portion of the terrorist paramilitary forces, such as Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, Kata’ib Hezbollah, and Abulfadhl al-Abbas and Zolfaqar brigades.

3. However, the more important development was the coalition airstrikes that has changed the scene. The report goes on to add that there is this concern that if the Americans rein in ISIS and strengthen the Free Syrian Army, the situation will turn against Assad. According to Shamkhani’s report, in this trip, the subject of “how to use [coalition] airstrikes [against ISI] to the benefit the Bashar Assad regime was discussed in great detail” with Assad and other Syrian officials.

4. According to the report, following the coalition airstrikes against ISIS in Syria the morale of Bashar Assad and his commanders became very fragile and that Shamkhani’s visit to pump up their moral was quite necessary. Moreover, through this visit, the Iranian regime wanted to “convey this message to the United States and other enemies of Syria that Iran will continue to support Assad full force”.

5. The SNSC report emphasizes that it needs to obtain information on the coalition airstrikes against Syria in any way possible considering it to be “vital for the security of the Islamic Republic of Iran”. The information that the U.S. government provides to the Syrian regime on the bombings is directly passed on to the regime, the report said.

6. Since three years ago and when that the Free Syrian Army became a serious factor and the opposition gained strength, IRGC commanders and advisors went to Syria and de facto took control of “planning and commanding the operations”. The SNSC report states that the “problem in Syria could not be resolved with a conventional war. Therefore, IRGC used all its experience in conventional, urban and unconventional warfare, plus intelligence and security tactics to save Syria. Otherwise, the Syrian army would have been incapable of confronting the opposition and Assad would have been toppled in the first few months”. Two years ago, Assad’s forces were surrounded by their opposition; even the IRGC and Khamenei’s Office were surrounded by the Free Syrian Army.

7. In the more intricate operations, the IRGC commanders and operational forces would be directly present to direct the battle. Many of the IRGC and Quds Force (QF) officers and commanders who had retired or were busy elsewhere in the government returned to IRGC and were transferred to Syria. The IRGC drones collect extensive information on the opposition to further enable Bashar Assad forces to attack them.

8. According to this report, all measures in Syria are coordinated by Ali Khamenei and his Office and he directly issues orders to the QF and its commanders. Khamenei has ordered Qassem Suleimani, Commander of the QF, to consider Syria as his main task. Moreover, He “totally devoted to Syria Commander Hamadani whom all of you gentlemen are familiar with his eminence and his reputation”. Suleimani regularly travels to Syria and there is this saying among Syrian officers that “when Haj Qassem Suleimani is here, we sleep well at night”.

9. According to this report, Khamenei has allocated to Syria the military and political budget and expense of a country and as such “Agha [Khamenei] has stated that Syria is our redline. Had it not been for the leader’s wisdom, everything would have been finished by now” and in that case, we would have faced a calamity in Iraq and Lebanon and “even Tehran would have been affected”.

10. In most military and operational areas and in every checkpoint en routes and between cities, there is a special lane that regime’s military and IRGC elements in Syria pass through by showing their “Iranian National Identification”. Syrian military and security forces hold great respect for the revolutionary guards and consider them as their commanders.

11- In addition to the presence of the IRGC forces and their commanders in Syria as well as training Assad forces in Syria, the IRGC transfers a large number of Assad forces who are primarily from the Alawites Sect to Tehran in groups and returns them to Syria subsequent to going through rigorous training courses (from one to seven weeks). In Syria they are organized in operational groups similar to Basij Force in Iran to fight against the Free Syrian Army. In the beginning they got engaged in the fights under the pretext of defending Shrine of Zeynabieh and subsequently began to fight in defense of Assad regime. Syrian forces go through training in Iran in Imam Ali Garrison.

12- The participation of Turkey in the coalition and the vote by the Turkish Parliament for participation in the coalition and in particular the possibility of involvement of Turkish ground forces into Syria, is very dangerous for the future of Assad . The Iranian regime should prevent the more active intervention of Turkey by utilizing all of its resources.