Ayatollah Is Correct: Babylon the Great Will Fall (Rev 17)

---

 

Naïve to assume US as ‘insurmountable’

TEHRAN, Oct. 22 (MNA) – Leader of the Islamic Revolution has said oil has provided major powers with effective arms to impose upon the ‘independent states’ their own dictated policies.

On Saturday, President Nicolas Maduro arrived in Tehran in the evening local time after departing Baku, Republic of Azerbaijan where earlier he had discussed further oil policies with country’s officials.

Leader received Mr. Maduro late on evening where he believed that the US policies had come to a debacle in the Middle East and that it was naïve in part of independent states to imagine that the US was insurmountable; “this is a great miscalculation to see the US as invincible; resistance, perseverance, and self-confidence should contribute to efforts in part of the countries avoiding hegemonic orders to manage their problems while remaining unaffected by propaganda and pressures,” said Ayatollah Khamenei to the meeting. “Currently, the oil prices have been as weapons in the hands of hegemonic powers to impose on countries seeking to remain independent what they see as expedient to advance their interests; in the past, Islamic countries confronted the Zionist regime effectively through imposing an oil embargo on the regime, which incited huge fuss by the Europeans; today however, the same Islamic countries which are damaged economically by the oil prices rocking down are in line with US policies.”

Ayatollah Khamenei also told the meeting that despite huge costs of the war in the Middle East paid by American tax-payers and by some states in the region as well, today the US has come to feel the full force of failures on its policies, which had made the country mired on the region in the past 15 years. He turned then to Venezuelan situation where the county had pioneered anti-US sentiments in the Latin America and where there had been immense capabilities enjoyed by the country, emphasizing that Venezuela should fully use the opportunities provided by leadership of the NAM conference; “the west has no interest in the fact that NAM countries engage in more dynamism to improve relations among the member states, to which we should respond with acting to the contrary, with hopes that the future will be even better in terms of bilateral and multilateral ties,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated Iran’s strong willingness to improve ties with Venezuela with foreign ministers acting as critical in implementation of agreements.

The meeting was also attended by Ishaq Jahangiri, First-Vice President. Mr. Maduro then addressed the meeting for his part; “our late president Hugo Chavez had been calling Iran as powerful country of important place in the region; in Venezuela, people and government praise Iranians’ resistance in the face of the US imperialism; for the same very reason, they live a life of stability and in peace; however, the other countries are experiencing war, political turmoil, and terrorism,” he added. “US imperialism had been systematically interfering in Venezuelan affairs, to which our nation reacted with resistance and succeeded in finding a way out of the economic crisis gradually; regardless of who will go to the White House, the future administration will be a degenerate government which will be dangerous to the future of the world,” Maduro concluded.

SH/3803085

Who Will Take Over The Iranian Horn?

Controversy Rising on Khamenei’s Successor in Iran

ADIL ALSALMI

London- Ongoing dispute on who will run for the third Supreme Leader has been razing through the corners of the Iranian decision-making body for months now.

The controversy on who would succeed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei first sparked in light of his deteriorating health. According to “Majalla” reports, which Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper publishes parts of, debate lately went public and was a highlight in Khamenei’s recent speeches.
Referring to Kamenei’s speech at which he emphasized the necessity of the next Supreme Leader to be “revolutionary”, the Tehran Friday preacher and cleric Ahmad Jannati said that the Assembly of Experts has to arrive to a revolutionary decision.

Jannati’s undertone pointed out to the requirement of moving towards electing a successor to Supreme Leadership. Iranian politicians, prior the February General Assembly elections, had participated in open discussions on the name which would fill the post.

Observers keeping an eye on future Iranian supreme leadership developments assume that Khamenei’s underlining the aspect “revolutionary” as a characteristic to his successor validates two assumptions; one, Khamenei wishes to push forward for electing his successor while he is still alive, and perhaps he would play a personal role in who would be chosen; two, rumors on Khamenei suffering from cancer and his nearing death are true.

Many names are being proposed for candidacy, the most prominent of them include Mojtaba Khamenei, son of current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei; Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the first ever Iranian Supreme Leader and president of all institutions belonging to the Khomeini family; Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, born in Najaf, Iraq; Sadeq Larijani, Head of Iranian Judicial Authorities; and the current Iranian President Hassan Ruohani.

Khamenei Vows To Destroy Babylon (Daniel 8:4)

 
AYATOLLAH SAYS MUSLIM RESPONSIBILITY IS TO SHATTER U.S., THE ‘IDOL OF TYRANNY’

by Gregory Tomlin | 24 September, 2015
Middle East Media Research Institute/MEMRI

The graphic displayed in a letter to Muslims from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The letter instructs Muslims to take up their duty of smashing the “idol of tyranny,” the United States, and its “Zionist” ally, Israel.

TEHRAN (Christian Examiner) – Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with the ink barely dry on the nuclear deal between his country, the United States and its allies, has issued a “call” for Muslims to help destroy the “idol of tyranny” – America.

In a letter celebrating the annual pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca, known as the Hajj, Khamenei said the Hajj was a source of renewal for Muslims and it will help them shatter the idols in their lives – “the idol of the soul, the idol of pride, the idol of sexual lust; the idol of tyranny and subservience; the idol of global tyranny [i.e., the U.S.]’ the idol of sloth and irresponsibility; and the other idols that shame the precious human soul – a plan that will spring forth from the depths of the heart will shatter them. Then, liberty, honor, and health will replace dependence, hardship, and humiliation.”
Khamenei wrote in the letter, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), that American foreign policy, always “evil,” was causing war and bloodshed in the region. He also held the U.S. responsible for “displacement, poverty, backwardness, and religious and sectarian division.”
The letter contains a graphic of a smashed Statue of Liberty.

“Instead of dealing with sparking religious schism, instead of remaining passive in the face of the enemy, and instead of engaging in trivial matters, the clerics, politicians, and cultural figures [respectively] must all identify the great pain of the Islamic world, and must accept and implement the mission with which God has charged them. ”

– Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Lest the U.S. alone receive the blame, however, he also pointed a finger and Israel, charging the “Zionist regime in Palestine” with crimes against humanity.

