3:31
|
0:49
|
Choose Freedom - Consume Less - All Languages
Freedom from the rat race for bigger, better, faster, more. Freedom from big corporations telling you and determining for you what you should have, what you should wear, how you should look, feel,...
Freedom from the rat race for bigger, better, faster, more. Freedom from big corporations telling you and determining for you what you should have, what you should wear, how you should look, feel, walk, talk, and interact with others. How: By consuming less, by adopting modesty and simplicity, prioritizing relationships over possessions, genuinely caring for humanity, changing standards of 'success', 'fulfillment', and 'beauty', and bringing spirituality in life. They can be truly liberating and expose one to things and experiences that are 'real' and substantially much more 'meaningful'. The concern here is more than just becoming better environment-n-social-justice conscious consumers. It's consumerism itself: to not be dependent on consuming things to find fulfillment in life. In the clip, I especially liked how sight, sound, and smell are contrasted to project the difference between the 'real' and 'artificial'.
On TV: TV can have both good and bad uses. The technology is not in question here. The concern would be the content (what is shown on it?). The concern is also how we regard material possessions (have they become the most fundamental preoccupation in our lives? does having them make any difference in how we measure our 'success' and 'self-worth'?). The concern is also excessive indulgence: I don't think it's very constructive if for someone TV becomes the only or primary form of entertainment or pass-time, and the person ignores (or never discovers) the 'real' experience and joy of being close to nature, in good people's company, helping people in need, etc.
Credits: Courtesy docminho on youtube. Production team: Bijoy George, Caro Liu, Dago Schelin, Daniel Yanik, Jan Pieniak, Maria Helena Toscano, Rogério Nishizawa, Simon Schulz. Supervised by Professor Cristoph Althaus.
More...
Description:
Freedom from the rat race for bigger, better, faster, more. Freedom from big corporations telling you and determining for you what you should have, what you should wear, how you should look, feel, walk, talk, and interact with others. How: By consuming less, by adopting modesty and simplicity, prioritizing relationships over possessions, genuinely caring for humanity, changing standards of 'success', 'fulfillment', and 'beauty', and bringing spirituality in life. They can be truly liberating and expose one to things and experiences that are 'real' and substantially much more 'meaningful'. The concern here is more than just becoming better environment-n-social-justice conscious consumers. It's consumerism itself: to not be dependent on consuming things to find fulfillment in life. In the clip, I especially liked how sight, sound, and smell are contrasted to project the difference between the 'real' and 'artificial'.
On TV: TV can have both good and bad uses. The technology is not in question here. The concern would be the content (what is shown on it?). The concern is also how we regard material possessions (have they become the most fundamental preoccupation in our lives? does having them make any difference in how we measure our 'success' and 'self-worth'?). The concern is also excessive indulgence: I don't think it's very constructive if for someone TV becomes the only or primary form of entertainment or pass-time, and the person ignores (or never discovers) the 'real' experience and joy of being close to nature, in good people's company, helping people in need, etc.
Credits: Courtesy docminho on youtube. Production team: Bijoy George, Caro Liu, Dago Schelin, Daniel Yanik, Jan Pieniak, Maria Helena Toscano, Rogério Nishizawa, Simon Schulz. Supervised by Professor Cristoph Althaus.
Mohammad Javad Larijani Interview with MSNBC - He Just Shut Up CFR Officials - 17 Nov 2011 - English
Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.”...
Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.”
In his November 8 report on Iran's nuclear program, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano claimed that Iran had engaged in activities related to developing nuclear weapons before 2003, adding that these activities “may still be ongoing.”
Based on the report, which Iran has called "unfounded and unbalanced," the IAEA Board of Governors on Friday passed a new resolution on the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities.
The resolution voices "deep and increasing concern" over Tehran's nuclear program and also calls for Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the issue.
Larijani made the remarks in a heated television debate aired on the American channel MSNBC.
US president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Richard Haass, Mike Barnicle and John Mitchun were the other guests on the television debate.
What follows is a rough transcription of the interview:
MSNBC: Let's go to the heart of the matter when it comes to Iran, the headlines of the past week, the IAEA report found evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran and you are quoted as saying that is “quite laughable.” Why sir?
