The protesters on Wednesday condemned the brutal acts of the Zionist regime against the oppressed people of Palestine.

Chanting anti-US slogans, people from all walks of life, including women and children, participated in the rallies in major cities of Pakistan.

The demonstrators also held placards reading “Down with America” and “Down with Israel”.

The demonstrators also torched flags of the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel.

Protest leaders said US and Israeli forces were behind the unrest and sectarian violence that have plagued Pakistan for years and claimed thousands of innocent lives.

“Those who are trying to defame Pakistan and Islam, we want to tell them that a Muslim who recites Kalema can never be terrorist, America, Israel and India are the culprits who are spreading terrorism,” Kamran Khan, a member of Commission on Interreligious Affairs, told Press TV.

Demonstrators also expressed opposition to the possible restoration of Pakistan’s supply routes for US-led forces fighting in Afghanistan.

They demanded the Pakistani government permanently close the supply lines for NATO forces which they described as a big threat to the peace and sovereignty of the country.

The demand for permanent closure of the supply routes came amid speculations that Pakistan is set to reopen the supply routes which were closed after 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed during US airstrikes in the North West Pakistan in November, 2011.

Chairman of National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Majlis Alaeddin Boroujerdi made the remark in a meeting with Director General of Security Department of Norwegian Foreign Ministry Kare R Aas.

Boroujerdi stressed that presence of foreign forces in the region is the root cause of all regional instabilities.

Occupation of Afghanistan which took place under the pretext of fighting against terrorism, has only resulted in increase in narcotics production, the MP said.

He reiterated that Tehran pursues strengthening of regional peace and stability that will be ensured only through regional cooperation.

Criticizing the West’s double-standard policies, he said the West must respect decisions made by the regional countries.

On Syrian developments, Boroujerdi said the country’s crisis should be settled solely through internal diplomacy.

The Norwegian official, for his part, said his country supports the peace plan proposed by the United Nations’ special envoy to Syria Kofi Annan.

He then appreciated the Islamic Republic of Iran’s efforts to bring peace and tranquility to the Afghan cities.

Arsala Rahmani was gunned down by an assailant in a passing car after he left his house on Sunday morning.

“Shortly after leaving home he was hit by a single bullet from a passing car. The bullet passed through his left arm and hit his heart,” AFP quoted Rahmani’s grandson Mohammad Waris as saying.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack. However, Taliban militants are blamed for the assault.

The former head of the Peace Council Burhanuddin Rabbani was also assassinated in September 2011.

The Afghan High Peace Council had warned that no foreign power should engage with the Taliban without Afghanistan’s consent and that the office should only be used to conduct negotiations.

However, the United States has been secretly negotiating with the Taliban for more than a year.

During the negotiations, the US gave the Taliban the opportunity to open an office in Qatar and agreed to release high-ranking Taliban prisoners.

The US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 removed the Taliban from power, but insecurity continues to rise across the country despite the presence of about 130,000 US-led forces in the war-torn country.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: What are the impacts of the Strategic Partnership Agreement on Afghanistan’s security in the future?

A: I don’t think the agreement signed would have a big impact on the future by itself. It seems to me to be a reiteration of what is already agreed upon and/or going on; and it leaves the most important questions — that is, continuous presence of American troops in Afghanistan after 2014 and their legal status — to a future “Mutual Security Agreement.” It paves the way for that agreement, though, and it can be considered of some significance in that regard.

The reasons why the agreement was signed with the most important issues left out are twofold: 1) The disagreement within the Karzai government over those issues, and (in my mind) President Karzai’s own reluctance to provide permanent bases to Americans and grant them immunity from legal prosecution; and 2) President Obama’s need for something concrete about the future of Afghanistan to present to worried NATO allies in their summit later this month and something to assure the American voters that an end to their military involvement in Afghanistan is in sight.

Q: Can the agreement affect the security in the region?

A: As noted above, at this stage the Strategic Partnership Agreement does not change the security situation in Afghanistan or in the region. However, if it leads to an agreement on the continuous presence of American troops beyond 2014, it would have serious repercussions for the security of Afghanistan and its neighbors: 1) it would complicate the prospect of reaching a peace agreement with the Taliban; so it would mean continuous war and insecurity in the country; 2) neither the immediate neighbors — like China, Iran and Pakistan — nor far neighbors — like Russia — can remain indifferent to such a situation. Thus, it would increase tension and may lead to more insecurity; and 3) despite the U.S. pledge not to use the Afghanistan soil as “a launching point for attacks against other countries” (which means it could be used for that purpose once the attack is launched from elsewhere), it would be almost impossible for the Afghan government to make sure the U.S. fulfills its pledge –especially with the language used in article 6b of the Agreement (noted above). That could mean a fully fledged war in the region. A scary prospect for all!

Q: Is there a possibility of a military attack on Iran?

A: A military attack on Iran by the U.S. is possible in theory, but not probable. I believe if the U.S. could, it would have attacked Iran long time ago. There was every indication that Iran was at the top of the list of the countries for “regime change” by the Bush administration after the invasion of Iraq. If that invasion had gone according to the wishes of the Neocons, Iran could expect to be the target soon thereafter. As it happened, first Iraq and later Afghanistan taught a lesson to the U.S., admitted by the former secretary of defense, Robert Gates: “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”

Thus, now regime change is out of question.

Would the U.S. attack Iranian nuclear facilities? Again I don’t think so, at least not under President Obama. There seems to be a clear difference between the Obama administration’s view on Iranian nuclear capabilities and that of Israel, despite some statements indicating the contrary. The U.S. knows (or should know) the cost of an attack on Iran to their interests in the Middle East, and it would most probably refrain from being dragged to such a war by Israel.

