Expert: Iran’s ‘Annihilationist’ Ideology Inform Threat of Nuclear Ambitions

Dr. Andrew Bostom, an independent scholar and recognized authority on Islamic anti-Semitism, spoke on February 4th to the Lawfare Project on Iran’s “Annihilationist” ideology and the theocratic reasoning behind their intentions to destroy Israel.

In his presentation, Bostom pointed to the consistency of murderous anti-Semitism that characterizes all factions of Iran’s ruling elite, from the “conservative” to the “reformist”:

Ayatollah Khomeini:

“Islam grew with blood. The great prophet of Islam in one hand carried the Koran and in the other a sword; the sword for crushing the traitors, and the Koran for guidance. Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels, but a religion of guidance for other people.”[…]

“Since the Jews of Banu Qurayza were a troublesome group, causing corruption in Muslim society and damaging Islam and the Islamic state, the Most Noble Messenger [Muhammad] eliminated them.”

Green Movement “Spiritual Inspiration,” Ayatollah Montazeri:

“[T]he Jews of Medina at the time of the noble prophet [i.e., Muhammad] sided with the infidels against Islam and Muslims”…“He [Muhammad] did not sit in a corner and merely pray, although all his prayers would have been answered. On the contrary, he [Muhammad] carried out an uprising and had about 80 military clashes. He [Muhammad] called on the Muslims to arise, and he established and powerfully implemented Allah’s laws among the people.”[…]

He highlighted the three ideological pillars motivating Iran’s foreign policy:

Bostom expands on this in his book Iran’s Final Solution for Israel, which was distributed at the event:

Expressions of this annihilationist intent — confirming it is (perhaps the) central pillar of the Iranian regime’s Weltanschauung — have not waned over the intervening eight years. Bookending current “moderate” President Rouhani’s statement at an Iranian Al Quds (Jerusalem) Day demonstrations (August, 2013), in support of the jihad against Israel — “The Zionist regime has been wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed” — were iterations of this recurring metaphor that Israel was a “cancerous” nidus, with obvious implications about “curative removal,” by Iranian Majlis (Parliament) Speaker Ali Larijani, and Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Speaker Larijani, addressing an audience in the Tunisian capital of Tunis, on Friday, February 7, 2014, reiterated that Israel was the “cancer” of the region. Two years earlier, during a (Friday) February 3, 2012 sermon, Khamenei intoned explicitly that Israel was a “cancerous tumor that should be cut, and will be cut.” This statement was conjoined to a defiant proclamation that Iran was forging ahead ahead with its nuclear program. Speaking to an audience of tens of thousands of volunteer Basij militiamen, on November 20, 2013 — just a few days before the “P5+1” agreement was announced, November 24, 2013 — Khameni declared:

“Zionist officials cannot be called humans, they are like animals, some of them. The Israeli regime is doomed to failure and annihilation.“

Turning to the current Nuclear negotiations, Bostom pointed out that a senior Iranian official referred to them as “the Treaty of Hudaybiyya in Geneva, and it will be followed by a ‘conquest of Mecca.'” (As Bostom describes the reference: “The armistice ‘Treaty of Hudaybiyya’ agreement between Muhammad and the 7th century pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, was unilaterally abrogated as soon Muhammad’s jihadist forces achieved the military superiority needed to vanquish his Meccan foes.”)

 

This is not the first time the Iranians admitted to using negotiations as a stalling tactic. The current president, Hassan Rouhani, bragged about using this technique a decade ago, when he was lead nuclear negotiator.  “While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan [the uranium conversion plant], but we still had a long way to go to complete the project,” he said in a 2006 speech. “In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work on Isfahan.” (For more on Rouhani’s role in these previous negotiations, see John Bolton’s 2008 memoir Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad.)

As reported by columnist Linda Chavez, “The interim agreement that the administration credits with ‘halting’ Iran’s nuclear program allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium to 3.5 percent purity in unlimited quantities, which is about 60 percent of the purity needed to produce weapons-grade material.” To understand some of the science behind this, consider a quotation by UC Berkley Physicist Richard Muller from his 2009 book Physics for Future Presidents: “The facilities being built in Iran and elsewhere could easily be modified for making weapons. The hard part of enriching uranium is handling the large amounts you have to process to convert the uranium from 0.7% U-235 to reactor-grade 3% U-235. By the time you’ve done that, the amount of material you have to handle has been reduced by a factor of four, and further enrichment to 80% or 99% U-235 purity is relatively straightforward.” 

In a move he described as “classic John Kerry,” Bostom blasted appeasers for having fabricated a story about the existence of a fatwa (Islamic religious edict) issued by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, banning nuclear weapons. Not only does such a fatwa not exist, but there is, on record, a letter by the Islamic Republic’s founder Ayatollah Khomeini endorsing a program to “make a substantial number of laser and atomic weapons.”

Additionally, Bostom pointed to other problem with the deal, including: 

• No coverage of ballistic missile program    
• No inspections of experimental military/technical facility at Parchin (warhead generation/triggering device development)    
• Even “linchpin advance,” i.e., alleged curtailment of uranium enrichment, dubious