Larijani: The reason is very simple. There is no single evidence in that. These allegations which is aired again is based on a document which was put to us four years ago based on a laptop somewhere found by United States authorities.
And at that time, four years ago, it has been discussed with the agency and the conclusion was that none of these allegations could be verified.
So by a letter it has been closed- the whole issue. Then again it has been renewed and [let me] just give you an example. A good part of this so-called document which is on the laptop, for example lecture notes that somebody presented in Brussels or at some universities. Some of them are parts of some textbook as put together with pictures, formulas, so it is totally inconclusive.
MSNBC: Let's back up. Before I send this to Richard Haass- are you saying it doesn't exist? There is no nuclear program?
Larijani: Well we have a very extensive nuclear program but not to the direction of producing arms. Our nuclear project is very extensive, very advanced. We are number one in the Middle East but we are not pursuing the nuclear armament for two basic reasons.
Number one there is a Fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader and it is against the Islamic jurisprudence to build and use mass destructing weapons. It is Haram we call it, unlawful.
And secondly, it doesn't add to our security. It is more liability than asset for us. Our military muscle is strong enough to repel or to deter any imminent threat and this is basically very important achievement.
MSNBC: Richard Haass, put this into perspective for us. What the reports were saying and what this gentleman is saying.
Haass: Well quite frankly it is impossible to take the Iranian denial seriously. They are preposterous. The International Atomic Energy Agency taking information from all the member states in the United Nations have put together a comprehensive and extraordinarily damning report.
And what there is, is a pattern, not a single incident, a pattern over years of Iranian program to move in the direction of developing nuclear weapons.
We see a procurement mechanism to gain access to all sorts of equipment, we see all sorts of undeclared efforts to produce nuclear material now up to 20 percent well on its way to what it needs to produce a weapon, most important there is now serious evidence about the Iranian testing of the implosive device that would actually be the heart of the nuclear weapon.
So the idea that the Iranians have all these underground and undeclared facilities, that they have been misleading the International Atomic Energy Agency for years, the idea they're doing this- this oil rich country in order to produce electricity? If you believe that you seriously have to believe in the tooth fairy.
MSNBC: Sir this doesn't sound like preposterous, little pieces of information that were roaming together randomly.
Larijani: Well the whole scenes of allegation is produced and initiated by the United States. It seems there is a good machinery to produce perpetual allegation against Iran, it is not only one case.
I am telling you exactly that there are no secret programs in our nuclear program and development. Iran's transparency is far ahead of United States, far ahead of UK, far ahead of France and incomparable to Israel which is a renegade state in the sense of NPT.
Barnicle: So you allow inspectors to just come into Iran.
Larijani: The inspectors are coming to Iran periodically, the cameras are there 24 hours. This is quite obvious.
Haass: But the whole concept the way this works, just when you talk about inspectors, let's just be clear, I am sure if everyone watching this will understand, the entire international nuclear inspection effort depends upon the willingness of the country in question to cooperate fully.
This is a gentlemen's agreement. They declare their facilities that are involved in the nuclear business then the inspectors come in and look at them. If they do not declare facilities the inspectors don't give a chance and the problem is this is a gentlemen's agreement in a world where not every country is a gentleman.
So Iran quite frankly has undeclared facilities and undeclared programs which the inspectors had not had access to and the reason we only know about it is that member states, not simply the United States sir, but many, many member states of the United Nations have provided independent information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which by the way you know and I know is not controlled by the United States.
We have fundamental differences with this agency over the years including over Iraq. We had fundamental differences and we've also had differences over Iran where we the United States felt, this agency was not being nearly tough enough. So now they have come in with an extraordinarily damning report and Iranian officials can dismiss it.
MSNBC: So if this is a gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen certainly don't agree and sir, you seem very confident and almost as if it's funny it's interesting because we interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about this about a year ago, off camera, and he too seemed very comfortable about his position which is similar to yours.
And if you are so comfortable with your position about the lack of nuclear armament and the facilities that the IAEA is talking about, why not let inspectors completely come in? Open the door let them come in and see what you have.
