Iran: Khamenei's ban of nuclear weapons binding

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A religious decree issued by Iran's supreme leader banning nuclear weapons is binding for the Iranian government, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday, suggesting that the edict should end the debate over whether Tehran is pursuing atomic arms.

Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said the West must understand the significance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's edict for Iran: "There is nothing higher than the exalted supreme leader's fatwa to define the framework for our activities in the nuclear field."

"When the highest jurisprudent and authority in the country's leadership issues a fatwa, this will be binding for all of us to follow," he added.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran, said last year that Tehran is not seeking atomic arms. He called possessing such weapons a "sin" as well as "useless, harmful and dangerous."

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-15-05-35-42

[oberliner]

1. Scary

Supreme Leader (unelected - and for life) deciding state policy by fiat based on religious beliefs?

"There is nothing higher than the exalted supreme leader's fatwa..."

Wow.

[djean111]

2. Yes, we would never decide and legislate things here in the United States based on the religious

beliefs of a minority of people led by unelected supreme leaders........anyway, this will, of course, be belittled by those who are lusting to go to war with Iran.
Evidently countries can go to war because of religious beliefs, but cannot abstain from war due to religious beliefs.
As always, the term "trust but verify" applies.

[oberliner]

4. I should hope not

Checks and balances. Elections. Much better than the dictator model.

[djean111]

5. We are dictated to by special interests all day (and night) long.

Even elections are tempered by blackmail from the "other side".
States are legislating according to the religious beliefs of some people.
Dictator - corporations, banks, the 1%

[leftynyc]

9. Can you name one law

in any of the 50 states that are religious based that affect national security - or even state security? Be specific - which law, which religion?

[djean111]

12. I never narrowed that down to just security. Or just religion.

I am thinking about abortion laws for now. And the creeping in of laws that say bullying is okay if homosexuality is against one's religion. Laws that forbid gay marriage. Churches with so much money. like the Mormons, that they can seek to affect legislation.
I am thinking of regulations flouted and loopholes purchased by banks and corporations.
Doesn't seem to matter who has been elected.

I don't see anything wrong with a fatwa that forbids atomic weapons.
Doesn't matter who issued it.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

27. When elections are rigged,

when the electorate is lied to and information withheld, there is little difference between governments.

[happyslug]

16. "Unelected"?? Not by popular vote, but like the US President indirectly

The Supreme Leader is elected (and can be dismissed) by the "Assembly of Experts". The "Assembly of Expert" are popularly elected, through like all Iranian elections, the candidates are vetted before they are put on the ballot (i.e. you must meet the approval of the existing members of the assembly to get on the ballot). Please note, while this sounds foreign to American eyes, it is consistent with Shiite practice on selecting Religious leaders for the last 1000 years.

More on the "Assembly of Exports":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Experts

More on the position of "Supreme Leader":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

[oberliner]

21. Yes - unelected

And yes, consistent with the practice on selecting Religious leaders.

Incidentally there have been exactly 2 (two) Supreme Leaders of Iran since the revolution 33 years ago.

The first one held the position until his death.

The current one has held this position of absolute power for 23 years.

[kooljerk666]

3. He sounds more rational than most elected Americans.............

and their nuke armed lapdog allies.

[oberliner]

6. Perhaps we should adopt Islamic law as the law of the land as well

Or maybe the New Testament?

Perhaps we should turn things over to the Pope.

[polly7]

7. Wait ........... do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? nt.

[oberliner]

8. Uh, no

But when you have a country where one man's word determines national policy without debate or questions, whose to say that one man won't wake up one day and decide that The Deity has now said nukes are the way to go? It's a scary system which can be (and has been) abused.

Having complete power and authority in the hands of one unelected individual whose rulings are based allegedly on "holy books" and a Deity is pretty frightening.

Maybe the Deity says one should lie to non-believers?

[happyslug]

17. Shiites are NOT fundamentalists

Shiites, are "followers of Ali" that is they supported Ali and his descendent's in Ali's claim that as Mohammad's son in law (and married to the ONLY child of Mohammad to live to adulthood), Ali should have been the successor to Mohammad instead of the first three Caliphs. Ali was the Fourth Caliph, but he was overthrown by the Umayyad Dynasty. From that point forward, the Shiites and the Sunni broke into two different branches if Islam. The main difference was the Sunni religious leadership and political leadership were one and the same (occasionally different, but it that case the Religious leader is picked by the Political leader).

Shiites, being a minority, developed an independent religious hierarchy, they are almost as use to the concept of separation of Church and State as most "Christian" nations (I use the term "Christian" to mean those states whose religious tradition is Christian, and as such have always had a separate religious hierarchy from their political hierarchy). Most Sunni Moslem Nations tend to have one religious and political hierarchy, thus the concept that Church and State being two different things is foreign to those nations (and mostly imposed by Colonial powers in the 1800s, and rejected by many Sunni Nations ever since).