“[The Zionist regime] continually disrespects the Al-Aqsa Mosque and tramples the blood and money of the oppressed Palestinian people,” Khamenei wrote.

“You Muslim [pilgrims] – this issue is your top priority. You must ponder it, and know that with which you are charged under [the law of] Islam. The senior clerics, politicians, and cultural figures have a weightier mission, in the fulfillment of which, unfortunately, they are remiss. Instead of dealing with sparking religious schism, instead of remaining passive in the face of the enemy, and instead of engaging in trivial matters, the clerics, politicians, and cultural figures [respectively] must all identify the great pain of the Islamic world, and must accept and implement the mission with which God has charged them.”

Khamenei said conflicts in Iraq, the West Bank, Gaza and other places are the “greatest woes of the Islamic ummah.” Ummah is the Arabic word “community” or “nation.”

“The plots of the global tyranny [i.e. the U.S.] in this matter must be identified, and ways to resolve [this matter] must be considered. The nations must demand this of their governments, and the governments must be true to their responsibilities,” Khamenei wrote.

On Sept. 23, Khamenei also said via Twitter the U.S. was a purveyor of “vicious policies” in the region. Those polices, and Israel’s “sacrilege of the al-Aqsa mosque,” he said, are the “primary issue of all Muslims.”

said Muslims should “deliberate on it and know your Islamic responsibilities towards it.”
The ayatollah is the leader of Shi’ite Muslims, but not Sunnis. He has also lashed out at “Takfiri” Muslims, or Sunnis who accuse Shi’ite Muslims and other Sunnis of apostasy.

Obama Is Correct, About Three Months (Revelation 15:2)

  
How long would it take Iran to develop nukes? No one knows the answer for sure

By Kristina Wong

Experts aren’t sure how long it would take Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

The timeframe is key to the debate surrounding the administration’s negotiations with Iran and other countries on a nuclear deal that would place limits on Iran’s program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

The Senate this week approved legislation that will allow Congress to review a deal — and to vote to disapprove it. The House will take up the bill next week.

A key factor that lawmakers will consider is the risk that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons, and they will want to know whether any deal negotiated with Iran is extending the time Tehran would need to develop a bomb.

“How far along is Iran in the weaponization process?” Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said at an April hearing. “If Iran were to enrich enough fissile material to achieve a ‘breakout,’ how long would it then take them to then build a warhead and mate it to missile? We must have answers to these questions.”

The Obama administration has warned that Iran needs just two or three months of “breakout time,” or, time it would take for Iran to have enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon.

But it would still take more time for Iran to create a weapon.

“What this means is that even if Iran crosses that line, it would still have a long way to go to have a nuclear weapon it can use, let alone a stockpile of nuclear weapons,” said Ariane Tabatabai, an associate at the Belfer Center’s International Security Program.

President Obama said in March 2013 that it would take over a year for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon.

The year-long assessment tracks with an estimate from Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. In a September 2012 address at the United Nations, he indicated it would take about a year for Iran to develop a bomb.Later that year, he switched to the earliest time estimated to get enough fissile material, which at the time he said was “six months.”

People get confused between the two definitions, of getting enough material and developing a bomb, said Frank Von Hippel, professor and co-director of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security.

There are multiple steps to getting a nuclear bomb, and producing enough weapons grade uranium is just the first step, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

Iran would also have to develop a warhead, get the uranium into the warhead, and have a way to deliver it, he said. Even then, it’s not clear whether the weapon would work, since Iran has never done any nuclear weapons testing.

Experts say they can’t assess how close Iran is to actually completing those steps, without knowing what past research it has done, and how far it went.

The agreement being negotiated is supposed to address the issue, commonly referred to as “past military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program.

Lawmakers have called for answers on how long it would actually take.

“We need to know how far along Iran progressed in their weaponization so that we can understand those consequences as it relates to other breakout time issues,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), co-sponsor of the Iran bill, said Thursday.

Negotiators last month reached a framework agreement on a deal that would extend Iran’s breakout time to a year. Negotiators are not trying to fill in all the details on a deal by June 30.

“The breakout time has become the main criterion for judging how much Iran scales back its nuclear program under a deal but it is far from being fully reliable,” said Tabatabai.

The “worst case assumption” is that Iran could build a nuclear bomb as soon as Iran obtains enough weapons-grade uranium, Von Hippel said.

He said Iran has done some research on warhead design, but without knowing how far it got, it’s impossible to know.

“Nobody knows the answer,” he said.

The Deal That Will Never Happen (Ezekiel 17)

 Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal

THE EDITORIAL BOARD
MAY 9, 2015

President Obama’s meeting with Arab leaders this week is an opportunity to reassure the deeply skeptical Gulf states that America’s engagement and probable nuclear deal with Iran is not a threat but an opportunity for regional stability.

Iran is a Shiite nation; the Gulf states are majority Sunni, and the closer Iran and the big powers get to a deal (the self-imposed deadline is June 30) the more anxious the Sunni leaders have become. On this score, Mr. Obama can offer a convincing response: an Iran restrained by a strong and verifiable nuclear agreement is a lot less threatening than an unfettered Iran.

But there is another aspect to the deal that has unsettled Gulf leaders. In exchange for limitations on its nuclear program, Iran will be freed from economic sanctions, thus unleashing billions of dollars in frozen assets and new foreign investments. The Gulf states fear this could strengthen Iran’s influence in the region and give it more resources to support militant groups like Hezbollah and continue its meddling in Iraq, Yemen and Syria, where, with Russia, it is a major enabler of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

They also worry that the United States, eager to end three decades of hostility with Iran, can no longer be counted on to guarantee their security. Here Mr. Obama’s answer is a bit more complicated. He is expected to make more explicit the security assurances, but he should flatly reject any idea of a formal pact similar to that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that some Arab leaders have pressed for. The United States must be extremely cautious about being dragged into Middle East conflicts.

