Latest News from Memri
Memri
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Memri
America's (And Israel's) Ottoman Gamble
That the foreign policy of the new Trump Administration has been bold and disruptive is something most observers would agree. Some see it as catastrophic, others (I am one of those) see it as a long-needed corrective to past disasters. But it is still evolving. A recent tweet by the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack caught some flack in the Middle East. The ambassador wrote on May 25 that: "A century ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, penciled borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain – not peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not make it again. The era of Western interference is over. The future belongs to regional solutions, but partnerships, and a diplomacy grounded in respect."[1] The tweet garnered some criticism from regional voices, especially in Lebanon (ironic in that Barrack is himself of Lebanese Christian origin) because the French Mandate led to the creation of the state of Lebanon.[2] Others might have noted that Anglo-French "imperial gain" prevented Turkish imperial gain, which is why Mosul is still part of Iraq and Aleppo still part of Syria. Still others may recall when the terrorist Islamic State announced the "end of Sykes-Picot."[3] The idea that Western imperialism, including Sykes-Picot, is the principal reason for all the region's ills (including the creation of Israel) is a staple of Arab Nationalist and Islamist propaganda. But Barrack is not wrong to criticize the bane of Western interference in past decades (quoting President Trump's important Riyadh speech).[4] This not only brought us trillion-dollar wars and thousands of American dead but failed states in the region and turbo-charged global Jihadism. "Regional solutions" is clearly an administration priority and so far, there is positive movement toward a better vision for the region. Trump has given the hard-pressed Syrian people (and President Ahmed Al-Sharaa) renewed hope with the lifting of draconian sanctions. Under American auspices (Barrack is also the Special Envoy for Syria), Israelis and Syrian officials are meeting and negotiating.[5] The U.S. is also mediating between Turkey and Israel, trying to gain a ceasefire in Gaza, a nuclear agreement with Iran, disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon and forge closer ties with Sunni Arab states and Turkey in order to secure regional security and counter the ambitions of Iran, China, and Russia. That is an impressive effort in only four months! The question is not so much if this is the right American strategy for an America that wants to focus on its core interests and get allies to take up more of the burden. It is. The question is whether the pieces will actually fit together (and stay together) toward a more stable region or whether, in leaving past conflicts, we are preparing the stage for future ones. It was less than five years ago that Turkey was openly abetting Islamist revolution in the Arab Middle East.[6] Islamist stations in Istanbul would broadcast against regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the Arabian Gulf while Erdogan saber-rattled against most of its immediate neighbors while actually waging war in Syria, Iraq, Armenia, and Libya. Turkey's policies are not limited to one man and its leadership today has not changed – it is still the same mix of convinced Islamists and extreme nationalists – but its behavior has moderated.[7] Faced with economic headwinds, Erdoğan buried the hatchet with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE.[8] While discourse in the country is deeply antisemitic and anti-American, the rhetoric has usually not translated into concrete actions against the U.S. or Israel. The fall of Assad in Syria in 2024 and Turkey's importance on issues such as the Russia-Ukraine War have created a kind of "Neo-Ottoman Moment."[9] This is all happening almost exactly a century after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the end of the Ottoman Caliphate. But it seems that Turkey is finding that it can gain more with "honey than with vinegar," that being helpful to the Trump Administration will pay greater dividends than overt hostility.[10] Not so surprising actually, given the tactical flexibility and pragmatism of Islamists in general, and of Erdoğan's ideologically-motivated regime in particular. The parameters of this gamble are very much along the lines promoted in the past by American strategist Michael Doran – a coming together of Turkey, Israel, and the United States (and Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan and Qatar) in a grand strategic alliance that enhances the security of all sides and benefits all parties.