Now, unlike most "Western" Nations, the Shiites in Iran have tried to interconnect their religious and political hierarchies but at the same time keep them separate. It is NOT the combined hierarchy typical among the Sunnis, but it is also NOT the separation of Church and State typical of the West.

One side affect of this is that detail knowledge of the Koran is a mark of a Scholar of Islam, the Koran is subject to modification but only by religious leaders and then only after review by other scholars. You do NOT have one man saying, "This is what God told me". That is foreign to Shiite Islam (and Sunni Islam), they have to cite the Koran, but other factors can be cited.

Thus the tradition of Shiite islam is a check on what the Iranian Supreme Leader can do. Much like the Pope, it is hard for a successor to rule that a predecessor erred on a religious ruling, AND for that reason such decisions are NOT made until it has long been debated. Like the Pope, no Supreme Leader is going to make a ruling without it being reviewed by other scholars first (and this is where the Assembly of Exports come into play). They will debate it, refine it and then decide to issue it or NOT to issue it.

Yes, the debate is NOT open to the public except when one of the experts may bring up the concept to see how people view it (i.e. a trial balloon). On the other hand, while the debate is not open to the public, it is rare for the public NOT to know that the debate is going on. The experts will discuss the concept among themselves and seek out other people as to the issue. Much like how the Supreme Court of the US makes its decision, the justices debate it among themselves, listen to people who want to make comments (The parties to the litigation, the various Amicus briefs filed by other experts). While the topic is known the the public and some of the points on the subject is known to the public, the members of the Court debate it among themselves NOT in public.

Thus once a ruling is made, it would be difficult for a successor to reverse it. Not impossible (Even the US Supreme Court has reversed itself) but difficult like the US Supreme Court when it comes to reversing a prior decision.

[oberliner]

20. I don't recall using the word fudamentalist

I object to the idea of one man, who was not elected and who has the position for life, having absolutely authority on his word alone - and claiming to utilize "holy texts" in his decision making process.

I cannot imagine how anyone who calls themselves a progressive could feel otherwise.

[iamthebandfanman]

10. its called morality

you dont have to have a religion to have some

its morally right to ban nukes

you know darn well nobody is saying america should be a theocracy

[Sekhmets Daughter]

28. We are in the process of doing so. (Turning things over to the pope)

Perhaps you are allowing Islamophobia to cloud your thinking here? This is good news...for everyone concerned.

[Crowman1979]

11. Well this puts a cog in the MIC machinery!

Now all the warhawks in DC can't use that "Iran wants a nuclear war" phrase without impunity.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Sure they will.

They will claim that release was a lie, if it gets legs and media attention, if it doesn't, down the memory hole it goes.

[I love weed]

14. Ummm...

It was an obvious lie. Basically they are just trolling the world, believing themselves to be untouchable. I can't believe some here are seriously debating the merits of this d-bag's words. haha

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Personally I think they have every right to develop a nuclear weapon if they can afford it.

Might keep us up out of their shit for a while. Given that we kicked over their legitimate government in 1952, of all the countries out there, they certainly have just cause to want a deterrence against us.

But no, I tend to trust that statement, insofar as I understand how their government balances power.

[oberliner]

18. Wow - Pro-nuclear proliferation posts on DU.

Who woulda thunk it?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. If it wasn't for the behavior of our own country

I would never contemplate it.

Since we started it... possessed as a deterrence to keep US in awe could be beneficial, in this case.

[Mosby]

23. So according to your logic

if every country in the world had nukes there would be no more war?

And if Islam forbids nukes then how does the ayatollah explain Pakistan?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

No, I said it would keep the US out of Iran's backyard. We violate their airspace all the time, and keep two carrier groups within strike distance of them, at all times. Mysteriously, shit keeps blowing up inside their country, etc.

We are meddling in the destiny of the Iranian people, and producing the very outrage (in blowback) that keeps people like Ahmadinejad in scotch and scones. We should stop that. One way for that to happen, would be for Iran to successfully detonate a nuke in an underground test. We'd be the fuck outta there overnight. Hell, we've even drawn down our presence in South Korea, after N.K's successful or semi-successful test.

I don't care how the Ayatollah explains Pakistan. I know that Pakistan and India now have deterrence against one another, and the fighting has subsided, so MAD is a workable possibility, until cooler heads prevail.

[Mosby]

22. people here need to read up on Al taqiyya

[zellie]

25. You got it....spot on.

Some people call it by another name...

Unmitigated bald face lying bastard .

[kelliekat44]

26. OMY!! What will the PNACers do now? What will Bibi do without a war on Iran? nt

[oberliner]

30. Yes, let's all just take the Supreme Leader at his word

Who needs inspections?

[zellie]

29. What a lying punk.

Funny hoe he doesn't let the IAEA inspect the sites?

He couldn't be hiding anything ?

I suspect if an iranian nuclear weapon was pointed at the US , this thread would be a whole different.

But since its aimed at "those people" ,
no problem.

[oberliner]

31. Amazing how trusting some folks are of The Supreme Leader

So much distrust (rightfully) of so many RW politicians, yet this RW politician/dictator's BS is accepted uncritically.