Getting the balance right won’t be easy. It is one thing for Mr. Obama to say the United States will defend Saudi Arabia against an invasion by Iran. But what would America’s responsibility be if Iran uses proxies to stir trouble in Saudi Arabia, which is a more plausible scenario? There should be a clear understanding that America will not defend any of these regimes against their domestic political opponents.

The United States has already sold billions of dollars in weapons to the Gulf states and held scores of joint military exercises. More aid, and more joint exercises, lie ahead. The most important step now is to integrate the Gulf nations’ military systems so they can better defend themselves.

Iran is not the only threat the Gulf states face, or even the main one. As Mr. Obama told The Times’s Thomas Friedman, there are internal threats — “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances.” Few people see democracy taking root in the region anytime soon, but the political systems have to be made more inclusive, including for Islamists.

There is one other important point Mr. Obama can make: Iran is too often discussed as a force to be contained. Iran’s history certainly does not inspire confidence. But as Ellen Laipson, president of The Stimson Center, a think tank, has argued, the nuclear deal should be seen as “a great moment of opportunity” for the Arabs (with Israel’s tacit agreement) to embark on new regional ventures with Iran on energy, climate change, water scarcity and arms control.

If the nuclear deal is completed, the administration would try to encourage Iran to play a more constructive role in Syria. Many are skeptical that this will produce results, but testing the possibility of expanded cooperation beyond the nuclear deal is certainly worth the effort.

The Real Choices Are War Now Or War Later (Eze 17)

 False choices about Iran

By Theodore L. Gatchel 
Posted May. 3, 2015 @ 2:01 am

Over the last six years, President Obama has become a master at selling his policies by using a rhetorical device known as the false choice. Recently, however, sources normally friendly to the president have been commenting on this technique. After a speech at the Military Academy last year, for example, The Atlantic published an article titled “Obama at West Point: A Foreign Policy of False Choices.”

A more recent use of false choice involves the administration’s negotiations with Iran over that country’s nuclear program. The president has stated in many ways that the only two options available are to accept whatever deal he reaches with the Iranians or war.

That approach conveniently overlooks a number of other possibilities ranging from tougher negotiating, harsher sanctions, covert actions of various types, the threat of war and military action short of all-out war.

There have been three air attacks on nuclear reactors. Ironically, the first such attack was launched by the Iranians, who are now so worried about an attack on their own nuclear facilities. In 1980, the Iranian Air Force attacked an Iraqi reactor under construction near Baghdad. The attack did relatively little damage. Less than a year later, the Israeli Air Force completed the job.

In 2007, the Israelis repeated their success by destroying a nuclear facility being built in Syria with support from both Iran and North Korea. Initially the Syrians denied the existence of such a facility, a claim that the International Atomic Energy Agency accepted. Later investigations caused the IAEA to reevaluate its assessment, and Syria’s dictator eventually admitted its existence.

The Israeli attacks generated much outrage, but no war, probably because no one in the region wanted either to take on the Israelis or let the Iraqis or Syrians develop nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, the Iranians hid their construction efforts from the IAEA long enough to harden their most important facilities, making them more difficult, but not impossible, to destroy by air attack.

When Iraq was developing its weapons programs, a number of mysterious events occurred. Nuclear scientists were killed and explosions destroyed vital materials and equipment in European sites before they could reach Iraq. Nuclear scientists in Iran have also been assassinated, and a major cascade of centrifuges needed to enrich uranium was destroyed when a computer virus caused the centrifuges to spin out of control.

Opponents of military and covert operations claim that such measures don’t significantly set back a nation’s efforts to build nuclear weapons and only increase their determination to do so. Note, however, that neither Iraq nor Syria has nuclear weapons today. The attacks delayed their nuclear programs long enough for other events to end those efforts.

Threat of military action alone might deter Iran, but the threat would have to be credible. Unfortunately, President Obama’s failure to carry out his “redline” threat to Syria not to employ chemical weapons has weakened the credibility of any future threats he might make.

Regarding sanctions, most experts agree that the current sanctions along with low oil prices brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. Instead of using that tool to force more concessions, the administration appears ready to abandon the sanctions.

Finally there is diplomacy. Diplomacy only works in cases where a nation genuinely has no ambition to be a nuclear weapons state, a condition not likely to be shared by Iran. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine inherited the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. Ukraine gave up that arsenal in return for a 2009 agreement by Russia, the United States and Great Britain that guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s uncontested invasion of Ukraine will undoubtedly undermine confidence in future nuclear disarmament diplomacy.

Iran’s idea of diplomacy appears to be the type adopted by North Korea in which it made agreements and then violated them repeatedly in order to buy the time needed to create a nuclear arsenal.

All of the possible ways of preventing Iran from becoming another North Korea have both advantages and disadvantages. Before President Obama signs an agreement that almost certainly will lead to a nuclear Iran, he owes it to the American people to explain why his approach is better than any of the alternatives.

Anything else is simply another example of a false choice.

 Col. Theodore L. Gatchel (USMC, ret.), a monthly contributor, is a military historian and a professor emeritus of joint military operations. The views here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Marine Corps or the Department of Defense.

Iran Playing The Long Game With Yazdi (Daniel 8:3)

The Mullahs’ Contrasting World Visions

The Obama administration has built its Iran policy on the hope of “positive change” in the domestic balance of power within the Iranian regime. How realistic is that hope? One answer came last Monday when Iran’s top political mullahs met behind closed doors in Tehran

London, Asharq Al-Awsat—As Iran and the United States resume talks on a deal for Iran’s nuclear program, there are conflicting signals from Tehran regarding the Islamic Republic’s strategy.
Last Monday a group of 80 or so mullahs gathered behind closed doors in Tehran and elected a new head of a shadowy body named The Assembly of Experts.

So, why should anyone in Iran, even less in the outside world, be interested in such an esoteric exercise?

The answer is because in the current context of Iranian politics this was quite an important event.
But before we see why, let us first see what the assembly is supposed to do, and who is the man now responsible for heading it for the next year.

The assembly consists of 86 senior mullahs representing all of Iran’s provinces and has the power to appoint or dismiss the “Supreme Guide” and to supervise his performance in office and, when necessary, hold him to account.