[11] Under such a scenario, the United States gains by having reliable regional hegemons who can presumably provide security and stability, keeping out unfriendly powers, fighting terrorism and freeing American resources and interests for other areas. This vision seeks to solve the "problem" of Iran – which was empowered by the policies of the last two Democratic Administrations – by empowering Sunni powers as their adversaries. While we might be skeptical of such a scenario, it is not like the previous, costly strategy of direct US involvement in places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya worked particularly well. Israel supposedly would gain because of inferred (in some cases explicit) informal security arrangements and understandings with important Sunni powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, potential threats from Syria would be neutralized and Iran and its proxies are kept away from Israel's borders.[12] The Sunni powers gain the powerful backing of the Americans and the benefit of tacit understandings with Israel. This also means a certain amount of carte blanche or green light when it comes to these states' dealings with internal issues and with other countries outside the circle of trust as long as these dealings do not conflict too directly with current American or Israeli interests (for example, America's interests in Armenia or Israel's interests in Southern Syria).[13] It might work, especially in the short run, as long as ambitions remain in check and interests and equities are regularly deconflicted. But it is a risk because it assumes that, for example, Turkish ambitions – the same state that supports Hamas today and openly facilitated the rise of Islamic State fighters a decade ago – would not come into conflict with Israeli ones. That Turkey's interests are limited in Syria to the PKK and returning refugees. Or that an Islamist-ruled Syria would not (unlike all other Islamist states in the past like National Islamic Front-ruled Sudan or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan) become an exporter of extremism. With American imperial overreach a very real issue, this is a gamble worth taking, but with eyes wide open. Empowering Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia is, in principle, a very good idea. With Turkey, the hope is that it is "domesticated," rather than just using one wild, fierce beast against another one and expecting a positive outcome in sync with our interests. Time will tell whether this was bold and timely cleverness or merely American (and Israeli) wishful thinking along the road to unimagined future conflagrations. *Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.
Memri
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Memri
Palestinian Journalist: Arab Countries Should Impose Sanctions On Hamas Leaders Abroad To End The Gaza War
In an article published May 26, 2025 on the Saudi news website Elaph, Palestinian journalist Hamid Karman, who resides in Amman, Jordan, called on Arab countries to impose sanctions on Hamas leaders abroad, as a move that will lead to a shift in the equation of the confrontation and an end to the Gaza-Israel war. Expressing harsh criticism of the Hamas leaders abroad and describing them as living in luxury hotels in Doha, Istanbul and Teheran and accumulating money while Gazans bear the burden of the war on their own, Karman wrote that these leaders are impervious to the cries for a realistic solution. There is an urgent need, he stated, to bring Arab pressure to bear on Hamas by means of sanctions – which he said should include restricting the movement of its senior officials and cutting off its funding and its access to fundraising – so as to compel the organization to change direction and bring an end to the war. He contended that such a step would not only help to end the fighting and suffering in Gaza, but would also advance solutions to additional regional crises, such as disarming the Palestinian organizations in Lebanon, and would prevent Hamas from obstructing Arab and international plans aimed at reaching a comprehensive solution for stability in the Middle East. Hamid Karman (Source: The following is the translation of Karman's May 26, 2025 article on Elaph: "It is known that the equation of the war in Gaza relies on the continued [existence] of its two sides – the Israeli right led by Benjamin Netanyahu and his government, and the Palestinian right, as represented by the Hamas movement – and there will be no end to the war without one of them surrendering... "The war will not end as long as the Hamas leaders abroad enjoy all their creature comforts in luxury hotels in Doha, Istanbul, and Teheran, accumulate money that they distribute amongst themselves, and give TV interviews, making demagogic declarations that