If this is true I am extremely happy for Iran.. Iran should have a very credible nuclear deterrence.
Iranian Nuclear Doctrine
- Thread starter jauk
- Start date
jauk
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2016
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Hey folks, again, discussing 'the fatva' and it's ramifications is entirely meaningless until we see verifiable formal 'with seal' imagery. I've asked this for years and nothing has been presented. Hopefully our dear @SalarHaqq can address that. The current commentary here by users does not match my understanding of 'the 'fatva' which prohibits their CREATION and KEEP let alone usage (I posted a tweet earlier referencing Khomeini himself and a push back by the twitter). But again, purely hearsay.
Regardless, the latest Iranian messaging on production of devices is devoid of any references to 'the fatva' (which is the correct Farsi pronunciation, btw). This is interesting in itself as it makes 'the fatva' moot for now.
Last edited:
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Several successive and mutually cementing fatwas were issued by Supreme Leader Khamenei (h.A.) on the topic.
The initial fatwa is from the mid-1990s, as reported by Gareth Porter in the journal Foreign Policy. It was the object of an unpublished letter addressed to an Iranian government official in response to an inquiry by the latter.
Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/16/when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-nukes/
In October, 2003 a verbal fatwa followed.
Source: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus115.pdf
At an August, 2005 emergency meeting of the IAEA's Board of Governors, the Iranian delegation made a declaration in which it explained that the Leader's fatwa covered not only the use, but also the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. This may be in reference to the 2003 fatwa.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130810154009/http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258
Four days after the conclusion of the JCPOA in July, 2015, ayatOllah Khamenei referenced his religious ruling in a speech:
"The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it's not true. We had a fatwa (religious ruling), declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks."
Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...the-United-States-following-nuclear-deal.html
According to the website of the embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in France, another fatwa was issued on 21 Azar 1389 / 12 December 2010. The website's domain (mfa.ir) pertains to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In any case, this is an official state-owned portal linked to an institution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Source: https://france.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/543649/
This puts to rest all western propaganda claiming no such fatwa exists.
۱۳۹۸/۰۷/۰۱- ۱۴:۴۳
دوشنبه 1 مهر 1398 - 14:43
متن فتوای حضرت آیت الله خامنه ای صادره در تاریخ 21 آذر 1389 مبنی بر حرام بودن سلاح هسته ای
متن فتوای حضرت آیت الله خامنه ای صادره در تاریخ 21 آذر 1389 مبنی بر حرام بودن سلاح هسته ای :
" به اعتقاد ما افزودن بر سلاح هسته ای ،دیگر انواع سلاح های کشتار جمعی ، نظیر سلاح شیمیایی و سلاح میکروبی نیز تهدیدی جدید علیه بشریت تلقی می‌شوند. ملت ایران که خود قربانی کاربرد سلاح شیمیایی است، بیش از دیگر ملت ها خطر تولید و انباشت این گونه سلاح ها را حس می‌کند و آماده است همه امکانات خود را در مسیر مقابله با آن قرار دهد. ما کاربرد این سلاح ها را حرام و تلاش برای مصونیت بخشیدن ابناء بشر از این بلای بزرگ را وظیفه همگان می دانیم".
Last edited:
aryobarzan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,586
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
@SalarHaqq ..great research...will you attempt to translate the Fatva to English.
jauk
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2016
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
The fatva is explicit on the USAGE of devices being haram. Not acquiring them. In both cases there is a wide birth for Iran to move forward.
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Correct. This said, in 2005 the Iranian delegation at the IAEA claimed that another of the Leader's fatwas prohibits their acquisition as well.
But we can now agree that such religious edicts by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution exist indeed, as proven by the textual citation of at least one of these on an official governmental Iranian website. Any outstanding doubts in this regard may thus safely be laid to rest from this moment on.
EnshAllah, as soon as I find the time.
Last edited:
jauk
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2016
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Btw, should we pin this? Thoughts?
jauk
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2016
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Huh. I thought a particular post can be pinned to the top of a thread...? No?
QWECXZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,150
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Iran needs nuclear weapons because our air force is outdated and our missiles cannot provide enough destructive power in a real war. Not unless we mass produce our missiles in millions which is practically impossible.
Those who think that our missiles will cripple the air forces of our neighboring countries before they damage our vital infrastructure should very carefully watch how Russia's extensive use of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as artilleries have failed to diminish the already weak air power of Ukraine. Not only Russia has failed to cripple or destroy the Ukrainian Air Force with its missile power, but it has failed to even stop the inflow of Western weapons to the war fronts.
A non-nuclear Russia would've already been fighting Ukraine and NATO inside its borders, probably a long time ago.
Those who think that our missiles will cripple the air forces of our neighboring countries before they damage our vital infrastructure should very carefully watch how Russia's extensive use of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as artilleries have failed to diminish the already weak air power of Ukraine. Not only Russia has failed to cripple or destroy the Ukrainian Air Force with its missile power, but it has failed to even stop the inflow of Western weapons to the war fronts.
A non-nuclear Russia would've already been fighting Ukraine and NATO inside its borders, probably a long time ago.
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Russia's special military operation in Ukraine was cited as an illustration to call into question Iran's missile-based A2/AD strategy, validate western-style concepts of air power and conclude that lack of a cutting edge air force is making nuclear armament indispensable to ensure Iran's safety. Regardless of the nuclear weapons issue, here's why this line of thought is inoperative:
1) When it comes to the conflict in Ukraine, the Kiev regime's air force is about the least of Russia's concerns. Air power hasn't enabled Ukraine to achieve noteworthy gains against advancing Russian forces, nor does it play a significant role in Ukraine's overall defensive effort. As such, it has not been a particular object of focus for Moscow. Hence why Russian ballistic missile strikes for the most part have been aimed at other targets than air bases. Moreover the massive, composite volleys of BM's as well as the sustained missile fire Iran would direct from multiple types of launch platforms and along a variety of trajectories at any foe in case of a war would strongly differ from Russian use of BM's in the current military campaign.
2) Proof is in the pudding: Islamic Iran has made possible the impossible thanks to her asymmetric defence doctrine in which ballistic missiles along with the IADS network assume a key function, supported by UAV's and cruise missiles. For several decades in a row, it is this precise formula in conjunction with factors such as Iran's regional alliances, geography (including insofar as it enables Iran to choke off a vast portion of global energy supplies), religious and national cohesion, which has deterred the US superpower from initiating military aggression in one form or another. For contestants of the effectiveness of Iran's non-nuclear deterrence, this occurrence leaves few discursive options, the most prominent being denial of Washington's actual destructive aims with regards to Iran (which comes in different iterations, from sober yet flawed assessments to outright conspiracy theories about a "secret alliance" between Tehran and the USA regime). Needless to say, these explanations aren't grounded in realistic and valid observation of American policy.
1) When it comes to the conflict in Ukraine, the Kiev regime's air force is about the least of Russia's concerns. Air power hasn't enabled Ukraine to achieve noteworthy gains against advancing Russian forces, nor does it play a significant role in Ukraine's overall defensive effort. As such, it has not been a particular object of focus for Moscow. Hence why Russian ballistic missile strikes for the most part have been aimed at other targets than air bases. Moreover the massive, composite volleys of BM's as well as the sustained missile fire Iran would direct from multiple types of launch platforms and along a variety of trajectories at any foe in case of a war would strongly differ from Russian use of BM's in the current military campaign.
2) Proof is in the pudding: Islamic Iran has made possible the impossible thanks to her asymmetric defence doctrine in which ballistic missiles along with the IADS network assume a key function, supported by UAV's and cruise missiles. For several decades in a row, it is this precise formula in conjunction with factors such as Iran's regional alliances, geography (including insofar as it enables Iran to choke off a vast portion of global energy supplies), religious and national cohesion, which has deterred the US superpower from initiating military aggression in one form or another. For contestants of the effectiveness of Iran's non-nuclear deterrence, this occurrence leaves few discursive options, the most prominent being denial of Washington's actual destructive aims with regards to Iran (which comes in different iterations, from sober yet flawed assessments to outright conspiracy theories about a "secret alliance" between Tehran and the USA regime). Needless to say, these explanations aren't grounded in realistic and valid observation of American policy.
Last edited:
Stryker1982
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,864
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Here's where I am a problem with, Ukraine airforce was practically non-existent even from the start of the war. They had a UAV fleet that is currently deleted along with the replenishment UAVs, also deleted.
Imagine if Russia didn't have any long range missiles. What then would be the strength of Ukraine UAV, Air fleet, logistical and training centers, and weapons depots?
They cannot stop the flow, but what they can do is locate their depots as best as they can, and utilize the means to destroy them from long range. Without these missiles, Ukraine's military situation would be far more stronger.
QWECXZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,150
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Are you afraid of quoting me, Salar jan?
1) It is not about the Ukrainian Air Force. Russia's lack of air superiority has allowed Ukraine to import huge amounts of weapons from NATO. If Russia had established air superiority over Ukraine, NATO wouldn't have been able to arm Ukraine in this extent. It's not like Russia has not tried to cut Ukraine's arms transfers. They just have failed in doing so.
2) The US sees no reason to attack Iran. Needless to say, that the US is fully capable of imposing huge damage on Iran's vital infrastructure. It took the US only 24 hours after Khamenei told Trump "you can't do a damn thing" to assassinate Iran's most respected and highest ranking general, namely General Soleimani for which Iran has not been able to come up with a proper response even 3 years later.
QWECXZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,150
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
No, I'm not saying that missiles didn't help at all. I'm just saying that they didn't deliver enough destruction for Russia to cut off Ukraine's supply of arms.
I mean look at what little damage a Russia caliber missile did to the Zatoka bridge in Odessa, for example.
Or another photo that is apparently from a Ukrainian railway hit by a Kalibr missile. This is not something that can't be repaired in a few days/weeks and it's quite disappointing for a missile that can deliver a 500 kg warhead and costs over $5 million.
Last edited:
Stryker1982
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,864
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
That's kinda like dealing with a runway, it can always be repaired eventually, although they should be using Ballistic to create big craters.
They can still truck them over the border, so I am not sure what they can really do about that, besides attacking any warehouse they can find.
Problem with Russia seems to be they do not have any ballistic missiles that are non-nuclear with a long range beyond the Iskanders, Repeated bombing of the main border roads, and railways would cause large craters that are difficult to repair, that Kalibrs don't do. Your picture pretty much proves it. And they don't have the right tools for the job frankly. Another major oversight.
What would repeated Emad strikes do?
Abid123
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
- Messages
- 2,829
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
I am not trying to come across as rude, but I dont understand why certain Iranian members like to claim that Iran does not need to have a modern air force since it has lots of ballistic missiles and UCAV's. You still need a air force.
China with the largest conventional missile force in the world is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on its air force. If you can have a strong air force+large ballistic missile/UCAV inventory why not?
China with the largest conventional missile force in the world is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on its air force. If you can have a strong air force+large ballistic missile/UCAV inventory why not?
