Zarif: Khamenei's nuclear weapons ban is not just religious, but strategic

Masoud Pezeshkian’s strategic deputy and former foreign minister, Mohammad-Javad Zarif, has said that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei opposes nuclear weapons not only for religious reasons but also for strategic considerations.

“My understanding is that the Supreme leader has held the same view from the strategic point of view, in addition to the Sharia perspective, since he issued his religious edict [to ban weapons of mass destruction], and even before that,” Zarif told the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA) Tuesday.

The comment was made in response to a question about ultra-hardliner lawmakers’ demand for a change in Iran's ‘defense doctrine’ and considering nuclear weapons to allow a strategy of ‘nuclear deterrence’ to be drawn.

The step that these lawmakers urged the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) to take requires Khamenei’s clear and definite approval, both as Supreme Leader and as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Iran's government has always maintained that it will not pursue nuclear arms because Khamenei’s fatwa (religious edict) has banned all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear bombs. Khamenei’s ruling was presented by Iranian officials at the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament in April 2010.

“We consider the use of such weapons as haram [religiously forbidden] and believe that it is everyone’s duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster,” Khamenei’s statement read.

Skeptics argue that what Iranian authorities refer to as a fatwa was only an advisory opinion, not a legal document that cannot be revoked and was meant to mislead the international community about the real intentions behind a nuclear program that Iran has always maintained is peaceful.

Fatwas by Shia Marja (a source of emulation) are not set in stone, as skeptics say. They could be altered or overturned given the ‘requirement of time and place’ as many historical instances prove.

“What has been declared as haram by Khamenei, whatever the intentions behind it may have been at the time, requires a clear public statement to make it halal, that is, permissible,” a commentator in Tehran told Iran International, adding that the change that ultra-hardliners demand requires leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), also a decision that only Khamenei can make.

“By publicly demanding that he endorses a move towards building and testing a nuclear bomb, these lawmakers are actually challenging the Leader to make a drastic decision in these circumstances,” he added.

Masoud Pezeshkian’s government has used the same argument as Hassan Rouhani’s government which used the fatwa to convince the international community that Iran's nuclear program was peaceful.

“The government's stance on building atomic bombs is the same as [declared by] the Supreme Leader, which he has emphasized many times … Matters such as nuclear energy are regulated under the leadership of the Supreme Leader,” Fatemeh Mohajerani, spokesperson of Masoud Pezeshkian’s government, stressed last week in reaction to the lawmakers’ demand.

“[The Leader] has stated many times that the Islamic Republic has the ability to build a nuclear bomb, but this is forbidden from the point of view of Sharia. This is the official position of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” she added.

In an article Sunday entitled “Adventurism or Deterrence”, the reformist Ham-Mihan newspaper criticized ultra-hardliners’ move. The article argued that rationality can have a greater deterrence power than a nuclear bomb when what they demand could provide Israel and the West with “an excuse for a military confrontation with Iran."

“An invitation for an invasion of the country? The tune that some circles are singing about the need for ‘changing Iran's nuclear doctrine’ is rooted in their deep ignorance of the power relations in the Middle East and at the international level,” reformist activist and journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi wrote last week in response to the lawmakers’ letter to the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC).

Speaking of a change in the nuclear doctrine will not only fail to secure the least level of deterrence but could also be construed as a “some kind of invitation to a military attack on the country by a well-equipped and powerful military alliance,” Zeidabadi who was widely quoted by Iranian media argued. “Is that what they want?” he asked.

He argued that if Iran could “build, safely maintain, and use” a nuclear bomb there could be nothing other than trouble for the country. Such a move would lead to the formation of a united international alliance against a “strategically alone” Iran, he said while pointing out that even Iran's powerful allies, China and Russia, do not want it to become a nuclear power.

Ultra-hardliners’ move will only boost the work of the “enemy's propaganda machine against Iran," conservative commentator Hassan Beheshtipour told the reformist Ham-Mihan newspaper in an interview published Monday.

“This is a miscalculation. [Such] people don’t pay attention to the fact that our nuclear program is conducted under the supervision of IAEA inspectors and bringing up such matters will achieve nothing except creating media and propaganda trouble for Iran and provide its enemies with something to maneuver on,” he added.

Beheshtipour argued that those who demand a change in Iran's ‘nuclear doctrine’ could not achieve anything even if they meant to boost Iran's power of deterrence.