Khamenei, 'Lies' and War

Iranians have lived with the concern of war for several decades. Living in an environment where the likelihood of war is high has many political, economic, cultural, social, and military consequences. Psychological and emotional issues are one of the lasting consequences of living in such a situation. Those who care about Iran and Iranians have always warned that our thoughts, words, and actions should be such that the country can emerge from this situation. However, Ayatollah Khamenei, in his role as an opposition to the government of Hassan Rouhani and critic of the nuclear agreement, addresses the issue of war differently. On 27 Bahman 1395 (February 16, 2017), he said: 'Whether during the previous US administration or the current one, one of the enemies' tricks has been to constantly threaten war; and that the military option is on the table, and so on. That European official also tells our officials that war in Iran was inevitable; if it weren't for the JCPOA, there would definitely have been war; pure lies! Why do they say war? So that our minds go to war [but] real war is something else; real war is economic war, real war is sanctions, real war is taking away areas of work, activity, and technology within the country; this is real war. They direct us to military war so that we neglect this war; the real war is cultural war.' Rhetoric from figures like Saeed Jalili, Mohsen Rezaei, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and others, who are now speaking against the JCPOA due to elections, do not understand that the election of 30 Khordad 96 (June 20, 2017) is over, but their anti-imperialist slogans and denial of the nuclear agreement will not solve any issues or problems. This claim is false, and there is ample evidence to demonstrate its falsehood. Consider a few examples: First - According to WikiLeaks documents, the King of Saudi Arabia asked George Bush to 'cut off the head of the snake' with a military attack on Iran. George Bush explains in the thirteenth chapter of his book 'Decision Points' that when he traveled to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries in January 2008, they called for a military attack on Iran, and when he met with King Abdullah and other members of the Saudi royal family, they protested against a report from seventeen US intelligence and security agencies in 2007 that stated Iran's nuclear program had been entirely peaceful since 2003. Bush writes that he told the King of Saudi Arabia: 'I too am angry at this report. The National Intelligence Estimate had not only undermined diplomacy but had also tied my hands militarily... After the National Intelligence Estimate, how could I justify a military attack to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country that the intelligence community had denied the existence of any active nuclear weapons program? I do not know why the National Intelligence Estimate wrote such a thing. I did not know whether underestimating the threat posed by Iran was due to their efforts to avoid repeating their mistakes in Iraq. I certainly hoped that intelligence analysts would not interfere in politics' (George Bush's Memoirs, Decision Points, translated by Hossein Vaziri Sabzevari, Hamzabans Publishers, p. 535). Second - Barack Obama repeatedly stated (for example here, here, here) that we had three options: first - negotiate and reach a nuclear agreement. Second - increase crippling sanctions. Third - a military attack on Iran. Obama explained that increasing crippling sanctions would ultimately lead to a military attack. This is because Iran would continue to expand its nuclear program under sanctions, leaving no option but to bomb military nuclear sites and the occurrence of war. Other American officials have also repeatedly pointed out this issue. Wendy Sherman stated in an interview on October 14, 2016, that the meaning of the nuclear agreement is that American youth will no longer have to go to war with Iran. Joe Biden - Obama's Vice President - also said that if Iran violates the nuclear agreement, the use of all scenarios currently on the table will become much stronger. Third - Netanyahu - the Prime Minister of Israel - has repeatedly intended to launch a military attack on Iran, especially in the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, when military officials, Mossad, Shin Bet, and President (Shimon Peres) opposed him. (See these sources: here, here, here). Netanyahu has become very active again and speaks everywhere about the necessity of Arab unity with Israel to confront Iran. Fourth - If the danger of war did not exist and was 'pure lies,' why does Khamenei address it? Why does he speak of standing against attacks and retaliatory actions? Why does he remind system officials that instead of scaring the people, they should give them hope to stand against military aggression? A few examples below are the best refutations of his recent claim: a - Khamenei said on 6 Ordibehesht 1385 (April 25, 2006): 'At one time, the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation were threatened with military attack, war, and such things; they still do sometimes, not that they do not; but they know how much damage this would cause them... I say here now: Americans should know that if they attack Islamic Iran, Iran will harm their interests wherever possible in the world. We are not the kind of people who sit idly by while someone hits us; we are people of peace, people of calm, and we do not attack anyone; the reason is clear; let them see; which country have we attacked? Which country did we start a war with? Which country have we threatened? We are not people of these things; but we are people that if someone strikes, we will respond with double intensity.' b - Khamenei said on 14 Khordad 1387 (June 3, 2008): 'Today, look at the behavior of American leaders - the President and his team - see how they speak. Their speech is like that of crazy people; sometimes they threaten, sometimes they order assassinations, sometimes they slander, sometimes they desperately ask for help, sometimes they target the stability and security of a nation; like madmen, they swing back and forth. Their behavior is not that of logical, wise, and prudent politicians. Of course, a significant part of this reflects America's failures in various regions: failure in Afghanistan, failure in Iraq... Well, what should be done in the face of this bullying? Imam's recommendation is to stand firm.' c - Khamenei said on 25 Shahrivar 1389 (September 16, 2010) in a meeting with members of the Assembly of Experts: 'The people's spirits are good. Today, motivations are very high. If God forbid a war occurs that requires the presence of people and youth at the front, then you will see that our youth today, who are the third generation of the revolution, will have courage and sacrifice no less than