In his press conference
today, IRGC Commander Maj. Gen. Aziz Jafari in a response to a question by the
AP reporter, made a thinly veiled threat that Iran might be ready to add
nuclear weapons to its arsenals. This is what he said:
“The nuclear capability of
Iran, from the security point of view, is at an acceptable level, and (an
attack by Israel) cannot cause a serious blow. (But) if the international
organizations do not prevent the Zionist regime (Israel) from undertaking (an
attack), Iran would also revise its (nuclear) obligations, and the situation
will change,” said Gen. Jafari.
Iran has insisted that it
does not have a nuclear weapon program and does not intend to build the bomb.
Today’s comments by Gen. Jaffari opens the possibility that Iran could indeed
go nuclear is Israel attacks its facilities. Israel, on the other hand, wants
to attack the facilities to prevent Iran to go nuclear.
17 comments:
What this article is implying is typical of yellow press sensationalism.
The revision is about the NPT and it was distictly expressed and your title is Nonsense.... I stopped reading and I suggest everyone to first read what was issued by Iranians and not have it stuffed down your throats from second hand NOT Iranian wanna be journalists.
Dariush London
So much for the nuclear weapons being "haram" state,ent by khamenei.
It goes to show that religious statements are subject to political exceptions, as it would be expected when you mix religion with politics.
Darius London,
Gen. Jaffari's portfolio does not include NPT. He is not the country's diplomatic spokesman, but speaks for on defense matters.
On NPT, when head of the military says "the situation will change," what can you read into it except what we did here.
It's probably the yellow color of your lenses that you see the piece as yellow journalism!
Nader and Jabbar, this is the actual quote regarding the NPT:
"If the world and international organizations fail to prevent such an attack [by the U.S. and Israel], it's natural that Iran's commitments would naturally change and the situation would be different from the past. These are the risks and consequences that such an attack will bring about, and these matters would be a deterrent."--Jafari
He went on to say that this does not mean that Iran would build a nuclear weapon. --per Associated Press
Mark,
The quote I use in my post is my personal translation of ISNA's original Farsi quotation of Gen. Jafari's remarks. Do you have any problem with the translation? Do you get a different sense of what he was trying to convey?
In the quotation I used, he was not talking about the NPT, he was saying if attacked (by Israel), Iran will revise its nuclear obligations and the situation will change. I read that as a thinly-veiled threat that if Israel thinks by attacking us they will stop our ability to build bomb they are mistaken. On the contrary, he was implying, if they attack we will be forced to build the bomb.
هرگز به سمت بمب اتمي نخواهيم رفت
فرمانده سپاه در پاسخ به پرسش خبرنگار لس‌آنجلس تايمز كه پرسيد "آيا شما كه مي‌گوييد در صورت حمله اسرائيل در تعهدات خود تجديدنظر مي‌كنيد منظورتان خروج از ان‌پي‌تي است؟" گفت: اگر نهادهاي بين‌المللي نتوانند جلوي اسرائيل را بگيرند، ديگر ايران خود را متعهد به تعهدات خود نمي‌داند و البته اين بدان معنا نيست كه ما به سمت بمب هسته‌يي برويم. ما درباره حرام بودن بمب هسته‌يي حكم شرعي داريم و ايران خود را تابع احكام اسلام و قرآن مي‌داند و حتي اگر آن را داشته باشد هم اجازه استفاده از آن را ندارد، چراكه استفاده از بمب هسته‌يي به مفهوم كشته شدن مردم بي‌گناه بي‌شماري است و ما هرگز به سمت بمب اتمي نخواهيم رفت
Dariush London
@dariush
"حتي اگر آن را داشته باشد هم اجازه استفاده از آن را ندارد"
"even if he has it (the bomb), it's use would not be permissible"
Whatever happened to never acquiring the bomb?!
When the fourth branch of government in Iran, the revolutionary guard, throws a sentence like this, out of no where, in an interview, it is meant to convey something.
In my opinion it's he initial step of a of language shift in Iran from "never acquiring the bomb" to "never using the bomb".
Not surprised to see an al-ahwaz separatist/terrorist selcetively picks a sentence and misrepresents the content into an unfortunately often mistranslated nonsense.
As long as the USA uses you people as its sources of analysis, there shall be no peace anywhere..... you guys are evilminded and self oriented beings.
You have no integrity and honor, .. you simply have a blog which you abuse to sporead anti Iran propaganda.
I herewith quite my visits to your site.
Azari by fortune and Iranian by Grace of God.
Dariush London
@dariush
I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that your keen Logic, and insight will be missed.
Ahvazi by fortune, etc etc, wherever the heck that means!
Mr. J. Fazeli
You do not speak for everyone as you wish to claim, because for example, I have different views than yours.
IRAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVISE ITS COOPERATION WITH THE IAEA AT PRESENT, BECAUSE THE IAEA HAS ALREADY BEEN SERVING AGRESSORS NOT A NEUTRAL CAUSE.
