IRAN’S APPROACH ON KARABAKH PEACE AGREEMENT

 

Strategic Council Online – The former Iranian ambassador to the Republic of Azerbaijan said: At the present juncture, the Islamic Republic should seek lasting peace over the Karabakh issue and the differences between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and ‘no war no peace” is not in the interest of any country in the region.

Speaking in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations regarding the recent Karabakh agreement, Mohsen Pakaein said: The agreement reached in Russia between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia, especially some of the provisions that have been implemented so far, are in fact the same views expressed by the Islamic Republic of Iran; that is to say, the same views that were mentioned in the Iranian plan and Mr. Araghchi, Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran, had consulted about it with different countries. In addition, the key points of the agreement had earlier been mentioned in the IRI Supreme Leader’s statements. According to the expert, ending the occupation of seven cities of the Republic of Azerbaijan, safeguarding the territorial integrity of that country, as well as no change in the accepted geographical borders, are the points that have already been implemented and have been supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The former Iranian ambassador added: The recent 45-day war was led to the liberation of seven occupied cities of the Republic of Azerbaijan and brought happiness to the people of that country, but the failure of the liberation of Karabakh destabilized this happiness.

Pakaein added: The important issue that has been raised in this plan which may lead to war, insecurity and ceasefire violations again is the uncertain situation in the Karabakh region; it means that it is not clear which country will hold the sovereignty of this region.

Noting that the Republic of Azerbaijan naturally considers Karabakh as a part of its territorial integrity, the expert on Asia affairs said: Azerbaijan’s main demand is that Karabakh should be returned to that country as an autonomous republic. At the same time, the self-proclaimed government of Karabakh, with the support of Armenia, insists on separating the region from the Republic of Azerbaijan. Pakaein continued that until the situation in not specified in the region the conflict will continue and implementation of the remaining provisions of the plan will automatically become ambiguous.

In response to the question that what changes will take place if this plan is implemented, the former ambassador of Iran to the Republic of Azerbaijan explained: In the first place, if this plan is fully implemented, peace will be established in the region. This peace is positive for all countries in the region and promotes regional cooperation and convergence. Of course, in the first step, this peace is very important for the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Because these two countries have been at war for years, and both, especially Armenia, have greatly suffered from the consequences of the war.

Noting that peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia also has benefits for the Islamic Republic of Iran, he stressed: Firstly, in terms of security, the country’s borders are secured, and secondly in economic terms, it gives Iran the opportunity to cooperate and participate in the reconstruction of the seven devastated cities in Azerbaijan, which are located 500 meters or one kilometer from Iran.

If the Islamic Republic of Iran acts prudently and with sound planning, it will have a good opportunity, the expert continued.

While rejecting some speculations that following this agreement, Iran’s transit advantage will decrease, Pakaein said: Iran’s main transit advantage is the north-south corridor and vice versa, which connects Azerbaijan and Armenia to the Sea of ​​Oman and the Persian Gulf. In this regard, Iran earns transit income.

He continued: At the same time, due to the war, Azerbaijan had been forced to cross the territory of Iran to go to Nakhchivan, and it seems that from now on Azerbaijan will use this alternative route, and this is again in the interest of the Islamic Republic of Iran; because Baku does not want to use only one route and make itself completely dependent on Armenia in terms of transit.

In conclusion, the former Iranian ambassador to Baku stressed that at the present juncture the Islamic Republic should seek lasting peace over the Karabakh issue and the differences between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and “no war no peace” is not in the interest of any country in the region.

در زمین رژیم صهیونیستی بازی نمی‌کنیم اما انتقام پابرجاست

 

قدس آنلاین: ترور دانشمند هسته‌ای و یکی از سرداران عرصه علم و دانش کشور شهید محسن فخری زاده قلب مردم ایران را جریحه دار کرد. مردمی که هنوز داغدار ترور سردار قلبها قاسم سلیمانی بودند بار دیگر زخمی بر صورت خود دیدند که این بار از سوی رژیم صهیونیستی بر چهره آنها کشیده شد.

امروز یکی از مطالبات مردم دلیر ایران از مسؤولین شناسایی عوامل ومباشرین و مجریان ترور شهید فخری زاده است. مسؤولین دولتی و امنیتی باید به سرعت این موضوع را دنبال کنند که رژیم صهیونیستی در این ترور چقدر دخیل بوده است؟ چه کشورها و چه افرادی دراین ترور با رژیم صهیونیستی همراهی کرده‌اند؟ آیا رژیم صهیونیستی به صورت مستقیم در این موضوع دست داشته یا با همراهی کشورهای دیگر و اذناب داخلی صورت گرفته است؟

قطعاً مقامات ذی ربط در جمهوری اسلامی در حال پیگیری موضوع هستند و این سؤال‌ها به طور کامل به افکار عمومی پاسخ داده نمی شود. از سوی دیگر آنچه دراین بین مهم است هوشیاری مسؤولین و رصد تمامی اخبار و وقایع مرتبط با این موضوع در سطح منطقه و در سطح جهان است.