Under Iran’s Khomeinist constitution, the “Supreme Guide” represents God’s sovereignty on earth and is given immense powers, more than any other head of state anywhere in the world. Several articles of the Khomeinist Constitution, approved in 1979, make it clear that the “Supreme Guide” is also the leader of all Muslims throughout the world, whether they like it or not.

Theoretically at least, the Khomeinist “Supreme Guide” can decide what Islam is and is not at any given time. Whatever he says is regarded as Fasl Al-Khitab (the closing of the debate), unless, of course, the Assembly of Experts overrules him, something that has never happened before.

In more practical terms, the “Supreme Guide” controls the purse strings of the Islamic Republic, one of the richest in the Muslim world. (Over the past three decades the “Supreme Guide” has supervised the expenditure of almost 1 trillion US dollars’ worth of Iranian oil income.) He must give final approval to the national budget and is the commander-in-chief of all armed and security forces. Every ministerial, gubernatorial and ambassadorial appointment must receive his assent. Though elected by universal suffrage, The president of the Islamic Republic cannot assume office without a decree signed by the “Supreme Guide.”

As Roland Dumas, France’s foreign minister in the 1980s, once put it, in the Islamic Republic the “Supreme Guide” is “everything.” “Other officials are actors playing roles such as ministers, ambassadors, etc.”

 A composite identity

But who is the new head or president of the Assembly of Experts?

He is Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, an 84-year-old member of the assembly and one of the few prominent revolutionary mullahs who have managed to combine a clerical career with a high-profile political position.

Yazdi has a composite identity. His surname indicates that his family hailed from the great historic city of Yazd on the edge of the Iranian desert, and one of the last spots in Iran to convert to Islam.
Even today, Yazd, where the largest fire temple in the world is located, is regarded by Zoroastrians all over the world as their “holy” city.

And, yet, Yazdi, who was born in Esfahan, hardly ever lived in his ancestral hometown. However, he could not be regarded as a genuine Esfahani either because while still in his teens he moved to Qom, a center of Shi’ite clerical studies, where he trained to become a mullah. There, his teachers included eminent figures such as Ayatollahs Golpayegani, Mar’ashi-Najafi and Ruhollah Khomeini, the future founder of the Islamic Republic.

His refusal to be identified with any city or province in Iran has earned him the sobriquet of khaneh-bedoush (vagabonds) from his adversaries. He has been elected member of the Islamic Majlis, the Khomeinist parliament, and the Assembly of Experts from such diverse places as Qom, Tehran and even Kermanshah, a largely Kurdish province he had never even visited.

When the mullahs seized power in 1979, Yazdi, still in his forties then, was clearly undecided about the course his career should take. He decided to hedge his bets by playing on both tables. On the political side he became a founding member and leader of the Society of Combatant Clergy, a grouping of mullahs seeking governmental office. He acted as Interim Friday Prayer leader for Tehran and managed to become a member of the Council of the Guardians of the Constitution, a star chamber-like organ that could veto laws passed by the parliament.

At the same time, however, he used his newly won prominence to establish himself as a teacher of theology in Qom with the aim of elevating his rank from a mere Hojjat Al-Islam ( Proof of Islam) to that of a full-fledged Ayatollah (Sign of God).

Over the years his investment in the theological aspect of his career produced important dividends including his elevation to the post of president of the Association of Qom Teachers of Theology, a grouping of pro-government mullahs with much political clout within the regime.

A master of career management, Yazdi succeeded in securing a finger in every pie without becoming exposed to the rough-and-tumble of political struggles. All along he cultivated the friendship of a slightly younger mullah: Hojjat Al-Islam Ali Husseini Khamenei, the future Grand Ayatollah, Imam and “Supreme Guide.”

Profitable friendship

Investment in his friendship with Khamenei provided a big dividend when in 1989, soon after Khomeini’s death, Yazdi was appointed Islamic Chief Justice, one of the top five positions in the Khomeinist system, which he held for 10 years.

Yazdi’s victory last Monday came as a surprise to many, especially because he had not even hinted at being a candidate until an hour before the secret session started.
“
This was unexpected,” said Masha-Allah Shams Al-Waezeen, a Tehran analyst close to the defeated candidate Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. “I was genuinely surprised that Yazdi won.”

Yazdi’s win was overwhelming. He collected almost twice as many votes as Rafsanjani: 47 to 24, revealing the failure of months of campaigning by the Rafsanjani faction to promote their candidate as “the inevitable winner.”

Yazdi says he had not revealed his intention to become a candidate to anyone until the time the session started. “Our system is not like what they do in infidel countries where they organize election campaigns,” he says. “In our system the Hidden Imam approaches the hearts concerned and advises them on what course to take.”

Yazdi’s claim means that he had not informed Khamenei about his intention to stand for election. Is that credible?

We may never know the full answer.

However, most analysts agree that Khamenei’s candidate had been Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, who did stand in the first round of the voting but decided to withdraw when it became clear he would not win in the second round. Thus, even if Yazdi had not obtained Khamenei’s approval in advance, it is clear that Khamenei supporters switched their votes to him in the second round.

That Khamenei must be happy about Yazdi’s victory became clear on Tuesday when the “Supreme Guide” commented on the results of the election.

“The past and present achievements of Ayatollah Yazdi show that he is eminently suitable for the task he has been chosen for,” Khamenei said.

Yazdi must have doubly enjoyed his victory because Rafsanjani, the man he defeated, had been one of his oldest and most bitter political enemies.

Despite deep political differences, the two men share many points in common. They belong to the same generation, Rafsanjani being a year or two younger. Both come from medium-rich farming families from the edge of the great Iranian desert (Rafsanjani is from Bahreman, near Kerman). Both wear white turbans, indicating their “pure” Iranian origin.

Mullahs who claim Arab ancestry through the Shi’ite Imams wear black turbans. Both Yazdi and Rafsanjani have tried to develop a double politico-religious career. The difference is that Yazdi has emphasized the religious aspect of his career while Rafsanjani has focused on the political side of his.

