Online news: In the situation that Iran has repeatedly raised that He will not enter into negotiations with America on nuclear issues And the shadow of the war after the mid-term elections of the US Congress is heavy in the sky of the country, some members of parliament have wanted to build an atomic bomb. such as Mahmoud Naboyan, representative of Tehran who wrote on the X social network: “Tonight, in the gathering of the noble people of Qom, I requested permission to build an atomic bomb from the Supreme Leader, which was accompanied by praise and approval from the people who were sent.”
In this regard, Seyyed Hossein Naqvi Hosseini, fundamentalist political activistIn an interview with Khabar Online news agency, he emphasized in response to these statements: “When none of the country’s decision-making bodies have yet commented on the change in the nuclear strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and have not passed a resolution in this regard, raising such issues in gatherings, the Majlis tribune, and other circles will only be costly for us.” These statements bring our enemies to a consensus and even make our friends waver in their support for Iran.”
He also said about proposing such positions: “I think these people are not aware of the consequences and costs of their statements, and they should be talked to.” “The regulatory and security institutions should invite these people and have a conversation with them.”
You can read the detailed interview of Seyed Hossein Naqvi Hosseini, a fundamentalist political activist, below;
**************************
* Recently, some parliamentarians and some figures belonging to the extremist spectrum have been making statements about making atomic bombs and nuclear weapons in the past days. These statements are made in a situation where, on the one hand, we declare that we will not negotiate on nuclear issues, and on the other hand, the martyred leader of the revolution had also issued a fatwa on the sanctity of making nuclear bombs. How costly can these statements be for the country?
In this context, two points should be considered. First, in the current situation, any comments made by officials, officials and people with political status in the country will definitely be cited. I myself have participated in some diplomatic talks and trips, and I have witnessed that when we were talking about an issue with the other side, they immediately put the statements of parliament members, some ministers or senior officials of the country in front of us as documents and said that your representative made such a statement or the head of a certain group spoke like that.
Therefore, any kind of statement by people with a political position in the country should be done carefully and considerately. We should all note that our statements and positions must be completely coordinated with the country’s decision-making bodies and in line with the policies adopted by these bodies; Otherwise, these statements will be cited in the future.
The second point is that in the current situation, we should not enter into comments that end up benefiting our enemies or create a consensus among them. We should follow a process that creates differences among our enemies and they face each other, not to provide the ground for their consensus against the country with our comments.
None of the country’s decision-making institutions have commented on the change in the nuclear strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Currently, the European Union, the Americans and the Zionist regime are in the same position. Commenting on withdrawing from the NPT or building an atomic bomb will create a consensus against us and make even our friends waver in their support for Iran.
If at some point the country’s main decision-making bodies and institutions pass a resolution on changing the nuclear strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and openly declare that we have changed our direction in our nuclear strategy, the matter will be different; Because in this case, an official body has made a decision. Also, if the Supreme Leader has an opinion or a new fatwa about the Fatwa of the Martyr of the Revolution, the Supreme National Security Council has a resolution in this regard, it should be taken into consideration by all institutions and everyone should act on it.
But when none of the country’s decision-making institutions have yet commented on the change in the nuclear strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and have not passed a resolution in this regard, raising such issues in gatherings, the podium of the Majlis and other circles will only be costly for us. These statements bring our enemies to a consensus and make even our friends waver in their support for Iran.
Today, countries like China and Russia fairly support Iran and stand by us. If we raise the issue of withdrawing from the NPT or building an atomic bomb, these same friends who support Iran will also waver in their support. Therefore, in my opinion, raising these issues only creates costs, increases our problems, unites our enemies, and makes our friends in the international arena hesitate to support Iran; While it does not have any achievements for us. We have to see what the plan of such positions will bring to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Our comments and demonstration of power should be in the framework of the macro policies of the country
* People who raise such issues are naturally aware of the costs that may be incurred for the country and know the fatwa of the martyred leader of the revolution. Why are such statements made despite this knowledge?
I think these people are not aware of the consequences and costs of their statements and they should be talked to. The regulatory and security institutions should invite these people and have a conversation with them. The Speaker of the Parliament should also talk to the representatives. Also, those who give speeches in gatherings should be justified in this regard.
When a person is in a community, he may be influenced by the emotions and slogans of the crowd and suddenly make strange comments. In such situations, emotions overcome the cost-benefit analysis of statements.
Therefore, in my opinion, these people are not sufficiently aware of the results and effects of their words. Maybe they think that these statements are in favor of the national interests and authority of the country. It is a principle that today we must speak authoritatively and show our military authority to the enemy. But showing authority does not mean leaving the framework of the country’s macro policies and spending more, even for our military forces. Our comments and demonstration of power should be in the framework of the macro policies of the country.
Can nuclear knowledge be destroyed?
* Can these statements give Trump an excuse to attack Iran again?
As I mentioned earlier, it is natural that when we talk about making atomic bombs and nuclear weapons, the enemy is encouraged to take this possibility away from us.
One of the unrealistic achievements that Trump is currently presenting to himself is that he says that he has destroyed Iran’s nuclear field; While this claim is not true. Can nuclear knowledge be destroyed? Financial and technological damages may be incurred, but knowledge, science and technical capability cannot be destroyed.
One of the claims that Trump is making now is that he has stopped Iran from building an atomic bomb. Now, if we say that we have this ability and can make an atomic bomb, what is the meaning of this statement? Its meaning is quite clear and can encourage the enemy to destroy this capability.
31215