Q: What will be the security repercussions for the Middle East if Iran comes under attack?

A: If there is an attack on Iran, the Islamic Republic will certainly use all its capabilities to retaliate. They have strong connections to various groups not only in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon but in many other Middle Eastern countries. That would complicate the conditions for the U.S. exponentially and will certainly lead to the situation (which is already slippery) getting completely out their control.

Of course there will also be a general reaction by the Muslims, especially if the attack causes civilian casualties.

Q: What is your view of Israeli threats against Iran?

A: If Israel could manage to get the U.S. on its side, the chances were high that it would carry out its threat. Without the U.S. support, an Israeli attack on Iran is in doubt. However, it cannot be ruled out given Israeli leaders’ defiance to the U.S. in the past. Israel seems seriously concerned about Iran getting nuclear capability and would try to do whatever it can to prevent it from that. Would that mean an attack without the U.S. support? Doubtful, but possible!

Iran’s Residing Representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh in a message on Wednesday extended his condolences to the family of an IAEA expert who was killed in a car accident in Iran yesterday.

“I am writing to extend my deepest sympathies to you and your family. I was deeply shocked about the tragic accident and the sad demise of your husband,” Soltaniyeh said in his message.

“Although I did not have the honor of a personal acquaintance with your husband, I was very sorry to hear about his passing away. May he rest in peace, and may your memories give you strength,” the message added.

“Please let me Know whether there is anything I and my mission’s staff can do to help you during this difficult time. You and your family are in our thoughts and prayers,” it said, and concluded, “May God bless you and your family during this time and always, and May you be filled with faith and hope even in the midst of inescapable grief.”

The South Korean expert of the world nuclear body, namely Ok-Seok Seo, along with another IAEA expert, was on a mission “in the vicinity of Khandab Complex in the Markazi province when the accident happened”.

A statement released by the public relations office of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) on Tuesday said “the car carrying the two skidded and overturned at around 12p.m. (0730GMT) Tuesday”.

Ok-Seok Seo died of severe injuries, while the second IAEA expert was taken to the hospital.

The mysterious murder of a renowned religious scholar this week in Pakistan’s northwest has sparked protest and the recent attacks on forces in North Waziristan are also considered as revenge to the incident.

Maulana Naseeb Khan, a teacher of madrassa Haqania, was found dead in the town of Nowshera on Thursday last after he was kidnapped by unidentified persons.

It is not clear who is behind the killing and the religious students and teachers have started protest to press the government apprehend those behind the murder.

Khan was buried in North Waziristan few days ago, Taliban leaders also attended the funeral and vowed to take revenge of Khan murder. They also alleged the government’s involvement in the murder.

Police said that Naseeb had been kidnapped by unidentified people and they are investigating.

A statement issued by the seminary following his disappearance had alleged that the government had picked up Maulana Naseeb when he was on his way to the city of Kohat.

A police officer Yasin Khan said that there was no sign of torture or bullet on the body and the postmortem report would confirm the cause of the death.

Khan belonged to North Waziristan tribal region and was considered very close to Taliban groups in North and South Waziristan regions.

Chief of Taliban group led by Hafiz Gul Bahadar in North Waziristan had attended the funeral and he and other leaders had vowed to take revenge from the government.

Sources said that Khan had also had close relations with the Taliban group, led by Mulla Nazir, in South Waziristan.

A day after funeral of the scholar, gunmen attacked a convoy of security forces in North Waziristan, injuring three army men. The attack sparked clashes, which led to the killing of 12 soldiers and 10 civilians in two days.

The militants beheaded several army men and hanged their heads with electric polls and trees in North Waziristan, tribesmen in the region said.

A tribal elder told IRNA on phone that the jirga or council of tribal elders handed over the beheaded bodies of the slain soldiers to the military on Monday.

Clashes in North Waziristan also posed serious danger to the peace deal the militants had signed with the security forces in 2007. Tribal peace council is trying to save the peace deal to avoid further bloodshed.

US-led forces have admitted that at least six Afghan civilians were killed in their last week airstrike in the country’s troubled southern province of Helmand.

NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on Tuesday confirmed the death of the victims, all members of the same family, in the May 4 attack.

“At this point in the investigation we are able to confirm the incident and will be formally apologizing in the next couple of days to the family,” Lieutenant Colonel Stewart Upton of ISAF’s southwest regional command stated.

The Helmand provincial governor’s office issued a statement saying that the family was killed in an airstrike last Friday after ISAF checkpoints came under attack in the Sangin district.

“Unfortunately six members of the family including two boys, three girls and one woman were killed as a result of the incident,” the statement said.

Tens of civilians have been killed in NATO bombardments in several provinces in recent days, it added.

On Monday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai summoned NATO’s military commander and the US ambassador to warn that civilian deaths threaten the newly signed strategic pact between Kabul and Washington.

Karzai told ISAF Commander General John Allen and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker that if Afghan lives were not protected, the deal would “lose its meaning.”

On May 1, Karzai signed the Strategic Partnership Agreement with his US counterpart Barack Obama. The agreement extends the US military presence in Afghanistan a decade beyond the foreign militaries’ panned withdrawal from the country in 2014.

Iran and several other regional countries have expressed concern about the controversial pact, which would allow thousands of US troops to stay in Afghanistan until at least 2024.

Hundreds of civilians have lost their lives in the US-led operations in various parts of Afghanistan over the past few months, with Afghans becoming increasingly outraged at the seemingly endless number of the deadly assaults.

The United States launches airstrikes on Afghan residential locations, claiming to be targeting militants. However, local sources indicate that the main victims of the US-led offensives are civilians.