Yazdi has always claimed a religious title while Rafsanjani started using the title of Ayatollah just over a decade ago. Yazdi’s theological claims are more credible than Rafsanjani’s if only because the former does run a theological course in Qom while Rafsanjani has never taught any religious course.

 Business and corruption

Both Rafsanjani and Yazdi are successful businessmen, having amassed immense fortunes since the revolution in 1979.

At different times both men have been accused of corruption. In 2009, then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a live television debate, accused Rafsanjani and his family of acting like a local version of the Mafia and claimed to have “a mountain of evidence” to prove the charge. He never did. The Rafsanjani faction retaliated when Abbas Palizdar, a member of the Judicial Committee of the Islamic Majlis, accused Yazdi of corruption and money laundering. He, too, provided no evidence.
Since accusing political rivals of corruption is standard practice in most Middle Eastern countries, the charges made against both Yazdi and Rafsanjani must be taken with a pinch of salt.

What is certain, however, is the deep difference that exists between the two men’s approaches to the role of religion in politics.

Yazdi seems to be genuinely convinced that politics, and in fact everything else, should be in the service of religion, albeit the official version presented by the Islamic Republic. In contrast, Rafsanjani believes that religion should be in the service of politics. In Yazdi’s view the mosque should control the state.

In Rafsanjani’s view the state, especially in its “pure Muhammadan version” would be in the driving seat.

There is one more important difference between the two men.

Rafsanjani seems to take a good part of the regime’s religious discourse with a pinch of salt. For example, he treats as mere metaphor the claim that God created the entire universe only for the Ahl Al-Bayt (The members of the House of the Prophet Muhammad). In contrast Yazdi, in his speeches and writings, insists on the literal truth of traditions.

For Rafsanjani, religion is a mechanism for controlling the uneducated masses through a code of ethics imposed by the state. For Yazdi, religion is for everyone, educated or uneducated, rich or poor.

Often regarded as the godfather of the so-called “Reformist” faction, Rafsanjani favors openness to the outside world as long as that does not threaten the mullahs’ hold on power.

The former president has learned English and sent his children to study abroad, including in Canada, Belgium and Great Britain. During his two terms as president of the Islamic Republic, Rafsanjani steered the regime through a number of diplomatic storms with the European Union while also seeking a dialogue with successive US administrations.

Secret channel to Washington

Rafsanjani has always been interested in normalizing relations with the United States. In the 1980s he opened a secret channel with the Reagan administration in Washington and sent his son Mehdi to forge a deal with Lt. Col. Oliver North, then a junior US presidential adviser.

In contrast Yazdi has often warned against the “danger of contamination” in developing contacts with the “infidel” world.

As a leading member of the Society of Combatant Clergy, Yazdi opposed Rafsanjani’s candidacy on both occasions when the latter was elected president. Later, Yazdi also opposed the presidential candidacies of both Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, mid-ranking mullahs regarded as protégés of Rafsanjani.

Yazdi has also played a key role in vetoing Rafsanjani’s candidacy for a seat in the Islamic Majlis and, more recently, the presidency.

“For Rafsanjani religion is a business,” says Ahmad Khavarani, an Iran analyst. “For Yazdi, however, his business is religion.”

During the controversial presidential election of 2009, Yazdi supported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while Rafsanjani threw his weight behind Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former adversary. When the losing candidates claimed massive fraud, Rafsanjani endorsed their claim while Yazdi dubbed it as part of a fitna (sedition) plotted by Israel and the US.

All that shows that the choice the Assembly of Experts faced was a clear one between a strategy of closing the chapter of the Islamic Revolution in favor of normalization at home and abroad on the one hand, and seizing the opportunity to create an “Islamic superpower” led by Iran on the other.

While Rafsanjani’s discourses are peppered with jeremiads about dangers facing the Khomeinist regime, Yazdi’s tone remains triumphant. Rafsanjani warns that unless Iran changes course it would be heading for big trouble.

In contrast, Yazdi insists that Iran’s only credible adversary, the United States, is “in terminal decline” and that the Islamic Republic’s “spectacular victories in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen” indicate “a strategic shift in the balance of power at least on a regional scale.”

Interestingly, Yazdi may be outflanked by mullahs even more radical, and more starry-eyed, about Iran’s promised domination of the Middle East, than himself.

 Surprise victory

Thus, Yazdi may appear as a centrist between Rafsanjani, the advocate of compromise, and Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, who calls for “exporting the revolution” to all Muslim majority countries. (Mesbah-Yazdi is no relation of Mohammad Yazdi.)

But what is the significance of Yazdi’s surprise victory?

Pro-Rafsanjani analysts seek to minimize the importance of Yazdi’s election with two arguments.

The first, advanced by Sadegh Zibakalam, a columnist for pro-Rafsanjani daily Sharq (The East) in Tehran, is that Yazdi is elected for only one year since the whole of the Assembly of Experts will be up for election in February 2016.

“We don’t know who will secure a majority next year, Zibakalam says. “ It would be unwise to write off Rafsanjani.”

Rafsanjani himself has gone even further by claiming that he continues to wield “real influence” in the assembly.

“The real task of the assembly is to choose the next Supreme Guide whenever the occasion arises,” he said last week. “At such a moment I will have my say as a member of the assembly. I don’t need to be president of the Assembly to have my say.”

Other commentators, however, dismiss Rafsanjani’s analysis as wishful thinking.

“The main message of this election is that hardliners refuse to loosen the grip on power in key state entities,” says Hussein Rassam, a former political analyst for the British Embassy in Tehran. “And when the day comes, chances of a hardliner successor to Ayatollah Khamenei continue to remain strong for now.”

In more immediate terms, Yazdi’s election is a setback for President Barack Obama’s policy on Iran, which is predicated on helping the so-called “moderates” capture all levers of power in Tehran and gradually guiding the Islamic Republic towards normality.

Obama has hinted that he believes such a course would take around 10 years to be completed, the period fixed for the nuclear deal being negotiated with Tehran.

