September 30, 2001
Islam's Argument: Iran Gets Its Two Cents' Worth
nytimes.com
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
WASHINGTON
EVER since the attacks of Sept. 11, the Bush administration has been exploring whether Iran will be on the American side in its
war on terrorism. Iran shares a 560- mile border with Afghanistan and supplies weapons and other support to factions opposed to
the de facto Taliban government, and its cooperation in such a coalition could be crucial. So when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme
leader and the most powerful official in the country, delivered a speech on the matter last Thursday, administration officials were listening
closely.
The speech, delivered to the families of "martyrs" killed during Iran's eight-year war with Iraq, was alarmingly virulent and greeted with chants
of "Death to America." But it could also be heard as a carefully crafted expression of realpolitik aimed at a domestic audience, just as
President Bush's speech to Congress had been a week before. And it left open the possibility of cooperation under the umbrella of the United
Nations.
Excerpts follow, drawn from a transcript provided by a United States government translation agency.
On how the global news media distort the truth:
The wave of global propaganda and political moves continuously fan the flames of biased propaganda reports. The media are controlled by a
particular group. World newspapers, radios and television stations are controlled by capitalists, and the rich and powerful.
They are not in the hands of individuals, or intellectual, pious or wise people.
On the arrogance of America, one of the ayatollah's favorite themes:
The behavior and remarks of the American government and officials concerning this incident were very arrogant and pretentious and continue
to be so. Of course, their dignity has been badly harmed, their security reputation has been badly dented, but those are not reasons for
resorting to their arrogant image in order to compensate for their humiliation. They put on a very angry face to tell the people of the world that:
"O people of the world, we are angry and you do not dare say anything that would contradict what we are saying." . . . An example of what
they say is that whoever is not with us is with the terrorists. That is very wrong.
Ayatollah Khamenei assailed what he called the anti-Islamic posture of the United States, and took exception to President Bush's initial
characterization (later dropped) that the war against terrorism was a "crusade."
If your information apparatus is so powerful that from the early hours the radio and television in America spoke in such a way that everyone
believed that it was the work of Muslims, if you are so powerful in information gathering, then why were you not able to determine this
widespread operation, which has definitely taken months and, some even say, years to plan. . . .
The American president in his first remarks said that this was a Crusade. The Crusades are the wars which the Christians set out from Europe
to capture Bayt al-Moqqades [Jerusalem]. Those wars lasted for 200 years. In the end, however, the Christians and Europeans were defeated
by the victorious Muslims who forced them out of the region.
A crusade means a battle between Islam and Christianity. Why should a senior official be so inconsiderate and unrestrained in his speech if he
did not have any ill intentions?
The ayatollah dismissed the American demand that the world join its war on terror:
Now that they have been attacked, the Americans expect the entire world to cooperate with them. Why? Because their interests have
experienced a blow. . . . Have you ever respected the interests of others, that you now expect everyone to respect yours? In today's world, is the
possession of cannons, guns and missiles a permit for a government to say: It has to be what I say and nothing else. . . . It is these things that
have made America detestable. . . . Many times they have trampled on the interests of different countries, including our country, and now they
are saying that the whole world has to cooperate with them because their interests have come under attack.
America, in fact, is hypocritical about terrorism, he argued. Consider the way it treats Israel:
American officials . . . define terrorism incorrectly. They define terrorism in such a way that the massacre of the people of Sabra and Shatila
— two Palestinian camps in which men, women and children were all massacred one night on the orders of a person who is at present at the
head of the usurper Zionist government [Prime Minister Ariel Sharon] — is not terrorism. . . . Many times the Israelis have kidnapped and
killed people in Lebanon. That is not considered as terrorism. A few months ago the usurper government approved that certain Palestinians
should be assassinated . . . and they assassinated them. They blew up their cars, they killed several people. All that is not considered terrorism.
More evidence of what the ayatollah perceives as America's two-faced attitude toward terrorism is found in the 1988 downing of an Iran Air
civilian airliner by the American warship Vincennes, which killed all 290 people on board. The United States maintained it was an accident, and
the commander was given an award for exceptional conduct during his command:
The Americans say: We have no good and bad terrorists, all terrorists are bad. But in practice they themselves divide terrorism into good and
bad. In the skies of the Persian Gulf they shoot down an Iranian airliner with hundreds of passengers on board, without any reason or excuse.
They blow up the airplane, tear the people into pieces and drown them in the sea — a clear case of terrorism. But then they give the
commander of the warship an award.
Where can mankind take that grievance to? Not only do they not put them on trial, not only do they not admonish them, not only do they not
apologize to Iran, but they give an award to the commander of the warship. That is good terrorism.
There are also signs that America has a hidden expansionist agenda:
Evidence shows that the American government intends to repeat what it did in the Persian Gulf in this region — that is, in Central Asia. They
intend to come and establish themselves in this region under the pretext of a lack of security here.
Ayatollah Khamenei explained why Iran would not participate in any coalition led by the United States:
I am surprised how they have the audacity to ask the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian nation to help them. Over the past 23 years,
you have employed everything and all your might to inflict blows on this nation and this country. Now you expect us to help you? What help?
. . . America's hands are soiled with all the crimes committed by the Zionist regime in the recent years. . . . Such a government lacks the
necessary qualification to lead an international movement against terrorism. Everybody should know this, and our country's officials have also
stated this in private gatherings and meetings.
Nonetheless, there must be a wide campaign against terrorism:
Of course, the fight against terrorism and the fight against those who undermine the people's security is an essential fight. . . . But this is a
global movement and therefore should have a pious leader. Over the past few days our officials have declared that we are ready to help and
join this movement under the auspices of the United Nations. Yes, let me say that the U.N. is good, but there is one condition. And that is, the
U.N. should not be influenced by America and other major powers. Otherwise, if the U.N. and its Security Council or other departments were
to be influenced by the American administration and other major powers, one could not trust the U.N. either.
Yet with more than two million Afghan refugees on its soil, Iran is opposed to an all-out war in Afghanistan:
The innocent people of Afghanistan have committed no crime. Are the lives of those who died in the World Trade Center in New York more
precious than those of the people of Afghanistan? Why? Is it because their collars are dirty? Is it because they have been deprived of hygiene,
nourishment, peace of mind and security, all because of people who for many years were lackeys of the big powers? Is that the reason? . . .
The people of Afghanistan are freedom-loving, with a very rich and ancient culture. . . . The Afghan people should not have to pay for sins
committed by the terrorists. |
