Iran Policy Committee press release
31 October 2005
Contact: Prof. Raymond Tanter
[email protected]
The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for the annihilation of the State of Israel. Speaking on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 to a “World without Zionism” conference attended by some 3,000 students who chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to America,” Ahmadinejad conjured up his vision of a world at war. Using a variety of negative terms to describe Israel, he grouped it and the United States as being a part of an ideological war between the “Arrogant World Order” and “Islamic rule,” adding that, “Very soon, this stain of disgrace [Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world—and this is attainable.”
Ahmadinejad stated that, “Our dear Imam [The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder the Iranian Revolution] said that the occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map, and this was a very wise statement.”
Ahmadinejad’s behavior takes on an even more sinister cast because he repeated his threats against Israel on the day the clerical regime in Tehran calls “Qods Day,” (Jerusalem Day). Islamists who rule Iran designated Qods Day as the last Friday in the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which fell this year on 28 October 2005. Ayatollah Khomeini used Qods Day to rally the Revolutionary Guards and street militia to frenetic displays of hostility toward Israel, and the current Supreme Leader, Ali Khameini, has directed his president to revive and go beyond the earlier practice.
Ahmadinejad’s threats to wipe a country as small as Israel literally off the map must raise urgent concern about Iran’s nuclear weapons progress. Consider revelations by the pro-democracy Iranian opposition, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) and its associate coalition umbrella group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), about Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program. The MEK/NCRI revelations, consistently corroborated over the past three years, have brought to public awareness Iran’s uranium conversion facilities at Isfahan; enrichment activities at Natanz, with thousands of centrifuges awaiting installation; heavy water facility in Arak; and deep underground tunnels to hide Iran’s nuclear program from the prying eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
As October comes to a close, there are also claims by a German monthly magazine that Iran has been allowing more than two dozen senior al Qaeda leaders, including three sons of Osama bin Laden, to roam freely about Tehran. If true, these revelations deepen concern about the Iranian regime’s intentions, given its increasing military capabilities.
A suicide bombing in Israel came just hours after Ahmadinejad’s call for violence: Five Israelis were killed by a suicide bomber from the terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). This group is almost totally dependent upon Iran for financial and logistical support and took part in the Jerusalem Day Rally in Tehran at which Ahmadinejad repeated his threats against Israel.
Add to these examples of Iran’s continuing support for terrorism the early October 2005 issuance of a direct threat to the United States and its allies by Brigadier General Muhammad Kossari, who heads the Security Bureau of Iran’s Armed Forces: In a statement of 11 October, Kossari warned that Iran had identified “all the weak points of our enemies” and had suicide operation volunteers “ready to strike at these sensitive locations.”
The escalating rhetoric from Tehran coincides with the consolidation of power under the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since the June 2005 assumption of the presidency by Ahmadinejad. Consequently, there has been an increased role for members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which now controls all principal levers of power in Iran. The IRGC has responsibility for Iran’s nuclear weapons programs and Shahab missiles. The result is greater repression at home and greater risk-taking abroad.
The Middle East Times of Egypt acknowledged that Ahmadinejad’s “comments have been hugely damaging for Iran, already under intense Western pressure over its nuclear energy program—suspected as being a cover for weapons development—and facing the prospect of seeing the issue referred to the UN Security Council.” And an editorial in Egypt’s Al-Ahram states that if the Iranian president feels concerned about the Palestinian lands, “then it is best for him to stop interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs.”
One theme from the Arab press is that Ahmadinejad has simply restated the doctrine of revolutionary Iran under Ayatollah Khomenei. But Ahmadinejad’s threats go well beyond those of Khomenei’s empty threats of the 1980s; with Iran’s military buildup and nuclear weapons programs, Ahmadinejad’s threats have a credibility Khomeini’s lacked 25 years ago. Ahmadinejad even threatens moderate Arab leaders. On Sunday, 30 October, he said that those Islamic state leaders who acknowledge the sovereignty of the Israeli State, following the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, would stand against the Islamic world.
But official reaction from the Arab world to Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel is so muted as to imply support. According to numerous media reports, many senior officials from Arab countries, when asked by journalists about their reaction to Ahmadinejad’s statements, declined to comment.
A notable exception among Muslim voices comes from Maryam Rajavi, elected President of the Iranian Resistance. Madame Rajavi described Ahmadinejad’s remarks about Israel as incitement to war: “From the onset of Ahmadinejad’s Presidency, the Iranian Resistance warned that the mullahs had made the decision to step up suppression of the Iranian people and…war against the international community.” Rajavi said.
• In the event Ahmadinejad fails to cease repeating unacceptable threats, the United Nations should follow up on its 28 October Resolution that said: “The Security Council condemns the remarks about Israel attributed to Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
• If Tehran does not respond appropriately to the UN Security Council Resolution of 28 October 2005, which condemned Ahmadinejad’s threats calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, Professor Raymond Tanter, Co-chair of the Iran Policy Committee and also with Georgetown University, stated that, “The Security Council should consider adopting measures under Chapter Seven of the Charter, which would make it obligatory on all Member States to comply.”
• “An American diplomatic initiative to Iran is the wrong signal at the wrong time to the wrong country,” stated Professor Raymond Tanter. “It would be a humongous mistake to show weakness to the Iranian regime that would further embolden Tehran, which under Ahmadinejad is a threat to Israel, the United States, and moderate Arab leaders,” Tanter added.
• “Offering to engage in U.S. back-channel negotiations with Iran would be a major mistake, for it would send a counterproductive signal that would encourage Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad to continue consolidating their power and not only making, but perhaps acting upon, additional threats to Israel and the United States,” stated Clare Lopez, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee and former CIA officer.
• “Rewarding this regime with a U.S. back-channel diplomatic approach after it has made so threatening and destabilizing a statement will just encourage the regime. Not reacting strongly enough to the Iranian challenge is just like not reacting strongly to al Qaeda in the 1990s… it encouraged al Qaeda to do more and will have a similar effect on the Iranian regime. We need to learn and then incorporate into action the lessons from our past mistakes,” said retired Navy Captain Chuck Nash, a co-Chair of the Iran Policy Committee.
• “A political solution in Tehran based on the Iranian opposition would provide a shot in the arm for failing diplomacy and delay consideration of more forceful options, which seem increasingly appropriate in light of Ahmadinejad’s call to eliminate Israel,” stated Bruce McColm, co-Chair of the Iran Policy Committee and former Executive Director of Freedom House. “The United States should empower the democratic Iranian opposition by delisting the Mujahedin-e Khalq, and thereby tighten the political screws on the regime,” added McColm.