show the movement's bankruptcy in the face of the suffering of the unarmed Palestinian people... "The senior Hamas officials close their ears to the clamor of the many voices calling for adopting a realistic [approach] to deal with the consequences of the struggle, by finding a political formula to impose a solution that will contribute to stopping the plans of the right-wing Israeli government. This is because the price being paid by the Palestinians, in its children and in its infrastructure, is greater than any amount that the movement may gain from holding the Israeli hostages. The truth is that Hamas has no more options, or room for political maneuvering... "At present, the vacuum in the [Hamas] military leadership in Gaza, following a series of killings carried out by Israel, will lead to a freeze in Hamas's positions in negotiations. This necessitates sanctions by Arab [countries] on the leaders of the movement abroad so that things will move forward. These sanctions [must] include preventing, and restricting, their [the Hamas leaders'] movements among Arab countries or through their airspace and their airports, and [must] hobble the movement's efforts to acquire funding by [imposing] an embargo, cutting off [its] financial support networks, and stopping the fundraising on which it relies by means of straw companies... "There is a pressing need to tighten the political and financial noose on the Hamas leaders abroad. This will not only bring an end to the war in the Gaza Strip, or to the tragedy of its inhabitants, who have had enough of the conflict and long for an end to the 18 months and more of violence and scarcity – it will also will also lead to a solution to the crises that we see on the horizon for several Middle Eastern countries, and in particular the matter of the weapons of the factions in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. In this context, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has shown unprecedented responsiveness to Lebanon's official demands in order to conclude this complicated issue. This necessitates bringing swift pressure to bear on Hamas and on the factions that support it, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Osbat Al-Ansar [operating out of the Ain Al-Hilweh refugee camp in Lebanon] so that they will surrender their weapons, without armed confrontation with the Lebanese Armed Forces. This will allow Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and his government led by [Prime Minister] Nawaf Salam to lay the foundations of the nation state with one regime, one law, and one weapon [i.e. held by only one body], as a prelude to actually tackling the issue of disarming Hizbullah. "The move [to impose] Arab sanctions is crucial to framing [our] relationship with Hamas the militia – which after October 7 has deluded itself that it can impose its equations on the region and change the international balance of power. Hamas is also betting on the overthrow of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu by the Israeli street, and thus will not hesitate to drag out [the negotiations] in the expectation that circumstances will turn in its favor as the de facto government in Gaza. This means that it will continue to be a stumbling block for the emerging Arab and international plans to reach a comprehensive solution that will lead to the stability of the Middle East...[1]"
Memri
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Memri
Iranian Majlis National Security And Foreign Policy Committee Member Ahmad Bakhshayish Ardastani: As Part Of Its Mediation Efforts In The U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks, Oman Proposed That We Stop Enriching
In a May 26, 2025 interview with the Didbaniran website, Ahmad Bakhshayish Ardastani, a member of the Iranian Majlis National Security And Foreign Policy Committee, detailed the main points of an Omani mediation offer proposed to Iran on May 23, as part of Oman's mediation efforts in the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, and announced that the quantity of 60%-enriched uranium in Iran was enough for 10 nuclear bombs. The interview was removed from the Didbaniran website shortly after it was posted. The Omani proposal, conveyed to Iran in the fifth round of the talks, covered two areas. First, it proposed that Iran would agree to temporarily suspend its uranium enrichment for six months, after which it would restart it. In the interview, Bakhshayish Ardastan stressed that Iran had not yet agreed to this proposal due to its lack of confidence in the U.S., and added that Iran already had enough uranium enriched to 60% to make several nuclear bombs that "Iran is capable of building." He said: "The 300 kilograms of the uranium stored in Iran is equal to 10 nuclear bombs, and if Israel continues its