Rafsanjani strongly rejects Iran's meddling in Iraq affairs
Tehran, Dec 24, IRNA -- Chairman of the Expediency Council (EC) Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Friday strongly rejected charges that Iran is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs, and termed remarks to that effect as "the most absurd".
Rafsanjani, in a sermon at Tehran Friday prayers, said the remarks that Iran is seeking intervention in Iraq are propagated by the "mercenaries and affiliates" of the US, adding that this is a "historic atrocity" against Iran.
He said those who raise such comments are themselves 'US appointees,' but accuse Iranian pilgrims who have risked their life to visit Iraq's holy sites of false charges.
Rafsanjani recalled the issue of elections in Iraq and the occupied territories of Palestine, and regretted that there are evil elements that are trying to prevent people in those countries achieve their rights.
"Secret hands are trying to stop Iraqi elections. And because they know holding elections is the demand of the people, particularly the Shiites, they do evil things in Karbala and Najaf; the things that saddens every oppressed," he told worshipers at Tehran University campus.
"Of course, doing these evil things shows that they have been disappointed."
Rafsanjani said nobody inside Iran tells the Iraqi people to vote for any specific group, stressing that Iran always advises all nations to participate in the elections to promote their self-determination.
"That they accuse Iran of interfering in Iraq for this encouragement is merely the propaganda of the US," he said.
Rafsanjani's remarks that Iran is not interfering in Iraq's internal affairs closely follow those by Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi that such charges suit the US that has invaded the country.
Kharrazi told reporters upon arrival in Beirut airport that there is a certain level of affinity between the Iranian and the Iraqi people which stems in their mutual bonds.
However, he stressed, this should never be translated as Iran's interference in Iraq.
Kharrazi reiterated Iran's urge on all ethnic groups and religions to strongly participate in the next month elections in Iraq, stressing that the Iraqis should indicate that they are a strong and mature nation and can control the affairs of their country.
Kharrazi says Iran not interfering in Iraq's internal affairs
Beirut, Dec 24, IRNA -- Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi here on Thursday rejected that Iran is seeking interference in Iraq's internal affairs, stressing that such charges suit the US which has invaded the country.
Kharrazi told reporters upon arrival in Beirut airport that there is a certain level of affinity between the Iranian and the Iraqi people which stems in their mutual bonds. However, he stressed, this should never be translated as Iran's interference in Iraq.
Kharrazi expressed hope that people from all ethnicities and religions strongly participate in the next month elections in Iraq.
He added that the Iraqis should indicate that they are a strong and mature nation and can control the affairs of their country.
On the reason of his visit to Damascus and Beirut, Kharrazi said that foreign ministers should always be prepared to consult with each other, adding that he was visiting Syria and Lebanon to consult with the officials of those countries.
"Regional developments are so much and happen so fast that we will have to get into regular contacts with each other," he said adding that all countries should consult with each other for discussing the issues of the Middle East and Iraq.
In a response to a question about US threats against Iran, Kharrazi said such threats are nothing new adding that nobody will take these threats seriously.
The Iranian foreign minister, heading a delegation, arrived in Beirut on Thursday night.
The Unquenchable Light
December 24, 2004
Iran va Jahan
I picked up the telephone to talk to a friend right after a French television station aired an hour-long programme about the Shah*. I asked her how she liked the programme and she broke down crying and could not stop to say anything. Watching the programme was not easy for me either. I sat on the edge of the sofa glued to the television swallowing my tears and watching a chronological account of the beginning and end of a man who was the king of my country for thirty-eight years.
Why me, my friend and many other Iranians feel so passionately about the Shah? We were not part of his so-called inner circle to be missing the royal glamour we were once surrounded with. Speaking for myself, I do not give two hoots for royal glamour or any other forms thereof. Neither are we pining for the cushy jobs, we had while the Shah was in power and mourning our deprivation of those positions now that he has gone. I and many of my peers were high school students when the Shah left the country and were not yet of an age for employment. Our parents also had to work hard to make ends meet. No, the affection we have for the Shah has nothing to do with material considerations. It has everything to do with the love we have for our homeland.
The Shah was not a president, a mere ruler or head of state. He was a living manifestation of the continuity of our civilization. And what is that supposed to mean you might say? And you will be right in your skepticism. One hears a great deal of cant rattled off about our "ancient Iranian civilization" stretching from Greece and Egypt across Central Asia to India and so forth. This kind of talk is only tiresome claptrap. A great deal of it is highfaluting self-aggrandizement of people who hide behind the laurels of their forefathers. It can be meaningful only if the present achievements succeed in making a logical connection to the traditions and cultural heritage of the past. And a glance at the current state of affairs in our country obviously shows that this connection is non-existent. Ergo our cheque from the bank of ancient glories would bounce miserably.
So what after all do I mean when I say that the Shah was the manifestation of the continuity of our civilization? I mean he was the living representation and the custodian of an identity that was balanced on the three pillars of religious faith, national heritage and political tradition. He was the personification and upholder of that trinity that provided Iranians with their unique sense of selfhood setting them apart from other cultures and civilizations. The Shah was absolutely right when in a 1979 discussion with Sir David Frost, in answer to the celebrated interviewer's question about what in his opinion was the common bond uniting the Iranian people, he answered 'The crown, the king'.