Larijani: Well the mechanism that the gentleman addressed is not complete because first of all there is no single secret installment or activity which is concealed from the agency.
Secondly, two years ago we asked the agency tell us all the questions you have and he managed to put to us six groups of questions. The questions were raised by themselves not dictated by us. So one by one groups of inspectors came to Iran and we cleared them up and there is official letters from them this group has been finished then we moved to another one.
Well it doesn't make sense that every morning somebody says we guess there is some secret things done there. There should be foundation for this allegation. What do you mean the door should be open? They should ask where do you want to inspect? Did they want to inspect my bedroom or other places? I mean it doesn't make sense.
Barnicle: A few moments ago when you mentioned the nuclear programs of other nations I detected a definite edge in your voice when you mentioned the state of Israel. Do you fear an attack from the state of Israel on your nuclear facilities?
Larijani: Well I am beyond the fear. What is the difference between us and Israel? Israel has a bomb, not a member of NPT; it doesn't disclose anything to agency, nothing wrong with it. You see what the double standard is in here.
We are member of NPT, they periodically come to Iran, their cameras are there, we don't have the weapon then the whole pressure is put on us. No, not at all. We don't fear any attack from anyone. We take it serious in our calculation but we don't fear. There is a difference between that.
Mitchum: Given your tone again Sir when you talk about Israel, just a second ago why shouldn't we suspect that there would be ambitions for Iran to join the club of which Israel is a part with the nuclear arms?
Larijani: We are very advanced in the nuclear technology which is a matter of pride for us and that gentleman mentioned that we have plenty of gas and oil with all good calculations, the age of this is up to 20-25 period, 25 years from now.
It means that if we don't have it, then we should beg in front of the Western countries to light our houses and we know how bad they are treating us in this area. We are right now very happy that we have the first power plant, we know how to make the fuel. We already have more than 25 percent share of sodalite and erudite they don't give us a bit of this fuel that we need, even the twenty percent that we needed for Tehran.
Haass: It's important to keep in mind we are not talking about an established democracy that treats its own people with respect, we are talking about a country also that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So this is obvious and understandable concern about what Iran is doing.
Larijani: In terms of record I think United States of America is the largest and the greatest country supporting terrorism. The records of terrorist activity which is supported by the tax money of these people is enormous, I can go one by one.
Barnicle: Wait a minute. This is a free country. And part of our gift is we have the liberty and the freedom to say anything and to sound foolish, to sound absurd, to sound smart. That's absurd saying that America is the biggest terrorist nation in the world.
My question to you Sir is, you seem like a really nice guy, alright, why doesn't your country be a better neighbor?
Larijani: We have fantastic relations with all of our neighbors...
Barnicle: Really? [laughing]
Larijani: Definitely, but the policy of demonizing Iran, a very important policy which is pursued in the region- well it has its own benefit.
Barnicle But it's just in little things, like the American tourists cross the border, supposedly cross the border, you grab them, you scoop them, you hold them for months on end. Why?
Larijani: This is a very simple question I answered before; suppose the security of your people...
Barnicle You're here...
Larijani: No, I'm here with visa- It's quite different. [Suppose] The security of the United States' people, on a patrol with Mexico elsewhere they pick 3 Iranians and ask them why are you here? They say well we are just walking in the desert.
Well, with the whole hostility and suspicion which is between the two countries, you are in here to blow up somewhere definitely they will be put into jail for years if not in Guantanamo, they bring them somewhere else.
It took a lot of time that we convince- I was working on this case because they were like me from ... Berkeley. I talked with their families, managed to contact between them and their families when they were arrested- for their families to come to Iran to take the suspicion away.
This is very natural for security of people to suspect a cross bordering which is in the most volatile regional area of Iran- in which there is daily shooting over there.
Barnicle Ok. They're going to blow up the desert. What is the root? What do you think is the root of Iranian paranoia towards the United States and towards many of its neighbors?
What is the root of this paranoia? Is it the fear that we find out about your nuclear program?
Larijani: We don't have any paranoia about our neighbors. We are very suspicious of American paranoia with us. The question is what is wrong with Iran that this persistent hostility...