the youth of that day; perhaps even more... Give hope to the people and assure them. If the people become hopeless, lose their trust, become unsettled, defeat is certain. What keeps the fighter, the warrior at the front is hope. They must have hope, know that they can achieve victory. This hope must be kept alive. The main factor of victory is the presence of the people; the factor for the presence of the people is their hope and confidence. This hope must be strengthened in the people; people should not be scared; people should not be made pessimistic, made distrustful.' d - Khamenei said in his Friday prayer sermon on 14 Bahman 1390 (February 3, 2012): 'Let me say one sentence about these American threats. They constantly threaten; they threaten in this language: all options are on the table! That is, even the option of war. This is a threat of war in this language. Well, this threat of war is against the interests of America; the war itself is ten times against the interests of America. Why is this threat against the interests of America? Because these threats themselves indicate America's inability to confront logically and in discourse; they have no discourse in front of the Islamic Republic's discourse; they cannot create dominance for themselves in the field of logical and intellectual confrontation; they are forced to resort to force and cling to force. This means that America has no logic other than force; no way to advance itself other than bloodshed... Of course, they and others should know - they know too - that we also have threats in response to the threat of war and the threat of oil sanctions that will be applied at the right time, when necessary, God willing.' e - Khamenei said on 30 Farvardin 1394 (April 19, 2015): 'The other side is brazenly threatening us with military action; brazenly, they constantly threaten military action; for a while, they were silent, then a few days ago one of them opened his mouth and started talking about options on the table and military options. Well, they boast, they make this excessive mistake, and then they say that the Islamic Republic should disarm itself of its defensive power; isn't this a foolish statement? Even if they did not explicitly threaten us, it was necessary, according to the command 'Prepare against them whatever you can of power and of tethered horses,' for us to think; even if they did not threaten, we should have made this vigilance, increased these preparations; now that they are explicitly threatening, we must do so.' f - Khamenei said on 26 Aban 1395 (November 16, 2016) referring to Donald Trump's victory: 'America is America; whether this party or that party comes to power, they have never brought us any good, only harm. One imposed sanctions, another bombed, one attacked an oil platform, another supported our enemies. We have no worries; we are, by God's grace, prepared to face any possible incident. Some in the world are mourning why the elections in that country turned out this way [meaning Trump's victory]; some [are] happy and rejoicing. We neither mourn nor rejoice; it makes no difference to us. We think about how to guide the country through potential problems.' The unified voice of the Trump administration is that a new era of confrontation between the US and Iran has begun. Caution in speaking and acting is the least condition of rationality in such circumstances. Trump and his Secretary of State are also deal-makers. Three of the generals in his cabinet participated in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why can’t the tangled knot between Iran and America be untied with this administration? The nuclear agreement and the sidelining of military attack The nuclear agreement not only sidelined the scenario of a military attack by the US, but Netanyahu also completely went to the sidelines and remained silent until Donald Trump's arrival. Trump has a dual policy. On the one hand, he has adopted the slogan 'America First' and says: 'We have fought for others for years and defended them but neglected our own people. I want to increase the security of my country. With the cost we incurred in the Middle East, we could have rebuilt America three times. Look at our foreign policy. Have we won any wars in these years? I am looking for a successful foreign policy for America.' But on the other hand, he is strongly opposed to the nuclear agreement and has taken very harsh positions against Iran. Trump wrote that Iran is playing with fire. Obama was kind to them, but I am not. Mike Pence, Trump's Vice President, referred to Iran alongside North Korea as a 'threat' to Western security and way of life. He said Iran, as the 'main state sponsor of terrorism,' continues to destabilize the Middle East and that lifting nuclear sanctions has helped Iran have more resources for this. Mike Pence, in an interview with the ABC network's This Week program, said that Iran better not test Trump. He added that Tehran should reconsider its hostile actions and deeds. When asked by the presenter what he meant by testing Trump, he referred to ballistic missile testing and support for the Houthis in Yemen. When asked what reaction the US would show to these behaviors, he warned that President Trump has said that all options are on the table. Mark Pompeo - the head of the CIA - also has very harsh positions against Iran. For example, see this documented report from Haaretz. Pompeo said on January 12, 2017, that 'Iranians are professional at cheating.' He meant cheating in implementing the nuclear agreement. The positions of the majority of Republican Congress members towards Iran, if not harsher than Trump's cabinet, are certainly not milder. They are trying to make the JCPOA ineffective for Iran by permanently increasing economic sanctions. Some of them believe that by passing sanctions under other pretexts, the leaders of the Islamic Republic will consider the JCPOA a non-achieving agreement and will violate it. In this case, the path to war will be opened. Shouldn't the people be worried and afraid? Khamenei, the military, and his followers say that people should not be scared of war. Why? Is war like a romantic relationship where gambling is worth it? Iran is not strong internally because it is not democratic. Because it does not adhere to freedom and human rights. Because it has institutionalized discrimination. Because it has made corruption deeply structural and widespread. What does scaring people about war mean? Scaring people means preparing them for surrender and submission, right? It is a warning about the consequences and outcomes of actions. Do doctors not inform people about the consequences of smoking or becoming alcoholic? What are all these warnings about fast food consumption for? What are all these warnings for people who do not exercise? When people are scared in these matters, should they not be scared about war?