- Posted by Maryam Namazie
- On September 27, 2004
- 0 Comments
International TV interview with Ali Javadi
September 27, 2004
Maryam Namazie: Your recent interview entitled ‘against Iran’s nuclear aims’ raised several questions amongst viewers. One was that the Non-Proliferation Treaty allows for states to have nuclear capabilities for peaceful means. Why can’t Iran have such capabilities like all other countries?
Ali Javadi: I don’t think that is the objection at hand. At least as far as the International Atomic Agency is concerned, they are not saying that Iran should not have access to peaceful nuclear technology. What is being said is that the Islamic regime of Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and ammunitions – the degree of uranium found in some of its sites attest to that. So the issue is not whether Iran should or shouldn’t have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. I think any state should have it as long as it is used within the confines of peaceful purposes such as electricity or other domestic uses, and not for military purposes. My position and that of the Worker-communist Party of Iran’s is categorically against any state in the world from having weapons of mass destruction (WMD). By their very definition, they are weapons used against people and therefore we demand the elimination of all such weapons. At the same time, we are opposed to anyone and any state acquiring any new technology that would enable them to build WMD. In this instance, we are against the Islamic regime of Iran gaining these weapons because we are also fighting to overthrow this regime and we don’t want to see political Islam having access to nuclear weapons as it will even better equip them to slaughter more people.
Maryam Namazie: Someone’s written a letter saying it is hypocritical for you or anyone or any country that possesses nuclear weapons to tell others not to have them?
Ali Javadi: It is hypocritical of those states and we are critical of that but it is not hypocritical for me who am categorically against any state or anyone having these weapons. We belong to the movement that demands the elimination of all WMD. Obviously 90 percent of these weapons are in the hands of the USA and its allies, NATO, Russia, China forces and so on. Iran is a special case for us because it is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and we are trying to overthrow that regime. Neither we nor humanity can tolerate their acquiring such weapons. Their track record against the people of Iran is renowned. It’s hypocritical for those states to say so because they have it but for us it is a very solid position since we are against all WMD and in this particular case against the Islamic regime from acquiring any.
Maryam Namazie: Someone has written saying it has been proven that the USA will attack countries without nuclear weapons like Iraq so how can you justify opposing Iran gaining access to them when it could be a precondition for preventing a US attack on Iran?
Ali Javadi: These are arguments to defend the Islamic regime of Iran or come from a position that is so anti-USA that it does not see the realities in the world. I think that Bush and the ruling class of the USA cannot easily attack Iran or the Islamic regime. The balances of forces, the international situation of the Islamic regime and so on are different from Iraq. I don’t think they have such a plan in the near future. And obviously everyone knows the consequences of such a plan would be devastating for many years to come in the Middle East.
If anyone is truly interested in stopping George Bush and the US ruling class from attacking Iran or anywhere else and causing devastation and regression in the lives of people, they should join the anti-war movement, the third camp against the ruling class of western countries as well as political Islam and the Islamic movement. That is if anyone has that interest in mind. That is a more solid approach rather than joining the camp of the Islamists and defending their gaining access to WMD so that they can be more equipped militarily to fight the USA’s forces and its allies – the other barbaric camp in the world.
Maryam Namazie: Someone has written saying that when you stand against a nuclear Iran you’re actually defending the foreign policies of the USA and UK governments and helping the USA promote its regime change from above. What would you say to that?
Ali Javadi: Just as we are unequivocally against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, we are also against the USA attacking Iran and implementing its regime change policy, which can only bring devastation and destruction to the society. But there is a third position – that is the whole beauty of it. That is you can be against the Islamic regime acquiring WMD and against the USA government’s policy for regime change at the same time and be on the side of the people, humanity and the working class. That is the side people can choose. The only way we can guarantee that the Islamic regime does not acquire WMD is by overthrowing it via leading and organising the revolution that is fermenting in Iran and bringing it to its positive conclusion. The regime change policy of the USA or even the threats to attack Iran by Israel or other forces will not be able to stop the regime from acquiring these weapons. The only viable way is for the people to overthrow the regime and eliminate the potential for acquiring WMD whilst opposing US policy at the same time.
Maryam Namazie: Someone has written a letter quoting your saying “Peaceful technology and peaceful use of nuclear technology is something that is obviously within the domain of all countries but the Islamic regime is geared towards developing WMD and nuclear weapons. These Islamic beasts, this political movement must not be allowed to be equipped with the atomic bomb. As it is they are a machinery of killing.” She goes on to say ‘Iran is not the Islamic regime only. Iran is a land with its people. You have a very low opinion of Iranians.’ Is that the case?
Ali Javadi: This is a nationalist position. Obviously the people of Iran are separate from the regime! The regime of Iran is a brutal imposition on the society and the people. But right now we are talking about the Islamic regime acquiring WMD. By overthrowing the Islamic regime of Iran we don’t want to have any WMD. We are promoting a policy that Iran should be nuclear weapons-free. We do not seek to have WMD. Anybody who cares for peace, justice, liberty and humanity should see that. WMD by their definition are for use against people. In the final analysis, when someone pushes the nuclear button, hundreds of thousands will be killed and maimed and civil society will be pushed back for generations. That’s the essence of what we are saying. We don’t want to see any WMD neither in Iran, the USA, Israel, Pakistan, India or anywhere else.
Maryam Namazie: Contrary to what the viewer has said, in fact you have a very high regard for human beings and Iranians that you don’t want nuclear weapons to be in the hands of the Islamic regime.
Ali Javadi: Anyone with any regard for humanity should be against WMD.
Maryam Namazie: Another viewer wrote from a completely different position, asking whether it wouldn’t be safer for the world to just bomb Iran’s nuclear facility to ensure it doesn’t gain access to WMD?
Ali Javadi: This is an adventurist militaristic position. What would happen if such an attack took place: it would have devastating consequences like Chernobyl and it would cause terrible casualties for people living in the surrounding areas. It would be devastating. And it wouldn’t stop the regime from equipping itself with such WMD. The only viable way to stop the regime gaining such access is by its revolutionary overthrow and that is what we are working towards.
Maryam Namazie: One final question, what is the difference between your stance and those of the questions received vis-à-vis human beings?
Ali Javadi: I don’t think they are defending humanity nor promoting the elimination of all WMD. In the fight between the Islamic movement/political Islam and western governments – the imperialist powers so to speak – they are taking sides and they are taking the side of the Islamic regime of Iran. We on the other hand are siding with the people.
The above is an International TV (http://www.anternasional.tv/english) interview dated September 27, 2004.