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

[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/orig...#ixzz3Djch6Qm9


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 against the Islamic State group (IS) in Iraq, and that Iran rejected the offer.

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.”

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-stat...arab-countries



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.