For more my views, please read my comment at neighboring article...
Dissident
@dariush 7:46
Welcome back!
Does that mean Dariush now =dissident?
A kind of a misnomer, but who am I to judge.
Ha Ha Ha!!
The "Dissident" AKA "Daruish"knows when a ship is about to sink!
Abandon ship!
Mr. J. Fazeli 7:50PM
The Blogger.com may provide you with approximate locations and addresses of persons commenting on this blog. If they cannot then the special agencies use to do it.
I am not Dariush London, however so far I am supporting his views.
Dissident (born far east of London)
The quotation used in this post is the original and exact translation from Farsi from the comments made by Gen. Jafari as quoted by ISNA. The title of the post is the exact translation of ISNA's sub-title on Jafari's reference to revising the obligations, taken from the general's address. Gen. Jafari's comments are very clear and to the point, although we appreciate that anonymous readers can also explain them for us.
This is a historic address by Jafari, on Syria, on Iran's reaction to Israeli attacks, and on recent developments in the Arab World. On Iran's espouse to Israeli attack, which was the topic of this post, his points are clear:
Damage to Iran's nuclear facilities will not be major. Iran will react to such an attack, which would be launched under the justification of stopping Iran from building bomb, by revising its nuclear obligations, and the situation, vis-a-vis the nuclear question will change. I read this as thinly threat to Israel that we will make the bomb if you attack. You are welcome to read it in any other way.
BTW, saying the use of the bomb is haram, and actually building it are not contradictory. Definitely getting all ready but taking the last step to build the bomb, the so-called Japan option, is not contradictory to saying the use of bomb is haram. Even its use under defensive conditions could be justified religiously, hence the Japan option. So let's take religion out of the equations here, the issue is political not religious.
Darius London,
I do not understand why you’re so angry with us. You are the one accusing us of following yellow journalism, repeating what’s stuffed down our throat, separatist/terrorist, evilminded and self oriented beings, with no integrity and honor, spreading anti-Iran propaganda. And all these in reaction to a single post, and disagreement with an analysis! I am glad don’t live in Iran, because similar language against an analysis offered by say Kayhan, would have led you to Evin!
We are saying: The language used in Gen. Jafari’s comments represents a sea change in nuclear policy and could be the start of a new conversation inside the country that under the current conditions the so-called Japan option might have become obsolete and the conversation instead should shift from not building the bomb to not using the bomb. You do not be angry at this analysis, you can offer your own. I have a hunch that your anger is caused by gen. Jafari’s comments and not our analysis. You wanted him to keep the possible new strategy under wrap.
Notwithstanding all the insults you have delivered against us within few hours and on a single post, you are still welcome to post your comments if you change your mind, hopefully rational and well-reasoned comments this time.
In regard to Mr. Uskowi statement that Gen. Jaffari's portfolio doesn't include NPT, I would like to mention that the Supreme Leader during his meetings, after the new Iranian year started, urged officials to comment in public, on the current national matters...
Therefore, I do not think Gen. Jaffari is forbidden to make comments in general way without specifics.
Regarding Gen. Jaffari's comments
I would interpret his words that way:
RE: "These are the risks and consequences that such an attack will bring about, and these matters would be detterent."
Gen. Jafari had meant that a detterent (for the world and intl. organization) will be a change in Iran's commitments in regard to the NPT;( if they want to take that risks).
Because he said that it doesn't mean that Iran will build nuclear weapon, the only left interpretation of his intention; at this time, can be interpreted that the world community will be deprived of inside inspections as a form of punishment (or humiliation) for its complacency and a support for the West's positions.
He may tried to convey a point, that present cooperation with the IAEA (required by the NPT); which doesn't benefit Iran in any dimension. will have to change, due to the facts that the IAEA's positions helped the West to proceed with its aggression against the Iran.
Suspension of cooperation with the IAEA would be a detterent and revoking of the membership in the NPT will only be a formality.
Of course everything may change and different possibility may emerge in regard to a development and a severity of situation.
If the IRAN BECOMES A VICTIM, the international community will have to anticipate (accept?) that posibility in their minds...
In continuation of my post at 5:49AM, I would also like to add that Gen. Jafari's words such us:
- "The nuclear capability of Iran from the security point of view, is at an acceptable level and(an attack...) cannot cause serious blow..."
I would interprete those words that he meant, that because we dispersed our facilities (last year Gen. Vahidi also ordered relocation of key organizations and equipment to different locations (tunnels?)) and transfered sufficient numbers of new centrifuges to the Fordo facility, our nuclear capability, from the security point of view, is at an acceptable level...
He has also meant that in a case of an attack, the key components for the enrichment will survive.
Like earlier Gen. Firouzabadi underlined, any final decision and orders can only be issued by the Supreme Leader...
I am also wondering whether, the Supreme Leader's previous fatwa will be modified (in a case after an attack) that it will permit an deterrent, which must not be used against any civilian populations...
Dissident
Post a Comment