During that decade, Khamenei, now aged 76 and reportedly in poor health, may bow out of stage or be pushed to exit it by the Rafsanjani faction. Sources of recent widespread rumors about Khamenei’s “impending demise” have now been traced back to individuals close to the Rafsanjani faction, speculating over sequels of an operation for prostate cancer carried out on the “Supreme Guide.”

Scenario for change

The scenario that the Rafsanjani faction is trying to sell to Obama runs something like this: Rafsanjani takes over the Assembly of Experts thus holding a Damocles sword above Khamenei’s head. In 2016, the Rafsanjani faction wins a majority in both the Assembly of Experts and the Islamic Majlis while still holding the presidency through Rafsanjani’s protégé Rouhani.

Rafsanjani has publicly stated on a number of occasions that he has always favored a collegiate leadership system in which the function of the “Supreme Guide” is assumed by a group of three to five mullahs.

Such a reform would heighten the profile of the elected president of the Republic by letting him function as a genuine head of the executive branch of government while also allowing the Islamic Majlis to operate as a genuine legislature. The Council of the Guardians of the Constitution would be merged with the Expediency Council which Rafsanjani has chaired for almost 20 years.

Rafsanjani’s supporters have always seen him as an Iranian version of Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese Communist leader who helped lead the People’s Republic out of its revolutionary crisis and towards political normality and economic development. Rafsanjani has often highlighted his pragmatism, hinting that he is prepared to sacrifice ideology to the exercise of power. In 1989, when he had been elected president, soon after Khomeini’s death he surprised many by saying that he and many other political mullahs were prepared to drop their traditional clothes and wear “ordinary suits” if that were necessary for “serving the people.”

Rafsanjani wrote a biography of Mirza Taqi Khan Amir-Kabir, a 19th century prime minister, whom he regarded as his ideal political model. Amir-Kabir is chiefly remembered for trying to introduce Western sciences and rules of government to Qajar Iran in the face of stiff opposition from reactionary mullahs. Rather than trying to build up a clerical profile, Rafsanjani used the media to promote himself as “The General of Construction,” emphasizing economic development rather than religious piety.

Thus, Rafsanjani’s scenario for change includes a gradual toning down of the regime’s religious themes in favor of a new discourse highlighting economic growth, scientific advancement and social reform.

Yazdi, in contrast, believes that downgrading religious themes could lead to the inevitable downfall of the regime.

If people want economic growth and scientific and technological achievements why should they seek such things from the mullahs rather than economists and scientists?

 In any case, for Yazdi what matters above all is building a society based on religious values and governed by the Islamic Shari’a. “We did not make a revolution for economic reasons,” he says. “Our revolution was prompted by our people’s thirst for Islam.”

Rafsanjani’s scenario has always suffered from a number of flaws. First, there is no guarantee that Khamenei could be easily scripted out. By all accounts he remains the single most popular figure of the regime within its increasingly narrow support base. In any election organized by this regime and thus closed to “outsiders,” Khamenei or almost anyone he supports would win against anyone fielded by the Rafsanjani faction.

Also, there is no reason why Khamenei should not survive a banal prostate cancer. If he lives as long as Khomeini did, Khamenei would still have at least another 10 years to go, the same length of time envisaged by Obama in his quest for a deal with the mullahs.

Hamid Zomorrodi, a Tehran analyst, believes that Yazdi’s election on Monday shows that the first wheel of the change machine marketed by Rafsanjani has come loose.

“Even if Obama boosts the position of the Rafsanjani faction by giving it the semblance of a ‘diplomatic victory,’ there is no guarantee that other wheels of this ramshackle machine would not also come off in 2016,” he said.

 

Amir Taheri

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. Mr. Taheri has won several prizes for his journalism, and in 2012 was named International Journalist of the Year by the British Society of Editors and the Foreign Press Association in the annual British Media Awards.

Sanction Easing Leaves Ayatollah In Control (Daniel 8:3)

Middle East Countries Wary Of Iran Sanctions Easing, Not Possible Nuclear Weapons

Khamenei’s Iron Fist

By  Erin Banco @ErinBanco e.banco@ibtimes.com on February 26 2015 3:56 PM EST

 

ISTANBUL — While the U.S. and Israel focus on the implications of Iran developing its nuclear program, some of Iran’s regional adversaries are concerned about something else: the power that Iran’s economy, unshackled from sanctions by a nuclear deal with the international community, would exert in the Middle East. As negotiations in Geneva inch toward a possible deal in which Iran would freeze its nuclear energy program in exchange for a lifting of sanctions, Iran’s neighbors look worriedly at a huge nation that’s been isolated from world trade for decades and whose re-entry in it may tip the balance of economic power in the Middle East. 

 

With a population of more than 78 million, Iran is the Mideast’s second-largest nation after Egypt and already the second-biggest economy after Saudi Arabia. With almost two Iranians out of three under the age of 30, many of them with higher degrees, the young, well-educated nation could soon turn into an economic powerhouse.

And for countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan, an Iran released from its current economic restrictions and able to trade freely is a threat, in sectors from mining to the automotive industry. For the governments of those Sunni-dominated nations, those economic concerns also compound ongoing concerns over the growing political influence of Shiite Iran in places such as Iraq and Syria. 

Iran has grown into its current size as an economy even under an international isolation that began in 1979, when an Islamist revolution overthrew the pro-Western regime of the Shah and the occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran led to the end of relationships with the U.S. Washington and the European Union took an even harsher stance in 2012, when increased sanctions imposed as Iran went forward with its nuclear program helped cause a two-year recession.

U.S. companies are prohibited from trading with Iran, and doing so remains nearly impossible  for non-U.S. companies. Any foreign company not owned by a U.S. individual that trades with Iran runs the risk of being blacklisted by the U.S. and excluded from its market.

But that could change if the U.S. and Iran reach an agreement. Recent reports have indicated that U.S. officials are considering putting forward a plan that would restrict Tehran’s nuclear capabilities for 10 years in exchange for the easing of some economic sanctions. Analysts and lawyers specializing in sanctions said one of the first parts of the sanction structure to be lifted or eased would be the extraterritorial factor, which allows the U.S. government to punish third-party entities that deal with Iran.

