Iran, 2013

Mr. President, at the outset, I

would like to offer my most sincere felicitations on your

deserved election as President of the General Assembly

and to seize the moment to express appreciation for the

valuable efforts of the Secretary-General.

Our world today is replete with fear and hope — fear

of war and hostile regional and global relations; fear

of deadly confrontation between religious, ethnic and

national identities; fear of the institutionalization of

violence and extremism; fear of poverty and destructive

discrimination; fear of decay and the destruction of

life-sustaining resources; fear of the disregard for

human dignity and rights; and fear of the neglect of

morality. Alongside those fears, however, there are new

hopes — the hope of the universal acceptance of “yes

to peace and no to war” by the people and the elite all

across the globe; and the hope that dialogue will be

preferred over conflict and moderation over extremism.

The recent election in Iran represents a clear, living

example of the wise choice for hope, rationality and

moderation by the great people of Iran. The realization

of democracy consistent with religion and the peaceful

transfer of executive power showed that Iran is an anchor

of stability in an ocean of regional instabilities. The

firm belief of our people and Government in enduring

peace, stability, tranquillity, the peaceful resolution of

disputes and the reliance on the ballot box as the basis

of power, public acceptance and legitimacy has indeed

played a key role in creating such a safe environment.

The current critical period of transition in

international relations is replete with dangers, albeit

also with unique opportunities. Any miscalculation of

one’s own position, and of course those of others, will

cause damage on a historic scale; a mistake by one actor

will have a negative impact on all others. Vulnerability

is now a global and indivisible phenomenon.

At this sensitive juncture in the history of global

relations, the age of zero-sum games is over, even

though a few actors still tend to rely on archaic and

deeply ineffective ways and means of preserving their

old superiority and domination. Militarism and the

recourse to violent and military means for the purposes

of subjugating others have shown themselves to be

failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new

circumstances.

Coercive economic and military policies and

practices geared to the maintenance and preservation of

old superiorities and domination have been pursued in a

conceptual mindset that negates peace, security, human

dignity and exalted human ideals. Ignoring differences

between societies and globally imposing Western values

as universal values represent further manifestations of

that conceptual mindset. Yet another reflection of the

same cognitive model is the persistence of the Cold

War mentality and the bipolar division of the world into

the “superior us” and the “inferior other”. Fanning fear

and phobia around the emergence of new actors on the

world scene is still another.

In such an environment, governmental and

non-governmental, religious, ethnic and even racial

violence has increased, and there is no guarantee

that the era of quiet among major Powers will remain

inviolate under the pressure of such violent discourse,

practices and actions. The catastrophic impact of

violent and extremist narratives should not — in fact,

must not — be underestimated.

In that context, the strategic violence that is

manifested in efforts to deprive regional players of

their natural domain of action, containment policies,

regime change from the outside and efforts to redraw

political borders and frontiers, is extremely dangerous

and provocative. The prevalent international political

discourse depicts a civilized centre surrounded by

uncivilized peripheries. In that scenario, the relation

between the centre of world power and the peripheries

is hegemonic.

The discourse that assigns centre stage to the North

while relegating the South to the periphery has led to the

establishment of a monologue in international relations.

The creation of illusory identity distinctions and the

current prevalent violent forms of xenophobia are the

inevitable outcome of such discourse. Propagandistic

and unfounded faith-phobic, Islamophobic, Shiaphobic

and Iranophobic discourse indeed represents a serious

threat to world peace and human security. That

propagandistic discourse has assumed dangerous

proportions through the portrayal and inculcation of

presumed imaginary threats. One such imaginary

threat is the so-called Iranian threat, which has been

employed as an excuse to justify a long catalogue of

crimes and catastrophic practices over the past three

decades. The arming of the Saddam Hussein regime

with chemical weapons and support for the Taliban and

Al-Qaida are just two examples of such catastrophes.

Let me say in all sincerity before this world Assembly

that, based on irrefutable evidence, those who harp on

the so-called threat of Iran are either a threat against

international peace and security themselves or promote

such a threat. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the

world or to the region. In fact, in its ideals as well as in

actual practice, my country has been a harbinger of just

peace and comprehensive security.

Nowhere in the world has violence been so

deadly and destructive as in North Africa and West

Asia. Military intervention in Afghanistan, Saddam

Hussein’s imposed war against Iran, the occupation

of Kuwait, military interventions against Iraq, the

brutal repression of the Palestinian people, the

assassination of ordinary people and political figures

in Iran and terrorist bombings in countries such as Iraq,

Afghanistan and Lebanon are examples of the acts of

violence committed in that region in the past three

decades.

What has been and continues to be practiced

against the innocent people of Palestine is nothing less

than structural violence. Palestine is under occupation;

the basic rights of the Palestinians are being tragically

violated, and they are deprived of the right of return

and access to their homes, birthplace and homeland.

Apartheid as a concept can hardly describe the crimes

and the institutionalized aggression committed against

the innocent Palestinian people.

The human tragedy in Syria represents a painful

example of the catastrophic spread of violence and

extremism in our region. From the very outset of the

crisis, when certain regional and international actors

helped to militarize the situation through the infusion

of arms and intelligence into the country and active

support for extremist groups, we emphasized that there

was no military solution to the Syrian crisis. The pursuit

of expansionist strategies and objectives and attempts

to change the regional balance through proxies cannot

be camouflaged behind humanitarian rhetoric.

The common objective of the international

community should be a quick end to the killing of

the innocent. While condemning any use of chemical

weapons, we welcome Syria’s acceptance of the

Chemical Weapons Convention and believe that access

by extremist terrorist groups to such weapons poses

the greatest possible danger to the region and must be

considered in any disarmament plan. Simultaneously,

I would underline that any illegitimate and ineffective

threat of use, or the actual use of, force will only lead

to the further exacerbation of violence and crisis in the

region.

Terrorism and the killing of innocent persons

represent the ultimate inhumanity of extremism and

violence. Terrorism is a violent scourge and knows no

national borders. But violence and extreme actions,

such as the use of drones, against innocent people

in the name of combating terrorism should also be

condemned. Here I should also like to say a word about

the criminal assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.

For what crimes were they assassinated? The United

Nations and its Security Council should answer this

question — have the perpetrators been condemned?

Unjust sanctions, as a manifestation of structural

violence, are intrinsically inhumane and against peace.

Contrary to the claims of those who pursue and impose

them, it is not the States and the political elite that

are targeted; rather, it is the common people who are

victimized by such sanctions. Let us not forget the

millions of Iraqis who, as a result of sanctions cloaked in

international legal jargon, suffered and lost their lives,

and the many more who continue to suffer throughout

their lives. Those sanctions are violent, pure and

simple, whether called smart or otherwise, unilateral

or multilateral. They violate inalienable human rights,

inter alia, the right to peace, the right to development,

the right to access to health and education, and, above

all, the right to life. Sanctions, beyond any and all

rhetoric, cause belligerence, warmongering and human

suffering. It should be borne in mind, however, that their

negative impact is not limited merely to their intended

victims; it also affects the economy and livelihood of

other countries and societies, including the countries

imposing sanctions.

Today violence and extremism have gone beyond

the physical realm and, unfortunately, have afflicted and

tarnished the mental and spiritual dimensions of life in

human societies. Violence and extremism leave no space

for understanding and moderation as the necessary

foundations of the collective life of human beings and

modern society. Intolerance is the predicament of our

time. We need to promote and reinforce tolerance in

the light of the religious teachings and appropriate

cultural and political approaches. Human society

should be elevated from a state of mere tolerance to one

of collective collaboration. We should not just tolerate

others. We should rise above mere tolerance and dare to

work together.

People the world over are tired of war, violence

and extremism. They are hoping for a change in the

status quo. This is a unique opportunity for us all. The

Islamic Republic of Iran believes that all challenges can

be managed successfully through a smart, judicious

blend of hope and moderation. Warmongers are bent

on extinguishing all hope. But hope for change for the

better is an innate, religious, widespread and universal

concept.

Hope is founded on the belief in the universal

will of the people across the globe to combat violence

and extremism, to cherish change, to oppose imposed

structures, to value choice and to act in accordance with

human responsibility. Hope is without a doubt one of

the greatest gifts bestowed upon human beings by their

all-loving Creator. And moderation means to think and

move in a wise, judicious manner, conscious of time

and space, and to align exalted ideals with a choice

of effective strategies and policies, while remaining

cognizant of objective realities.

The Iranian people, in a judiciously sober choice

in the recent elections, voted for the discourse of hope,

foresight and prudent moderation, both at home and

abroad. In foreign policy, the combination of those

elements means that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as

a regional power, will act responsibly with regard to

regional and international security and is willing and

prepared to cooperate in these fields, bilaterally as

well as multilaterally, with other responsible actors.

We defend peace based on democracy and the ballot

box everywhere, including in Syria, Bahrain and other

countries of the region, and believe that there are no

violent solutions to world crises. The bitter and ugly

realities of human society can be overcome only through

recourse to and reliance on human wisdom, interaction

and moderation. Peace, democracy and the legitimate

rights of all countries in the world, including in the

Middle East, cannot and will not be secured through

militarism.

Iran seeks to resolve problems, not to create them.

There is no issue or dossier that cannot be resolved

through reliance on hope, prudent moderation, mutual

respect and the rejection of violence and extremism.

Iran’s nuclear dossier is a case in point. As clearly

stated by the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

acceptance of Iran’s inalienable rights constitutes the

best and easiest way of resolving this issue. This is

not political rhetoric. Rather, it is based on a profound

recognition of the state of technology in Iran, the

global political environment, the end of the era of zero-

sum games and the imperative of seeking common

objectives and interests in order to reach common

understanding and shared security. Put otherwise, Iran

and other actors should pursue two common objectives

as two mutually inseparable parts of a political solution

for Iran’s nuclear dossier.

First, Iran’s nuclear programme — and for that

matter, that of all other countries — must pursue

exclusively peaceful purposes. I declare here, openly

and unambiguously, that, notwithstanding others’

positions, this has been and always will be the objective

of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nuclear and other

weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s

security and defence doctrine, and contradict our

fundamental religious and ethical convictions. Our

national interests make it imperative that we remove

any and all reasonable concerns about Iran’s peaceful

nuclear programme.

The second objective — acceptance of and respect

for the implementation of the right to enrichment

inside Iran and the enjoyment of other related nuclear

rights — provides the only path towards achieving the

first objective. Nuclear knowledge in Iran has now

been domesticated and nuclear technology, including

enrichment, has already reached an industrial scale.

It is therefore an illusion and extremely unrealistic

to presume that the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear

programme could be ensured by impeding the

programme via illegitimate pressures.

In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran,

insisting on enjoying its rights and the imperative of

international respect and cooperation in this exercise,

is prepared to engage immediately in time-bound and

results-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and

ensure the removal of mutual uncertainties with full

transparency.

Iran seeks constructive engagement with other

countries based on mutual respect and common

interests and, within the same framework, does not

seek to increase tensions with the United States. I

listened carefully to the statement made by President

Obama today in the General Assembly. With efforts

commensurate with the political will of the leadership

in the United States, and hoping that they will

refrain from following the short-sighted interests of

warmongering pressure groups, we can arrive at a

framework to manage our differences. To this end, equal

footing, mutual respect and the recognized principles

of international law should govern our interactions. Of

course, we expect to hear a consistent message from

Washington, D. C.

In recent years, a dominant message has been heard

reiterating again and again that the military option is

on the table. Against the backdrop of this illegal and

ineffective assertion, let me say loud and clear that peace

is within reach. So, on behalf of the Islamic Republic of

Iran, I propose, as a first step, the consideration by the

United Nations of a project to be known as “A World

Against Violence and Extremism”. Let us all ride this

wave. I invite all States, international organizations and

civil institutions to undertake a new effort to guide the

world in this direction. We should start thinking about

a coalition for enduring peace across the entire globe

instead of ineffective coalitions for war in various parts

of the world.

Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran urges the

Assembly and the entire world community to take a

step forward by accepting our invitation to join A World

Against Violence and Extremism. We should accept and

be able to open up new horizons in which peace will

prevail over war, tolerance over violence, progress over

bloodshed, justice over discrimination, prosperity over

poverty and freedom over despotism. As beautifully

stated by Ferdowsi, the renowned Iranian epic poet:

“Be relentless in striving for the cause of good;

Bring the spring, you must;

Banish the winter, you should.”

Notwithstanding all the difficulties and challenges

before us, I am deeply optimistic about the future. I

have no doubt that the future will be bright, with the

entire world solidly rejecting violence and extremism.

Prudent moderation will ensure a bright future for

the world. My hope, aside from personal and national

experience, emanates from the belief shared by all

divine religions that a good and bright future awaits the

world. As stated in the Holy Koran:

“And certainly We wrote in the Book after

the reminder that (as for) the land, My righteous

servants shall inherit it.” (The Holy Koran, XXI:105)