threats, we will be able to increase the enrichment level even more." The second area in the Omani proposal concerned the idea of a regional nuclear consortium that Iran had agreed to, provided that it retains the right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil and to be paid by Arab countries to share its nuclear achievements with them. Bakhshayish Ardastani clarified that Iran was making any agreement to increased international oversight of its nuclear facilities conditional upon a lifting of all U.S. sanctions on it – something that has been Iran's main aim in the negotiations with the Trump administration. Also in the interview, Bakhshayish Ardastani assessed that President Trump and his advisor Steve Witkoff were working to artificially increase the pressure on Iran as a negotiating tactic, but that they would not give up on achieving an agreement because they need to show that their diplomacy is effective. He stressed that ultimately it would be the Americans who back down from their positions, and that Iran would hold to its red line – the right to enrich uranium on its soil. Bakhshayish Ardastani (Source: May 26, 2025) He also called on Qatar and Oman to come up with interim solutions in order to arrive at an agreement with the Americans. Addressing the Arab states, and hinting that military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran would severely impact them, Bakhshayish Ardastani assessed that President Trump would refrain from going to war and would turn to sanctions, as he had in the past. He warned that if Israel attacks Iran, "the [Israeli] nuclear facility in Dimona on occupied territory will be under threat" and that Israel would be facing Iranian attacks of "hundreds or thousands of missiles." He added that if Iran and the U.S. reach an agreement, it would also serve Israel, which would be able to enjoy more peaceful relations with Iran. The following is a translation of Bakhshayish Ardastani's interview with the Didbaniran website, which as noted was removed from the website shortly after it was posted: Bakhshayish Ardastani: "It Is Unlikely That The Other Side [The U.S.] Will Leave The Negotiating Table... It Needs An Agreement With Iran As An Achievement Of [Trump's] Diplomacy... It Is The Americans Who Will Ultimately Change Their Positions – Not Iran" Bakhshayish Ardastani said in the interview: "Despite the difficulties on the path to reaching an Iran-U.S. agreement, the overall assessment of the negotiation process is positive, and it appears that these negotiations will attain results. The longer the negotiations last, the more likely it is that both sides will arrive at an understanding of their differences, and their continuation is not necessarily a sign that they are progressing badly. "We have had problems with the West on the nuclear issue for some 36 years, of the 47 years since the Islamic Revolution. Of course, during the past few decades, Iran has successfully achieved independence in its nuclear industry thanks to the initiative of its scientists, and the [uranium] enrichment program is the result of the efforts by our elites. Iran has no problem with other countries in the region activating their own nuclear industry, but the thing is that if the Arab countries want a nuclear program, they need to purchase their infrastructure from other countries. Happily, we have succeeded in building all the required infrastructure in our own country. "The longer the negotiations last, the more interested the sides are in reaching a solution, although there is no doubt that significant obstacles lie in the path of a possible agreement. In any event, the [2015 JCPOA] nuclear agreement remains the basis of the current negotiations, and since this agreement allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67%, Iran now wants to advance at least one step beyond that agreement. Trump also wants to show Obama that he can be a stronger diplomat than him, and therefore he does not want to accept continued Iranian uranium enrichment. "So far, both Iran and America have held fast to their red lines, but given that Trump and Witkoff are both [real estate] mediators, and had experience in real estate before they were [political] negotiators, they are deliberately increasing the pressure so that Iran will maybe agree to back down from its red lines. But if Iran does not do so, it is unlikely that the other side [the U.S.] will leave the negotiating table, because it needs an agreement with Iran as an achievement of [Trump's] diplomacy. Therefore, it is the Americans who will ultimately change their positions [i.e. not Iran]." "Both Oman And Qatar Must Help Propose Interim Solutions Acceptable To Both Sides" Bakhshayish Ardastani continued: "Today, both Oman and Qatar must help propose interim solutions acceptable to both