For the past quarter of a century deprived of its Shah, that keystone of its national trinity, Iran has been writhing in the throes of degeneration and backwardness. It has by no means lived up to its creative potential and true national aspirations. A look at the low morale of the dispirited Iranians living in their homeland or abroad shows the extent of this decay. The ever climbing rate of suicide, drug addiction, prostitution and family violence demonstrates how the moral foundation of our country has been disturbed and its central assumptions been thrown out of whack. If watching old movies of the Shah makes Iranians break down in tears, it is because of a huge emptiness in their national soul that yearns for fulfillment and repair. For the same reason Reza Pahlavi's website is visited by thousands of Iranians everyday and Shahbanou is greeted by throngs of her compatriots wherever she goes.
The people of a nation can go from day to day, double and triple the size of their population, even materially prosper and nevertheless remain dispossessed of something essential in their collective soul. To continue as a living civilization however requires something quite different. The Shah was a symbol and a proof of that stubborn Iranian spirit that had stood up to all foreign invasions and resisted all the trespass to its cultural integrity. It had survived the Greeks, Mongols, Arabs, Turks and the Communists because it held on to a spiritual core of national values which was more powerful than any of those formidable foes.
What the mullahs represented was also an important part of this core. Shia Islam at its best like its Zoroastrian predecessor was a strong pillar that held up our national identity and provided us with a unique set of spiritual, moral and mythological values. These values like the monarchy itself are not measurable in utilitarian terms or by mathematical charts. Nevertheless their worth to the well-being of our culture has been inestimable. Anyone who denies this is either intellectually or emotionally out of tune with the Iranian situation.
The Shah himself was aware of that delicate structure that rested on religious faith, national heritage and a political tradition. Although he was following a secular programme for modernization and development of the country, not only had he nothing against the thoughtful branch of the Shia Islam, he did his best to support and promote it. Thanks to the Shah's special attention the city of Mashhad, the burial site of the 9th century Shia saint Imam Reza gained high prominence as a magnificent pilgrim city and a reputable center of religious learning. The peaceful spiritual leaders in Qom were far freer in the time of the Shah than during the dictatorship of Ruhollah Khomeini who started the repressive custom of keeping his fellow ayatollahs under house arrest. Even Khomeini himself as the leading exponent of the most backward fanatical branch of violent shiaism had nothing worse to fear from the Shah than an exile into a holy city in the country's neighborhood.
One should never make the mistake of thinking that the eventual downfall of the Shah proves that he was wrong in allowing so much power and resources to the country's major religious faith. Apart from being a sincere believer himself, his astute mind provided him with a long- term vision and a far reaching insight into the delicately forged balance that kept the country together, territorially, emotionally and spiritually.
Contrastingly, the mullahs who opposed him could not see further than the tip of their noses. They could only think of short term gain, seizing the reigns of power and holding on to it as long as they could manage it. They failed to see, or could not care less about the long term interests of the religious faith they claimed they were trying to safeguard. They could not see that the heartlessness and emotional sterilization they were instigating against the Shah could eventually pave the way for their own departure. If a nation with 2,500 years of monarchy could bring itself to get rid of such a highly significant national symbol as the Shah, it could also manage to jettison a foreign religion with much less seniority. A parent who mistreats his spouse in front of the children could not expect to gain their love but should understand that he is eroding the sense of respect, family honor and fidelity that will one day come to haunt him. As the saying goes 'what goes around comes around'. And the time for the end of Islamic faith at least in its present form has come around in Iran for quite some time. It is not a secret to anyone that the mullahs are derided and despised by the majority of Iranians. They hold political power by intimidation and repression and not because they are entrusted to do so by the free will of the population.
What kind of Shia Islam can be expected to emerge after the dust of the present dictatorship has settled in Iran is not an easy question to answer. Whether the religion of the majority of Iranians will be able to recreate itself and be born anew sometime in the future depends on many different factors. In its intelligent progressive form it will have a better chance of survival through the restoration of that political system which itself draws its strength from traditional values i.e. the constitutional monarchy. What is certain is that after their inevitable liberation from the present dictatorship, Iranians will never accept to give religion the overwhelming sway it once exercised in their political life. The concept of Shia Islam as the official religion of the country is finished. For that matter, the Iranian monarchy also in its old overarching form has for ever come to an end.
Today we Iranians are sitting amongst the ruins of twenty-five years of national turmoil. To prevail as a civilization we have to pick up the pieces and recreate our national trinity of God, the Shah and country for the democratic age of the twenty-first century. To think however that we can dissolve this trinity, reduce its number or concoct something else altogether instead is to repeat the folly of the Islamic revolutionaries.
A secular republic with no imaginative roots in our national consciousness for Iranians will be like a loveless marital contract full of clauses and sub-clauses but ultimately bereft of any binding emotional attachment or heartfelt yearning. We cannot build the future of our nation in a spiritual vacuum, forgoing its true sources of cultural inspiration and vitality.
What is certain is that multi billion dollar investments are not the only thing we require for rebuilding our country. We need to make an attempt to identify and heal our festering emotional wounds. We need to scrutinize the truth beyond the clouds of falsehood propagated in the past twenty-five years by political opportunists and religious terrorists.
A good place to start is to consider clearly and free of fanaticism the place of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the history of our modern civilization. Such an understanding is essential for our moral recovery. It will enable us to come to terms with our past and proceed in the direction of creating a just, fair and humane society.
The Shah stood at the political helm of our country for nearly four decades, giving us his youth and old age. He bestowed on us all the intellectual and emotional energy his life could muster. The least we can do for him is to give him the recognition he deserves.
* Le Shah d'Iran: un homme à abattre, by Reynold Ismar, broadcast on France 5 on 05.12.2004.