درواقع با شناخت همه جانبه و ترفندهایی که ممکن است علیه ما به کار گرفته شود باید تصمیمات واقدامات همه جانبه ای برای مقابله با دسیسه‌های دشمن اندیشیده شود.

به هر حال ممکن است دشمن با ترور شهید فخری زاده انتظار به دام انداختن ایران را برای ورود ما و منطقه به یک تنش و بحران طولانی مدت را داشته باشد لذا انتظار می رود مسوولین جمهوری اسلامی با توجه به رصد و تحلیل تمامی ابعاد حادثه تصمیمات لازم را اتخاذ کنند.

قطعا بقای رژیم صهیونیستی در منطقه وابسته به تنش آفرینی و بحران زایی است از این رو تداوم امنیت و صلح در منطقه روز به روز بیشتر منجر به زوال رژیم صهیونیستی می‌شود. از این جهت لازم  است تا با شناخت و بررسی هر چه بیشتر ابعاد و برنامه های پشت پرده دشمنان دست آنها را برای انجام اقدامات و ضربات بعدی ببندیم چرا که بارها مشاهده شده رژیم صهیونیستی برای پیشبرد مقاصد خود در منطقه اقدامات تروریستی را ادر کشورهایی مثل لبنان یا سوریه و بعضا درایران انجام می‌دهد.

امروز مطالبه انتقام اصلی‌ترین  مطالبه مردم است، درعین حال مدیریت بحران نیز یک مساله مهم است. این مطالبه مردم به جاست، آنها نگران سلامتی فرزندان و دانشمندان این مرزو بوم هستند که در تیررس ترورهای دشمن قرار می گیرند. این  مطالبه باید از سوی مسؤولین به درستی پاسخ داده شود و مسؤولین ذی ربط امنیتی و نظامی بعد از بررسی‌های لازم  تصمیم نهایی خود را به اطلاع مردم برسانند.

بی تردید جمهوری اسلامی ایران چه در موضوع انتقام خون سردار شهید قاسم سلیمانی و شهید علم و دانش فخری زاده حق انتقام دارد. رژیم صهیونیستی باید متوجه عواقب اعمال شنیع خود باشد از این  رو لازم است مسوولین جمهوری اسلامی ایران در این موضوع تصمیمات جدی را اتخاذ کنند، هر چند در حمله به پایگاه نظامی عین الاسد در شهادت سردار سلیمانی بخشی از انتقام گرفته شد اما نظام جمهوری اسلامی ایران به صراحت اعلام کرد که انتقام راهی انجام نشده است، بنابراین کماکان بحث انتقام سردار سلیمانی دردستور کار است، ممکن است این انتقام به سرعت انجام نشود اما قطعاً از خون سردار سلیمانی و شهید فخری زاده نمی گذریم.

برنامه ریزی و تدبیر در انتقام خون فرزندان عزیزاین مرز و بوم موضوع حائز اهمیتی است ضمن اینکه باید به این موضوع آگاه باشیم که در زمین رژیم صهیونیستی بازی نکنیم، بلکه براساس شناخت از ترفندهای رژیم صهیونیستی اقدامات لازم را به منصه ظهور برسانیم.

?UK, France & Germany: Defenders of peace or mass producers of WMDs

•  

Following the statement made by English, French and German authorities about the peaceful nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran – where they repeated the same groundless and unreasonable accusations – Ayatollah Khamenei mentioned in his speech delivered on November 24, 2020, “While England and France possess destructive nuclear missiles – Germany is also moving in the same direction – they say to us that we should not have missiles. What is it to you? You should go correct your own behavior and then, you can talk.” The present Op-Ed discusses the activities of the European countries, which claim to be defending human rights, in the area of producing and selling weapons of mass destruction and the dangers that they pose to global peace.

The dossier on the building and selling weapons of mass destruction by England, France, and Germany is a hefty one. Not only have these three countries equipped themselves with weapons of mass destruction, but they have also equipped the despicable Zionist regime with them.

The report published by “The Nuclear Notebook” shows that England began its efforts to build a nuclear bomb in 1952[i]. Winston Churchill announced on February 26, 1952, that England had managed to build a nuclear bomb[ii]. At the present time, England possesses at least 225 nuclear warheads[iii].