If that happens, Iran would be able to import much-needed Western technology to help modernize the oil and gas sector that dominates its economy — and use that as leverage to drive an economic renaissance.

Right now, Iran is far behind other Middle Eastern countries in the oil and gas trade. The latest figures released by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries show that Iran produced 2.75 million barrels a day in January, 25,000 fewer per day than in December. Saudi Arabia produced by comparison almost 9.7 million barrels a day.

If Iran comes back in full onto the world oil market, an immediate effect is that Saudi Arabia’s industrial ambitions may suffer. Mohamad Aly Ramady, an economist based in Riyadh, said Saudi Arabia is using its revenue from oil and minerals extraction to help jump-start an emerging auto sector. Over the past two years, Saudi Arabia has worked with Indian-owned companies to begin car production in the city of Yanbu, but if Iran were able to export cars, it would hinder potential future sales of Saudi vehicles in the Middle East.

Iran has ranked for years in the top 15 largest car-producing nations, making 1.6 million vehicles in 2011, more than Great Britain and more than double Italy. Renewed sanctions then hit the nation over its nuclear energy program, and the ensuing economic slump slowed car production to just 740,000 in 2013. But Iran has shown it has the ability to make more cars than established industrial powerhouses, and if sanctions were eased it could sell them throughout the Middle East. That could help sink Saudi Arabia’s attempt to diversify away from a largely oil-based economy, after the kingdom has invested more than $50 billion in turning Yanbu into an industrial center.

For Jordan, the fear lies more in how a resurgent Iranian economy could translate into more regional clout.

Iran has for years intervened in volatile situations throughout the Middle East, giving cash and weapons to Shiite groups in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. In the latter, Iran initially propped up President Bashar al-Assad, but its intervention has turned into a fight to stop Sunni militias, including the Islamic State group, or ISIS. The humanitarian crisis created by the regime’s crackdown with Iranian support has pushed  hundreds of thousands of Syrians to flee to Jordan, which is burdening the fragile Jordanian economy.

Like Jordan, Turkey also has a major stake in the wars in Iraq and Syria, and has taken in millions of Syrian refugees since the Syrian civil war began in 2011. But the government is more worried about the possibility of Iran being able again to conduct financial transactions directly, which would cut Turkish banks out of the profitable role of intermediary.

Before the U.S. and EU implemented the latest round of sanctions, Turkey’s Halkbank, 75 percent owned by the government, was one of the main hubs for handling Iranian transactions. The few countries that still imported Iranian oil, unable to pay Iran directly, turned to Halkbank to make payments. The Turkish bank is holding on to the cash until it can pay Iranian oil sellers, and lawyers said it is profiting handsomely from millions of dollars in  interest. (The central bank’s main interest rate in Turkey is now at a relatively very high 10.75 percent.)

A deal with Iran that could end that bonanza for Turkey. But sanctions could remain in place, depending on the outcome of the nuclear talks.

The opposers of any agreement with Iran include many Republicans in Washington and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will hold a speech before the U.S. Congress next week — at the Republicans’ invitation, not approved by the White House — in which he is expected to publicly criticize the White House’s efforts to broker a deal. Netanyahu has said before that a deal is going to result in Iran developing a nuclear weapon, which Israel would never allow.

“There is a minority in Washington that just does not believe any deal with Iran can be had,” said Alex Vatanka, an expert on Iran at the Middle East Institute, a think tank based in Washington. “The problem with this view is that they have not been able to put forth a credible counterstrategy short of military confrontation.”

Everybody Except His Mother Knows This

Senior cleric: Iran has knowledge to build a nuclear bomb

Ayatollah Sayyid Ahmad Khatami

The Guardian

The Islamic republic has reached the expertise to enrich uranium not just to the 5% and 20% levels required for civilian uses but to higher levels required for a bomb, says Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami
An official site belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has quoted a senior conservative cleric as saying that Iran has attained the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb but doesn’t want to use it.

The IRGC site of Kurdistan province today quoted Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a leading cleric who often leads Friday prayers in Tehran, as telling a group of IRGC commanders in Iran’s Kurdistan province that Iran had the expertise to enrich uranium not just to the 5% and 20% levels required for civilian uses but to higher levels required for a bomb. “[We] can enrich uranium at 5% or 20%, as well as 40% to 50%, and even 90%,” he was quoted as saying. But he said the Islamic republic believed that the building of a bomb is religiously forbidden.

Turning to nuclear talks with world powers, Khatami said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, had blocked any discussion of Iran’s missile programme because the United States did not follow principles. Khatami attacked the government of president Hassan Rouhani for trying to establish formal diplomatic relations with the US and for trying to eliminate the slogan of “Death to America” from use at official rallies.

Khamenei made a religious ruling in 2005 against the manufacture or use of nuclear weapons, although the fatwa’s validity and scope have been questioned by critics of Iran internationally.
Khatami’s speech was widely covered by the Iranian press, but the remarks about Iran’s nuclear bomb-making capabilities were not reported.

White Houses Delay Allowing Iran To Obtain Nukes

Maryam Rajavi: Iran Nuclear Negotiations a Serious Threat

Tuesday, 25 November 2014, 3:31 pm
Press Release: National Council of Resistance of Iran

Failure of the year-long negotiations, seven months extension of endless negotiations, ignoring Security Council resolutions, leave the way open for mullahs to acquire nuclear bomb, entailing serious threat to world peace and security

Maryam Rajavi:

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, described the failure of negotiations by the United States and the five powers with the religious fascism ruling Iran due to unjustified concessions to the regime and flexibilities exercised in dealing with the regime and said: Ignoring Security Council resolutions and extending endless negotiations with the Iranian regime leave the way open to acquire nuclear bomb which is considered by the mullahs as a “guarantee for survival” of the regime.

Continuing with negotiations which have been going on for 12 years instead of decisiveness and intensifying sanctions amounts to taking a path which will inevitably lead to nuclear bomb. This is the repeat of the same policies and mistakes which have brought the mullahs so close to the nuclear bomb.