Barnicle: You have a track record of international terrorism.
Larijani: This is not true. We are ourselves the victim of international terrorism- terrorism in the area. Let me ask you, who was helping Al-Qaida and Taliban for years while we were at war with them in Afghanistan? The United States of America.
The money from the United States was pouring to Al-Qaida and Taliban- the idea was we should curb Iran by another religious front. Is it correct?
Haass: No it's not correct. The United States did support the Mujahidin; obviously in order to get rid of the Soviet... to say that the United States supported Al-Qaida is again preposterous- the fact is that Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon, it's supporting groups like Hezbollah, groups like Hamas; it is involved in Iraq; it is involved in Afghanistan.
Iran has basically become a regional power that is trying to destabilize many countries, trying to make them in some ways heavily influenced by Tehran and that is simply a fact of life- which again is one of the reasons the world is so concerned about Iranian nuclear program.
How do we know Iran will not become even more aggressive? How do we know that nuclear materials will not end in the hands of a group like Hezbollah? What do we see about Iran's track record that would lead us to believe that Iran in any way would be responsible with nuclear material?
This is a genuine concern and if you dismiss it as laughable Sir you are seriously underestimating not simply the American, not simply the Israeli, but I would suggest the world's concern over the direction your government is heading.
Larijani: The disastrous thing is the blind policy of the United States in supporting carte blanche renegade Israel which is the source of all tension in the region. If you call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups- they are fighting to be given the permission to live. What about Israel?
Israel is involved in government sponsored terrorism. Kills anybody who thinks that it's not correct and deprives millions of people from basic tenures of life. 60 years of atrocity in that area is supported carte blanche by the US, this is even against the basic interests of that nation- they don't know it.
Mitchum:Sir do you recognize the right of Israel to exist?
Larijani: We recognize the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together in peace and tranquility- to create a racist regime in the middle of a land put the others out is like creating a small colony for the blacks and leave the rest for the whites.
Mitchum: Thank you for the answer.
Barnicle: The answer is no.
Larijani: No, the answer is not no. We respect any decision by Palestinians. We are not in a position to tell them what kind of state they [should] have. But they should be given the chance to decide.
MSNBC:This has been fascinating and a great picture window into the choices that Americans make when they're choosing their president and also a sense of what our Secretary of State and what our diplomats have to confront in dealing with when they're going out into the world and working with other countries.
It is extremely complicated and often conversations feel like they're going in circles because it's very hard to develop a common understanding or even a place where you can start engaging and I think this was an example of that. Mohammad Javad Larijani, thank you for coming on the show this morning.
More...
Description:
Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.”
In his November 8 report on Iran's nuclear program, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano claimed that Iran had engaged in activities related to developing nuclear weapons before 2003, adding that these activities “may still be ongoing.”
Based on the report, which Iran has called "unfounded and unbalanced," the IAEA Board of Governors on Friday passed a new resolution on the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities.
The resolution voices "deep and increasing concern" over Tehran's nuclear program and also calls for Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the issue.
Larijani made the remarks in a heated television debate aired on the American channel MSNBC.
US president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Richard Haass, Mike Barnicle and John Mitchun were the other guests on the television debate.
What follows is a rough transcription of the interview:
MSNBC: Let's go to the heart of the matter when it comes to Iran, the headlines of the past week, the IAEA report found evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran and you are quoted as saying that is “quite laughable.” Why sir?
Larijani: The reason is very simple. There is no single evidence in that. These allegations which is aired again is based on a document which was put to us four years ago based on a laptop somewhere found by United States authorities.
And at that time, four years ago, it has been discussed with the agency and the conclusion was that none of these allegations could be verified.
So by a letter it has been closed- the whole issue. Then again it has been renewed and [let me] just give you an example. A good part of this so-called document which is on the laptop, for example lecture notes that somebody presented in Brussels or at some universities. Some of them are parts of some textbook as put together with pictures, formulas, so it is totally inconclusive.
MSNBC: Let's back up. Before I send this to Richard Haass- are you saying it doesn't exist? There is no nuclear program?