Not only has Theresa May acknowledged England’s policy to use atomic bombs, but she has also endorsed it even if it leads to the deaths of a hundred thousand people. Guardian has reported that in order to convince the House of Commons to increase the military budget of that country by 40 million dollars, she gave her blessing to using atomic bombs. She even insisted that she was willing to push the launch button. In response to George Crowne, the representative of the Scottish National Party, she explicitly said: “If necessity dictates, I will give the order to use nuclear weapons even if a hundred thousand innocent women and children will be killed.” She added: “I should tell you honorable gentlemen that the logic behind the deterrence power is to let our enemies know that we are ready to use nuclear weapons.[iv]”

France also acquired an atomic bomb in 1960 and presently, it possesses at least 300 nuclear warheads. That country is capable of launching nuclear weapons by using fighter planes or nuclear submarines[v].

The cruise missile “ASMP-A”[vi] with a nuclear warhead of 300 kilotons is one of the French nuclear weapons and it is 20 times stronger than the bomb used by the US in Hiroshima.

In 1956, Guy Mollet, the head of the French socialist party, announced the transfer of the technology related to nuclear bombs to Israel. He reserved a room in Hôtel de Matignon for Shimon Peres to supervise that project[vii].

Regarding France-Israel cooperation on developing nuclear weapons for Israel, Thierry Meyssan - a French writer and analysist well-known for his book “A Big Lie” about the September 11 incident - says: “In 1956, Guy Mollet, the head of the French socialist party, arranged the transfer of nuclear technology from France to Israel. In the process, he reserved a room for Shimon Pere in Hôtel de Matignon so that he would supervise the transfer project.” Subsequently, France built a nuclear power plant in Dimona, a city in the occupied lands, and Shimon Peres presided over it. In the present time, the Zionist Regime possesses 80 to 400 nuclear warheads and a large number of neutron bombs.

England also helped arm the Zionist regime with nuclear weapons[viii]. As well as mutual cooperation in conducting nuclear research, it provided Israel with combustible substances. It was a Jewish scientist named Mordechai Vanunu who revealed the Israeli nuclear project when being interviewed by Sunday Times. He was abducted by MOSAD in Rome and he was imprisoned in the occupied lands for 18 years[ix].

Germany began its first attempts to build a nuclear bomb during the time of the Nazis. In his memoirs, Otto Skorzeny mentions that Nazi Germany achieved a nuclear bomb in 1943. He says, “In my private meeting with Adolf Hitler, I introduced nuclear bombs to Hitler, but he said that such bombs would lead to the destruction of the human race and that he would never give the command to produce them.” Although German researchers did not succeed in building atomic bombs, they began to build chemical weapons in 1915 and turned into a mass producer soon. During the imposed war against Iran, the transgressing Saddam Regime was supported by 35 countries in the world, one of which was West Germany. Throughout the war, Iraq launched chemical attacks on Iran 3500 times. After the end of the war, Sinntal, working on military issues in Paris, announced that 86 out of 207 companies working with the Saddam regime were German companies. In March 1967, a German weekly called “Stern” published a report on Iraq’s factory of chemical industries, with an area of 25 square kilometers, saying that the raw substances and the necessary equipment, worth approximately one billion marks, were provided by German companies – in particular by a company named Pilot Plant.

Chemical weapons were another destructive weapon developed in English arms factories. Winston Churchill clearly supported their utilization and described the opponents of the project as delicate and soft-hearted individuals[x].

England built a Hydrogen bomb, a kind of nuclear bomb, in 1957 and France did so in 1968. Today, these hydrogen bombs are active[xi].

With their dirty and notorious history of committing crimes and working with other criminals in the world as accomplices, England, France and Germany do not have the right to accuse other countries – in particular, the Islamic Republic of Iran – of building destructive weapons. Iran has always stressed the issue of nuclear disarmament in regard to other countries in the world. In his historic fatwa issued on December 12, 2010, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution declared that the utilization of nuclear weapons is haraam [religiously forbidden]. A cursory look at the text of this important fatwa dispels the claims made by those three European countries:

“In our opinion, as well as nuclear weapons, all kinds of weapons of mass destruction – such as chemical and biological weapons – are considered as serious threats to humanity. The Iranian nation, which is a victim of chemical weapons, has felt the danger of producing and storing these weapons more than any other nation, and therefore, it is ready to utilize all its resources in order to confront them. We think that the use of such weapons is haraam and believe that the effort to immunize the entire humanity against this grave disaster is everyone’s responsibility[xii].”

After Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal, England, France, and Germany were expected to show their political maturity by honoring their commitments and by separating their path from the US. Their recent position shows, however, that they have turned to threatening the Iranian nation, just like Trump, but they will certainly suffer a defeat on this path, as the US did.