Mrs. Rajavi added that the mullahs’ medieval regime engulfed with internal crises and in fear of consequences of relinquishing its nuclear bomb program, in accordance with the redline set out by Ali Khamenei, will refrain from signing a comprehensive accord which would prevent it from obtaining nuclear bomb. Nuclear bomb and domination of Iraq are vital for the Godfather of ISIS and international banker of terrorism. Giving seven more months to the regime will only provide further opportunity to the regime to obtain bomb.

Mrs. Rajavi stressed that last year the clerical regime, under pressure by international sanction, internal isolation and revelation of its nuclear weapons program by the Resistance, was forced to retreat one step and signed the Geneva accord. Numerous unjustified concessions by Western governments have emboldened the regime. This is the result of shameful silence regarding the gross violation of human rights in Iran including among others throwing acid on women and daily executions across Iran and also regarding export of terrorism and occupation in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Mrs. Rajavi recalled that after the Geneva accord she had declared that “the extent of the regime’s retreat and abandoning nuclear weapons as well as its compliance with international obligations depend precisely on the degree of decisiveness and firmness of the world community vis-à-vis the regime’s evil intentions and its intrinsic deceptiveness… Any leniency, hesitancy and concessions by the international community will prompt Khamenei to once again move towards manufacturing nuclear weapons through deception and cheating.”

Mrs. Rajavi reiterated that full implementation of Security Council resolutions, in particular complete halt in enrichment activities, acceptance and ratification of additional protocol, and free access to suspicious sites and installations of the regime by inspectors are crucial to ensure the regime would abandon its efforts to acquire nuclear bomb. Experience shows that such result can only be achieved by decisiveness and comprehensive political, oil and arms sanction as well as evicting Iran from Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.

A report by the International Committee in Search of Justice published last week clearly indicated that the Iranian regime’s nuclear program was from the outset with military intentions and all its apparent civilian activities were at the service of building nuclear bomb. The regime never reported these activities voluntarily to the International Atomic Energy Agency under None Proliferation Treaty and it was the Iranian Resistance that for the first time revealed the regime’s program.

Wake Up America: This Is a JIHAD

Iran’s Supreme Leader: Jihad Will Continue Until America is No More

Khamenei Calls For Jihad Against the US

1:54 PM 05/25/2014

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, all but said on Sunday that negotiations over the country’s illicit nuclear program are over and that the Islamic Republic’s ideals include destroying America.

“Those [Iranians] who want to promote negotiation and surrender to the oppressors and blame the Islamic Republic as a warmonger in reality commit treason,” Khamenei told a meeting of members of parliament, according to the regime’s Fars News Agency.

Khamenei emphasized that without a combative mindset, the regime cannot reach its higher Islamic role against the “oppressors’ front.”

“The reason for continuation of this battle is not the warmongering of the Islamic Republic. Logic and reason command that for Iran, in order to pass through a region full of pirates, needs to arm itself and must have the capability to defend itself,” he said.

“Today’s world is full of thieves and plunderers of human honor, dignity and morality who are equipped with knowledge, wealth and power, and under the pretense of humanity easily commit crimes and betray human ideals and start wars in different parts of the world.”

In response to a question by a parliamentarian on how long this battle will continue, Khamenei said,“Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides.”

Khamenei cited the scientific advancement of the country. “The accelerated scientific advancement of the last 12 years cannot stop under any circumstances,” he said, referring to the strides the regime has made toward becoming a nuclear power.

As reported on May 19 on The Daily Caller, Iran has put up new roadblocks to reaching a deal with the P5+1 world powers over its illicit nuclear program. The powers are the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany.

Three days of negotiations in the fourth round of Geneva meetings ended recently without concrete results when the Iranian team presented the country’s new “red lines” — diminishing any hope by the Obama administration to claim victory in its approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, according to reports from Iran.

The Obama administration had hoped that with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif showing an eagerness to solve the nuclear issue and address the West’s concerns, there would be a possibility for a negotiated solution. An interim agreement penned last November in Geneva was touted as an “historic nuclear deal.”

Under that agreement, Iran, in return for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, limited its enrichment activity to the 5 percent level with a current stockpile of over 10 tons (enough for six nuclear bombs), converted much of its 20 percent enriched stock to harmless oxide, and agreed to allow more intrusive inspections of its nuclear plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspections were limited to only agreed-upon facilities.

The Iranian delegation last week presented new red lines that could not be crossed, including the expansion of the country’s research and development for its nuclear program, the need of the country to continue enrichment, and the fact that the country’s ballistic missile program — despite U.N. sanctions — is not up for negotiation.

At the same time, IAEA officials met again with their Iranian counterparts last week in Tehran to discuss information on the work on detonators and needed collaboration by the regime to clear outstanding issues on its nuclear program as part of seven transparency steps Iran had agreed to fulfill by May 15, which has yet to take place.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

Antichrist Is Back In Iran

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Prominent Iraqi figure Muqtada al-Sadr is in Iran to continue his seminary education.
The office of the Iraqi cleric has issued a statement on Saturday saying that Sadr has traveled to Iran to continue his seminary education in the holy city of Qom, Al-Alam news network reported.
Meantime, Al-Dustour news website, too, has quoted an official with the cleric’s office as saying that Muqtada al-Sadr has resigned from politics as he had told the Iraqi nation and is planning to study in Qom, Iran.
Earlier this month, al-Sadr, who enjoys great popularity in the central and southern parts of Iraq, announced a complete withdrawal from Iraqi politics.
In a letter posted on his website, al-Sadr stated he would not hold any political office and that no bloc would represent him in the Iraqi parliament.
The letter also stated that Sadr would be closing all his offices.
Despite not holding any official position in the Iraqi government, Sadr holds significant influence in the Iraqi politics.
He was the creator of the Mehdi Army, a paramilitary group that was involved in the Iraq War and clashed with US forces on many occasions.
The Mehdi Army was disbanded under government pressure in 2008, following a clash with Iraqi Army forces controlled by Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki.
Sadr is also a head of a political party named after him, which forms part of the National Iraqi Alliance coalition in the Iraqi parliament.
Sadr has been a very vocal critic of the continued US presence in Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein.