Iran Guards Chief Criticizes Rouhani-Obama Call

إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية W460

Iran's Revolutionary Guards chief said Monday President Hassan Rouhani should have refused a telephone call from his U.S. counterpart, in the first public criticism of the move by a senior official.

Rouhani's landmark conversation with Barack Obama last week was the first contact between leaders of the two countries since the rupture of diplomatic relations in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The president took a firm and appropriate position during his stay" in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, General Mohammad Ali Jafari said in an interview with the Tasnimnews.com website.

"But just as he refused to meet Obama, he should also have refused to speak with him on the telephone and should have waited for concrete action by the United States."

Jafari said the Iranian government could make "tactical errors" but added that these could be "repaired".

"If we see errors being made by officials, the revolutionary forces will issue the necessary warnings," added the commander of the elite Guards who consider themselves as defenders of the values of the revolution.

The criticism came despite appeals earlier this month by both Rouhani and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for the Guards, to steer clear of politics.

Jafari said Washington should respond to the good will shown by Rouhani in New York by "lifting all sanctions against the Iranian nation, releasing Iranian assets frozen in the United States, ending its hostility towards Iran and accepting Iran's nuclear program."

The commander of the Guards air wing General Amir-Ali Hadjizadeh told the corps' own sepahnews.com website that "U.S. hostility can't be forgotten with a phone call and a smile".

But Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan backed Rouhani's decision, arguing that Obama's call was the sign of Iran's "the power and greatness".

Before and during his stay in New York, Rouhani indicated he had "full authority" on the nuclear negotiations with the West, and the support of Khamenei.

The supreme leader has yet to comment on the telephone conversation, but on September 17 he said it was "unnecessary" for the Guards to get involved in politics.

The previous day, Rouhani called on the Guards to "stand above political tendencies".

Rouhani, elected in June on a platform of easing confrontation with the West and lifting sanctions that pummeled the Iranian economy, accepted a phone call from Obama on Friday, and the pair spoke for 15 minutes.

The impetus for the call came from Iranian officials.

The momentous conversation was broadly welcomed in the Iranian press as well as abroad, but a small group of hardline Islamists protested outside Tehran's Mehrabad airport on his return.

A shoe was thrown, as the protesters chanted: "Death to America," a slogan that was long a ritual refrain at official rallies.

In addition to the telephone call, Iran held talks Thursday with foreign ministers of the major powers on the framework for negotiations on its nuclear program which are due to be held in Geneva on October 15-16.

The West wants major concessions from Tehran including the suspension of all enrichment of uranium beyond the level required to fuel nuclear power plants, and the closure of Iran's underground enrichment facility near the central city of Qom.

The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action to halt Iran's nuclear drive, which they say is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

The West wants major concessions from Tehran including the suspension of all enrichment of uranium beyond the level required to fuel nuclear power plants, and the closure of Iran's underground enrichment facility near the central city of Qom.

Iran insists its nuclear drive is entirely peaceful in nature and that it is enriching uranium to five and 20 percent only to generate electricity and for medical purposes.

Comments 30
Thumb benzona 30 September 2013, 15:41

The revolutionary guards are Iran's cancer, just like Hezbollah is ours. They don't answer to the president, they undermine him.... They might even blow up his convoy just like Hezbollah blew up Rafic Hariri.

May God curse these terrorists and their fans.

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 17:26

hahaha now benzo wants to save the Iranians from "cancer" too. such a big heart, so much love

Thumb loveandpeace 04 October 2013, 09:11

So mouwaten, who is your role model now ahmadjinjad is gone: Rouhani or Ali Jaafari? You sound like you are at a loss here.. Who is your leader? Are you waiting for Hassoun to decide for you?

Thumb Senescence 30 September 2013, 19:03

lol

Thumb Machia 30 September 2013, 16:14

I hope that the talks between the US and Iran will have a positive outcome for the whole region.
There are obviously a lot of parties in the US and in the region that do not want such a deal but we need good news in our backyard.
Peace and security in the Middle East would mean economic growth, job opportunities, tourism, culture, education, agriculture, industry and no need to leave our countries, risk death at sea and get humilated in foreign lands.

Thumb geha 30 September 2013, 16:23

So true.
but the question remains: will they let Rouhani negotiate and will iran back down?

Thumb jabal10452 30 September 2013, 17:13

Southern, OK, Jafari has the right to oppose his president. Let us call it freedom of opinion. But here's the catch Jafari stated:

"If we see errors being made by officials, the revolutionary forces will issue the necessary warnings,"

See, he is getting ready to issue a warning to the president. That doesn't sound like good old fashioned democracy at work now, does it?

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 17:28

that anyone can express his views, even if they differ, that's freedom of speech. jafari didnt use force, he used words, only a brainwshee is incapable of seeing that.

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 17:31

"Never has any sitting American chief of staff has allowed himself to publicly challenge his commander in chief political decisions/moves."
ahem...
http://www.rense.com/general76/third.htm

and on top of that, if it wasnt the case and the army just executed decisions without any possibility of expressing disagreement, that would be dictatorship, kind of like under the nazis, where army generals were "only obeying orders"

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 17:40

of course Qahwaji cn express his views, if there is a serious matter and he sees something wrong, he MUST say it. expressing a view does not mean mutiny or disobeying direct orders (like rifi did).
also, i thought we were talking of iran and the US, why divert to qahwaji suddenly?

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 17:41

I am here roar, always taking it easy ;)

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 18:10

"This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful," Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300196.html

oh.. darn, it's not on rense and it's a televised criticism of his the US administration war drum beating. ouch guys.

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 18:11

criticism of his *superiors in the US administration

Default-user-icon nobody (Guest) 30 September 2013, 18:26

In the US, military officers that do not tow the official line end up being forced to resign. The following is from wikipedia on admiral Fallon that was brought up by _mowaten

On March 11, 2008 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the resignation of Fallon as CENTCOM Commander. He stated that Fallon's reason for resigning centered on the controversy regarding a recent article in Esquire magazine[11] which depicted him as openly criticizing the Bush administration[12] with specific regard to American policy towards Iran

Missing peace 30 September 2013, 18:33

iranian gvt needs to open its policies after the very difficult situation ahmedinejad put them through. economy has fallen, unemployement and inflation sore, the iranian people are fed up with this regime and if they do not change they face a revolt too! iranian people don't give a damn about hezbis, hezbis are the tool of the islamic regime.
that is why rouhani is trying to open to the west and dealing with them. but of course he is still under the orders of the ayatollahs which govern this country under sha3ia laws (like in saudi by the way LOL!)

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 18:46

anonyme: "Never has any sitting American chief of staff has allowed himself to publicly challenge his commander in chief political decisions/moves."
ahem (bis)

Thumb _mowaten_ 30 September 2013, 18:47

also, i dont support sacking them for speaking publicly, and i dont consider the us&a like a role model that we have to follow. your criticizing the iranian general based on what you assume they should be (more like the US) is nonsensical.

Thumb jabal10452 30 September 2013, 18:50

The man to watch is Khamenei. He indicated his disapproval of the Republican Guard's involvement in politics, and Jafari brazenly defies the Supreme Leader with his statement against Rouhani. How will Khamenei respond? I smell a power struggle and Khamenei, as usual, is the fulcrum.

Missing peace 30 September 2013, 18:50

funny how you M8ers are always here to defend iran.... but never have you seen one against M8 defend saudi arabia's regime....

the difference is that open minded people can see that saudis and iranian regime are BOTH dictatorships based on islamic extremism...

but only M8ers fail to see that for iran! LOL

Thumb LEBhasNOhope 30 September 2013, 19:19

Iran, a democracy? ha! go tell that to all the people that were not allowed to run for president because they were not approved by khumeini.

Thumb jabal10452 30 September 2013, 19:26

Southern, whenever you have politicians, you're going to have jockeying for power and influence. That's the nature of the political game. A politician must garner influence. without influence, a politician is useless. From the backrooms of the US Congress to the corridors of the Vatican to Qom and Teheran. They all play the same game. There is always someone waiting for his political opponent to slip. That's the opening to score points.

Texas: come to think of it, I bet that Khamenei will keep both Jafari and Rouhani. He will play them against each other, and they will keep each other in check. Don't underestimate the machiavellianism of Iranian politicians: Iranians invented chess!

Missing VINCENT 30 September 2013, 21:53

Mr. Revolutionary (Hemm, I guest the Iranian revolution has not ended. OK, anyway) Guards chief, I like to send you a couple more presents that you wouldn't approve of.

Missing beirutbastard00 30 September 2013, 22:05

I respect irans self-sufficiency, especially in military production... Having said that, I'd like to say they are a democracy like the Vatican is a democracy.

@southern, ok we get it, leader of the revolution... How long is this revolution gonna take? Is Iran ever gonna be ready to trust its own people? This vague "revolution" has become the very thing it was revolting against. Iran can be a great country without these incompetent ppl in charge.

I expect this guards chief to retire soon, only cause the article says khamenei asked him to stay out of politics. I think that shows u who is really in power in Iran, and as souther proudly admits...

Missing beirutbastard00 30 September 2013, 22:15

This was too public... If this guy doesn't "quit" soon, it means khamanei was behind it, or the military is too big to control now. Time will tell.

Missing VINCENT 01 October 2013, 01:51

Iran Logic-101.

Missing VINCENT 01 October 2013, 02:01

Southern: What logic to you employ when you characterized the U.S. as "warmonger", but you praise the Iranian and Syrian regimes when they butcher their own people and innocent Lebanese?

Missing VINCENT 01 October 2013, 02:35

Mowaten: Jafari said: "If we see errors being made by officials, the revolutionary forces will issue the necessary warnings," Here, the operative words are "... the revolutionary forces will issue the necessary warnings..." This statement directed towards an elected President goes beyond an otherwise protected speech practiced in nations who constitutionally provide and protect freedom of speech. Just as "Fighting Words" and speech that "threatens Executive decision" do not enjoy Freedom of Speech under the 1st Amendment in the U.S., a threat by Jafari to issue the "necessary warnings", which is intended to alter the course of a Executive/Presidential decision, clearly does not constitute mere garden variety protected speech. But then again, Jafari is Iranian, and he is not subject to the same standards of Freedom of Speech that the U.S. enjoys.

Default-user-icon NewLebanon (Guest) 01 October 2013, 02:37

I have always felt that diplomacy is a much more effective option than military build-up and threats. Look at how far the Israelis have gotten by using well-educated marketing-minded individuals as the face of their "cause." They are somehow able to appeal to the West and their masses. Arabs, on the other hand, have had ignorant war-mongers like Arafat, Ahmadinajad, and Nasrallah who know nothing but threats and finger-shaking. Their very existence is based on ensuring that Israel remains a daily threat.

We finally have what appears to be a reasonable man at the helm in Iran. In just one short month in office, he already has the Israeli leadership shaking in their boots like they have at almost no other time in their existence. All this was accomplished through diplomacy and a civilized appeal to the West, rather than what we have grown accustomed to. Let’s how that we keep heading in this direction so that the words of Nasrallah et al. will start to fall on deaf ears.

Default-user-icon Rima Hanna (Guest) 01 October 2013, 04:19

All I can say to chief Said BS ....

Default-user-icon Rima Hanna (Guest) 01 October 2013, 05:55

I like to say to Jafari BS..