 

---

[i] https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/3-october-1952-first-british-nuclear-test

https://thebulletin.org/nuclear-notebook/

https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/cold-war/page-10.html 

[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hurricane

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/26/uk-nuclear-weapons-stockpile-warheads

[iv] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-takes-aim-at-jeremy-corbyn-over-trident-renewal

[v] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/franceprofile

[vi] https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/asmp/

[vii] https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/israeli-nuclear-program    

[viii] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal

[ix] https://www.wired.com/2007/10/dayintech-1005/

[x] https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons    

https://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL5.html

[xi] https://www.britannica.com/technology/bomb-weapon

[xii] https://english.khamenei.ir/news/7105/Although-we-could-we-never-approached-nukes-because-they-re

شکست مذاکرات صلح افغانستان در دوحه با سفر پمپئو بی ارتباط نیست

 

رئیس سابق ستاد امور افغانستان وزارت خارجه تاکید کرد: هر جا آمریکا دخالت کرده توانسته مشکلاتی را بر سر استمرار صلح در افغانستان ایجاد کند.

محسن پاک آیین در گفت‌و گو با ایسنا در ارزیابی خود از سخنان اخیر سخنگوی ریاست جمهوری افغانستان که گزارش‌ها مبنی بر حل اختلافات میان مذاکره کنندگان در دوحه را رد کرده و تاکید کرد که این گفت‌وگوها با بن‌بست مواجه شده است، گفت : این که مذاکرات دوحه بین طالبان و دولت افغانستان فعلا دستاوردی نداشته و گفته می شود با بن بست مواجه شده خبر خوبی نیست چرا که انتظار بود اکنون که مذاکرات بین الافغانی بدون دخالت خارجی در حال برگزاری است، مذاکرات دوحه نتایج خوبی را در بر داشته باشد. 
وی افزود: اما این که طالبان اشکال را در قانون اساسی افغانستان اعلام کرده و همین موضوع را هم سخنگوی دولت افغانستان گفته، به اعتقاد بنده این هم دلیل مناسبی برای شکست این مذاکرات نیست چرا که قانون اساسی افغانستان که در سال 1382و بعد از کنفرانس بن مصوب شد و مورد تایید مردم قرار گرفت بر مبنای اسلامی تاکید دارد علی رغم این که طالبان مدعی است قانون اساسی اسلامی نیست.
این دیپلمات پیشین کشورمان همچنین بیان کرد: بنابراین در قانون اساسی افغانستان، نام دولت به دولت اسلامی افغانستان تغییر کرد، بر اجرای اسلام تاکید دارد و همچنین هیات های ناظری تعیین شدند تا در صورتی که قانونی با اسلام مغایرت داشت نباید این قوانین وضع شود.
رئیس سابق ستاد امور افغانستان وزارت خارجه ادامه داد: در مجموع قانون اساسی که نسبت به قانون قبلی که در سال 43 تصویب شده بود از غنای اسلامی بیشتری برخوردار است و اگر اشکالی هم داشته باشد در مورد همه کشورها چنین مساله ای است و می توان اصلاح کرد، در نتیجه این موضوعی نیست که در نشست دوحه مذاکره شود. 
پاک آیین اظهار کرد : از سوی دیگر این که گفته شد طالبان خواهان تشکیل دولت موقت است یعنی دولت فعلی را به رسمیت نمی شناسد و این مغایر قانون اساسی است در حالی که دولت فعلی، دولت قانونی افغانستان است اگر چه در زمان انتخابات حرف و حدیث هایی بود اما این دولت پذیرفته شده و در حال اداره کشور است بنابراین اگر بخواهیم بحث دولت موقت را مطرح کنیم یعنی دولت فعلی را به رسمیت نمی شناسیم و به آرای مردم احترام نمی گذاریم.
وی همچنین گفت: بحث دیگر حاکم شدن مذهب حنفی در افغانستان است، اما نمی شود که طالبان به عنوان گروه تمامیت خواه به دنبال این باشد که نظرات خود را به مردم تحمیل کند، به نظر می رسد در مذاکره دو طرف نیاز به انعطاف دارند.
این دیپلمات پیشین کشورمان خاطرنشان کرد: این احتمال وجود دارد که شکست مذاکرات دوحه با سفر پمپئو وزیر خارجه در حال تغییر آمریکا به دوحه ارتباط داشته باشد، هر جا آمریکا دخالت کرده مشکلاتی را بر سر استمرار صلح در افغانستان ایجاد کرده است.
پاک آیین با بیان این که اصرار طالبان مبنی بر این که توافق آمریکا و طالبان باید محور مذاکرات باشد، یک انتظار غیر واقعی و دور از دسترس است، ابراز کرد: آمریکا به دنبال منافع خودش در افغانستان است، اگر چه مذاکرات به بن بست رسیده امیدواریم طرفین گفت وگوها را ادامه داده و شاهد استقرار صلح و ثبات در افغانستان باشیم.