sides. One of these solutions is establishing a nuclear consortium of the countries of the region, with Iran at its center. That is, provided that [uranium] enrichment takes place on Iranian soil, international institutions will monitor the activity of this consortium in order to clarify that Iran is not planning to use its enriched uranium for building an atom bomb. "Some Arab countries may think that if an Iran-U.S. war breaks out, it will be over in two or three weeks. But Iran is stronger than this talk. Iran is a country that fought Iraq for eight years, and America recently launched an unceasing attack on the Houthis [that has been continuing] for over a month, but it has not been able to defeat them. Thus, if there is an Iran-America war, the region will definitely have to deal with tensions over time. For this reason, Trump is moving away from war and will ultimately move to 'maximal pressure' in the event that no agreement is reached." "We Are Willing To Put Our [Nuclear] Achievements At The Disposal Of Arab Countries In Exchange For A Reasonable Fee" "During the last [i.e. the fifth] round of talks, Oman set out two proposals for Iran, and according to [Iranian] Foreign Minister [Abbas Araghchi], our country is examining these proposals. One is to establish a nuclear consortium, with the participation of the Arab countries, that can increase monitoring of Iran's activity, in order to prove to America that Iran is not increasing its uranium enrichment above what is noted in a possible future agreement. Iran welcomed this proposal, because we are confident about our domestic nuclear industry and are willing to put our achievements at the disposal of Arab countries in exchange for a reasonable fee. "Oman [also] told us to stop the enrichment for six months and then restart it. Of course, Iran has not yet accepted [this] second Omani proposal, because, based on previous experience, there is a possibility of additional demands from the other side [the U.S.]. For example, the last time we agreed, in the [2015 JCPOA] nuclear agreement, to exceptional oversight of our nuclear facilities, but then the Americans again increased the pressure [on us]. Therefore, Iran is not likely to accept this offer. But the longer the negotiations continue, the more interim solutions will certainly be proposed by the mediators." "The Whole World Knows That Iran Is Capable Of Building Nuclear Weapons, But... We Are Not Advancing Towards Producing An Atom Bomb" "Iran does not fear increased international monitoring of its nuclear activity. The whole world knows that Iran is capable of building nuclear weapons, but since there is no intention to do so in our country, we are not advancing towards producing an atom bomb. We have a home-grown nuclear industry and we have no problem with oversight by international organizations, provided that along with increased oversight, we will obtain the necessary relief – that is, the sanctions imposed on Iran are lifted and our country's frozen funds are restored to us. Thus, we even accept oversight beyond [what is stipulated in] the NPT, as long as America lifts the sanctions and as long as we can enrich [uranium] to a certain level within the country. "The Zionist regime cannot carry out an attack without approval from America, and as long as the negotiations are underway, the U.S. will not give such approval to the Zionist regime. Second, if Israel attacks Iran, the nuclear facility in Dimona, in the occupied territories [Israel], will be under threat. Third, the True Promise I and II operations [Iran's April and October 2024 missile and drone attacks on Israel] proved to Israel that Iran is not like an Arab country – it is a strong country that cannot be attacked without consequences. "At this time, the Houthis can easily fire their missiles without Israel's defenses being able to intercept them, and in recent weeks they have repeatedly targeted Ben Gurion airport. Therefore, Israel knows that it is located in a small area and cannot withstand the hundreds or thousands of Iranian missiles that will be launched into the occupied territories if our nuclear facilities are attacked. Overall, it would be in Israel's interest for Iran and America to reach an agreement and then an understanding, so that Iran and Israel can also enjoy a more peaceful relationship with each other. "Despite the hostile relationship between Iran and the Zionist regime, it is unlikely that this regime will attack Iran. But it is the nature of the Zionists [to carry out] terrorism and sabotage. On the nuclear issue, the assassinations and sabotage carried out by Israel set back Iran's nuclear program, but nevertheless we did not stopped advancing, and now we have reached a point where we already have enough 60%-enriched uranium to produce several atomic bombs. The 300 