Iran bases its foreign policy on “Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support to the freedom fighters of the world” (Article 3 of the Iranian Constitution).
It is reasonable for any state to base its foreign policy on its overall goals and interests. In fact, I recommend that the United States do the same thing. In regard to the global jihad, this would involve terminating all aid to Egypt, Indonesia, the Palestinians, Jordan, Somalia, Algeria, Sudan, Pakistan, Kosovo, Albania, and even Iraq and Afghanistan, and any other state, until each demonstrably ends all support — material, educational, religious — for jihad warfare, and grants full equality of rights to any non-Muslim citizens.
It would also involve reconfiguring our global alliances on the same basis. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the rest should be put on notice that continued friendly relations with the U.S. absolutely depends on an immediate and comprehensive renunciation of the jihad, including a reformation of their schools to end the teaching of jihad warfare. It cannot be enough for a state to denounce and renounce “terror”; each must renounce Islamic jihad as a means of undermining the integrity of other states. To be a friend of the United States, each must renounce entirely any intention to make good on the Islamic goals and responsibilities enunciated by the Pakistani Islamic leader Syed Abul Ala Maududi, who declared that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” Maududi in saying this was in full accord with Islamic theology and history, as well as with the Qur’an as it has been read and understood by Muslims for centuries. This is the goal of the jihadists today; it should be the fundamental defining point of U.S. alliances with Muslim states.
The United States should also immediately initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources, so that the needed reconfiguration of our alliances can be more than just words.
But does anyone in the State Department have the will to advocate these and other measures? Or is it only regimes like the bloody mullahocracy that are allowed to speak openly about their principles and goals, and take all the necessary measures for their own defense?
From Radio Free Europe via IranPressNews, with thanks to Kemaste:
The Iranian Constitution states that in order to attain its objectives the country’s foreign policy must be based on “Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support to the freedom fighters of the world” (Article 3).
Furthermore, “[Iran] supports the rightful struggle of the oppressed people against their oppressors anywhere in the world” (Article 154). These requirements, as well as a desire to export the revolution, are a primary factor behind Iran’s support for what the United States identifies as terrorist organizations. Iran’s more recent reliance on asymmetric warfare in its military doctrine, furthermore, underscores that such support will continue.
The U.S. State Department first identified Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in January 1984, and it has borne that designation every year since despite Iran’s denials of involvement. The State Department currently views Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism, according to its annual “Patterns of Global Terrorism” report. While Iran does not have an official “Ministry of Terrorism,” the State Department report notes the involvement of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Intelligence and Security Ministry (MOIS) in terrorist activities, although it does not single out any individuals for involvement….
Tehran consistently rejects accusations of involvement with or support for international terrorism and claims instead that it is a victim of this phenomenon. Some observers may debate the definition of terrorism, but there is no question that organizations openly backed by Iran are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Iran, therefore, is at least partially responsible for those killings.