kilograms of uranium stored in Iran is equivalent to 10 atomic bombs – and if Israel continues its threats, we will be able to increase the enrichment level even more. "Israeli lobbyists' pressure on American politicians is another move that has always been made against Iran, and they are now working to disrupt a possible agreement. In the current negotiations, we saw that by the end of the third round, Trump was willing to accept Iranian uranium enrichment. But then [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's words reached Trump's mouth, and he [Trump] emphasized that there must be zero uranium enrichment. "Of course, in the end, it is America that will back down from its demands, and Iran will not abandon its red lines."[1]
Memri
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Memri
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's Nonexistent Nuclear Fatwa Reemerges In Iranian Discourse With Trump Administration
On the eve of the fifth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, the fatwa allegedly issued by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei banning Iran's development, possession, and use of nuclear weapons as a guarantee that Iran would not seek to obtain them was brought up by two mouthpieces of the Iranian regime. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi discussed it in a television interview on May 22, 2025, and the Iranian regime mouthpiece Kayhan discussed it in an article published May 21, 2025. Over the years, no such fatwa has ever appeared on either of Khamenei's two fatwa websites, and while the fatwa has been said to have been issued on several different dates and in a range of different versions, no one has ever actually seen it. Although the regime mouthpieces have insisted for two decades that it does exist, the fact is that it does not; its existence was invented for Iranian diplomatic purposes (see Appendix: MEMRI Reports On Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's Nonexistent Fatwa). The following is background on this nonexistent fatwa, the translation of excerpts of Foreign Minister Araghchi's interview discussing it and Kayhan's article about it, and a list of MEMRI reports over the years about it. Background: The Nonexistent Nuclear Fatwa As A Guarantee That Iran Will Not Seek To Obtain Nuclear Weapons For over two decades, Iranian regime mouthpieces and regime officials have presented the nonexistent fatwa allegedly issued by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a legal and religious guarantee that Iran will not launch, produce, or possess nuclear weapons. The claim about this "nuclear fatwa" has been presented to the West, with which the Iranian regime has been in a dialogue ever since 2002, when Iran's illegal and undeclared nuclear activity was exposed. The fatwa is aimed at achieving legitimacy for Iran's strategic goal of attaining "nuclear threshold state" status, and for conducting on its a full "nuclear fuel cycle," including uranium mining, uranium enrichment, using uranium as fuel, and handling radioactive waste. During the 2002-2006 Iran-EU3 (UK, France, and Germany) nuclear negotiations, Iran presented its position that a fatwa by Khamenei bans nuclear weapons. The EU3 demanded that Iran approve a clause in its state constitution similar to one in the constitutions of the "nuclear threshold states" Germany and Japan vis-à-vis a ban on nuclear weapons. Iran rejected this demand, and, in order to circumvent it, Hassan Rohani, who had headed the Iranian nuclear negotiating team and who would in 2013 become Iran's president, said in a May 2012 interview that it was he who had proposed claiming that Khamenei had published this fatwa in a Friday sermon in November 2004 (see MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 1022, The Official Iranian Version Regarding Khamenei's Alleged Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa Is A Lie, October 3, 2013). Again, this alleged fatwa has never been found on Khamenei's fatwa webpages, not in November 2004 nor at any other time. Rohani's proposal, as he attested, was to present this alleged fatwa to the Europeans as a guarantee that Iran would not strive to produce nuclear weapons. It is worth noting that while the Iranian regime rejected a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons, it has added articles concerning scientific and technological advances to its constitution, as a result of which there has been extensive investment in space, nuclear technology, and industry. Majlis National Security Committee deputy chairman Abbas Moqtadei stated on May 24, 2025 that "based on the aims and the policy set out in the constitution, we are committed to a precise plan to achieve comprehensive advancement of the nation in a range of aspects. In this context, there have been extensive activities and investment in various scientific areas, including aviation, space, nuclear energy, science and medicine, agriculture, industry, and new technologies."[1] When in 2005 the EU3 demanded to see this fatwa, the regime representatives failed to produce it, and the EU3 did not accept the regime's claim. All Iran would provide was a report by an Iranian news agency purportedly about the fatwa (see MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 825, Renewed Iran-West Nuclear Talks – Part II: Tehran Attempts to Deceive U.S. President Obama, Sec'y of State Clinton With Nonexistent Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa By Supreme Leader Khamenei, April 19, 2012). The Obama administration, which took over from the EU3 in conducting the nuclear negotiations with Iran, did accept Iran's position that this fatwa actually existed and that it did indeed serve as an alternative to invasive IAEA oversight. The administration promoted the fatwa as binding, even though it too never saw it.[2] The Obama administration went on to approve the Iranian regime as a legitimate party to the negotiations, erasing Iran's record of NPT violations, and even recognized Iran's right to enrich uranium on its soil with President Obama's signature. (See Inquiry and Analysis 1080, U.S. Secretary Of State Kerry In New And Unprecedented Statement: 'President Obama And I Are Both Extremely Welcoming And Grateful For The Fact That [Iranian] Supreme Leader [Khamenei] Has Issued A [Nonexistent] Fatwa' Banning Nuclear Weapons', March 31, 2014, and Special Dispatch No. 5461, President Obama Endorses The Lie About Khamenei's 'Fatwa' Against Nuclear Arms, September 29, 2013.) Since then, Iran has adamantly rejected the Trump administration's demand for "zero enrichment" – that is, it refuses to give up enriching uranium on its soil and argues that its right to do so is nonnegotiable. According to regime representatives, the right to enrich uranium is an Iranian national achievement bought with blood that elevates Iran's status, gives it honor among the nations, and ensures independence from Western countries, as it is a revolutionary country that refuses to submit to the Western world order when it comes to the acquisition of enriched material.[3] This is despite the fact that Iran has no civilian nuclear plants powered by fuel enriched to the very high level that it possesses, as attested to by Iranian Majlis National Security And Foreign Policy Committee Member Ahmad Bakhshayish Ardestani. He said on May 25, 2025: "The 300 kg of uranium stored in Iran is equal to 10 atom bombs – and if Israel continues its threats, we will be able to increase the enrichment level even more."[4] The fatwa, as a legal and religious guarantee that Iran is not striving to obtain nuclear weapons – despite the repeated announcements by Iranian officials about Iran's capability, and right, to possess them[5] – has recently been brought up again in regime mouthpiece claims vis-à-vis the Trump administration. This is in the hope that the latter will follow in the footsteps of the Obama administration that accepted the fatwa even though it does not exist. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi In May 22, 2025 TV Interview: "The Supreme Leader Issued A Fatwa And We Do Not Need Nuclear Weapons In Our Defense Doctrine" Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in his Iranian television interview on May 22, 2025, on the eve of the fifth round of nuclear talks in Rome: "If America's aim is for Iran not to advance toward nuclear weapons, this is achievable. We have no desire to build nuclear weapons. The Supreme Leader issued a fatwa, and we do not need nuclear weapons in our defense doctrine. They [the Americans] imposed sanctions on us due to the enrichment. We were under sanctions for years, but we didn't turn to [nuclear] weapons. Our scientists were assassinated, but we didn't turn to [nuclear] weapons. We came, we negotiated, and we reached an agreement through negotiations, but they [the U.S.] abandoned [the agreement]. We didn't use [nuclear] weapons. Our policy is based on principles and foundations, and nuclear weapons have no place in our defense doctrine."[6] Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (Source: Tasnim, Iran, May 22, 2025) Regime Mouthpiece Kayhan, May 21, 2025: "This Fatwa Is Not A Political Tactic, But A Legal And Strategic Position Within The Framework Of The Principles Of Islam" In its May 21, 2025 article, Kayhan quoted Supreme Leader Khamenei's announcement that Iran would continue with its uranium enrichment policy and that it needed no approval from any country. The article stated: "The experience of the past few decades has shown that the West's main problem with Iran is not nuclear weapons. The American administration and the European 'troika' (Britain, France, and Germany) have repeatedly stated that they 'are concerned that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.' These governments know very well that Iran has the technical know-how to acquire nuclear weapons, but that for religious and moral reasons it will never move towards producing nuclear weapons. "Iran has repeatedly declared [this], and, more importantly, the Supreme Leader [Khamenei] has issued a religious fatwa banning the production and use of nuclear weapons. This fatwa is not a political tactic, but a legal and strategic position within the framework of the principles of Islam."[7] Appendix: MEMRI Reports On Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's Nonexistent Fatwa Below are MEMRI reports on the nonexistent fatwa published over the years: Renewed Iran-West Nuclear Talks – Part II: Tehran Attempts to Deceive U.S. President Obama, Sec'y of State Clinton With Nonexistent Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa By Supreme Leader Khamenei, April 19, 2012 Release Of Compilation Of Newest Fatwas By Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei – Without Alleged Fatwa About Nuclear Bomb, August 13, 2013 President Obama Endorses The Lie About Khamenei's 'Fatwa' Against Nuclear Weapons, September 29, 2013 The Official Iranian Version Regarding Khamenei's Alleged Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa Is A Lie, October 3, 2013. Iranian President Hassan Rohani In Article In Saudi Daily: While Avoiding Confrontation And Hostility, We Shall Be Diligent In Pursuing Our Supreme Interests, December 23, 2013 U.S. Secretary Of State Kerry In New And Unprecedented Statement: 'President Obama And I Are Both Extremely Welcoming And Grateful For The Fact That [Iranian] Supreme Leader [Khamenei] Has Issued A [Nonexistent] Fatwa' Banning Nuclear Weapons,' March 31, 2014 Tehran Again Offers Khamenei's Nonexistent Fatwa In Negotiations As A Guarantee That It Is Not Developing Nuclear Weapons – Iranian Regime Continues Its Lies And Fabrications About Supreme Leader Khamenei's Nonexistent Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons, April 6, 2015 Insights Following Exposure Of Iran's Military Nuclear Program – Part I: The Leadership Of Iran's Religious Regime Lies About Essential Islamic Matters, Manipulates Religion To Justify Its Grip On Power, Regional Expansion, May 6, 2018 Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif Reiterates Iran's Lie, Promoted By Obama Administration, That Supreme Leader Khamenei Issued Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons; No Such Fatwa Ever Existed, May 31, 2019 Iran Uses 'Maximum Pressure' On Biden Administration – Part II: Supreme Leader Khamenei: 'If The Islamic Republic [Of Iran] Decided To Obtain Nuclear Weapons, Neither You [The Zionist Clown] Nor Those Greater Than You [The U.S.] Would Be Able To Stop It' , February 23, 2021 Shift In Iranian Regime Statements On Nuclear Weapons: Regime Spokesmen Talk Openly About Them, Aiming For Western Acquiescence To Iran As A Nuclear Threshold State, August 2, 2022 Khamenei's 'Nuclear Fatwa,' Once Again MEMRI Daily Brief Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei: 'If It Were Not An Islamic Principle, And If We Had The Will To Build Nuclear Weapons, We Would Do So – Even The Enemies Know That They Cannot Stop Us'; MEMRI: The Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons That Is Attributed To Khamenei Does Not Exist, June 26, 2023. Inquiry & Analysis Series No. 1784 - In Advance Of Revival Of U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks, Iranian Calls For Iran To Possess Nuclear Weapons Are Again Heard, September 5, 2024. Special Dispatch No. 11833 - Iranian Regime Continues To Lie About The Alleged Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons, February 11, 2025.
Memri
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Memri
Nascent Saudi Opposition Group, 'The Free Masked Man Movement,' Releases Video Tracking Saudi Security Personnel; Claims Footage Designed To Prove Presence On The Ground, Train Recruits
The Cyber & Jihad Lab monitors, tracks, translates, researches, and analyzes cyber jihad originating from the Middle East, Iran, South Asia, and North and West Africa. It innovates and experiments with possible solutions for stopping cyber jihad, advancing legislation and initiatives federally – including with Capitol Hill and attorneys-general – and on the state level, to draft and enforce measures that will serve as precedents for further action. It works with leaders in business, law enforcement, academia, and families of terror victims to craft and support efforts and solutions to combat cyber jihad, and recruits, and works with technology industry leaders to craft and support efforts and solutions.