Larijani: Well we have a very extensive nuclear program but not to the direction of producing arms. Our nuclear project is very extensive, very advanced. We are number one in the Middle East but we are not pursuing the nuclear armament for two basic reasons.
Number one there is a Fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader and it is against the Islamic jurisprudence to build and use mass destructing weapons. It is Haram we call it, unlawful.
And secondly, it doesn't add to our security. It is more liability than asset for us. Our military muscle is strong enough to repel or to deter any imminent threat and this is basically very important achievement.
MSNBC: Richard Haass, put this into perspective for us. What the reports were saying and what this gentleman is saying.
Haass: Well quite frankly it is impossible to take the Iranian denial seriously. They are preposterous. The International Atomic Energy Agency taking information from all the member states in the United Nations have put together a comprehensive and extraordinarily damning report.
And what there is, is a pattern, not a single incident, a pattern over years of Iranian program to move in the direction of developing nuclear weapons.
We see a procurement mechanism to gain access to all sorts of equipment, we see all sorts of undeclared efforts to produce nuclear material now up to 20 percent well on its way to what it needs to produce a weapon, most important there is now serious evidence about the Iranian testing of the implosive device that would actually be the heart of the nuclear weapon.
So the idea that the Iranians have all these underground and undeclared facilities, that they have been misleading the International Atomic Energy Agency for years, the idea they're doing this- this oil rich country in order to produce electricity? If you believe that you seriously have to believe in the tooth fairy.
MSNBC: Sir this doesn't sound like preposterous, little pieces of information that were roaming together randomly.
Larijani: Well the whole scenes of allegation is produced and initiated by the United States. It seems there is a good machinery to produce perpetual allegation against Iran, it is not only one case.
I am telling you exactly that there are no secret programs in our nuclear program and development. Iran's transparency is far ahead of United States, far ahead of UK, far ahead of France and incomparable to Israel which is a renegade state in the sense of NPT.
Barnicle: So you allow inspectors to just come into Iran.
Larijani: The inspectors are coming to Iran periodically, the cameras are there 24 hours. This is quite obvious.
Haass: But the whole concept the way this works, just when you talk about inspectors, let's just be clear, I am sure if everyone watching this will understand, the entire international nuclear inspection effort depends upon the willingness of the country in question to cooperate fully.
This is a gentlemen's agreement. They declare their facilities that are involved in the nuclear business then the inspectors come in and look at them. If they do not declare facilities the inspectors don't give a chance and the problem is this is a gentlemen's agreement in a world where not every country is a gentleman.
So Iran quite frankly has undeclared facilities and undeclared programs which the inspectors had not had access to and the reason we only know about it is that member states, not simply the United States sir, but many, many member states of the United Nations have provided independent information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which by the way you know and I know is not controlled by the United States.
We have fundamental differences with this agency over the years including over Iraq. We had fundamental differences and we've also had differences over Iran where we the United States felt, this agency was not being nearly tough enough. So now they have come in with an extraordinarily damning report and Iranian officials can dismiss it.
MSNBC: So if this is a gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen certainly don't agree and sir, you seem very confident and almost as if it's funny it's interesting because we interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about this about a year ago, off camera, and he too seemed very comfortable about his position which is similar to yours.
And if you are so comfortable with your position about the lack of nuclear armament and the facilities that the IAEA is talking about, why not let inspectors completely come in? Open the door let them come in and see what you have.
Larijani: Well the mechanism that the gentleman addressed is not complete because first of all there is no single secret installment or activity which is concealed from the agency.
Secondly, two years ago we asked the agency tell us all the questions you have and he managed to put to us six groups of questions. The questions were raised by themselves not dictated by us. So one by one groups of inspectors came to Iran and we cleared them up and there is official letters from them this group has been finished then we moved to another one.
Well it doesn't make sense that every morning somebody says we guess there is some secret things done there. There should be foundation for this allegation. What do you mean the door should be open? They should ask where do you want to inspect? Did they want to inspect my bedroom or other places? I mean it doesn't make sense.
Barnicle: A few moments ago when you mentioned the nuclear programs of other nations I detected a definite edge in your voice when you mentioned the state of Israel. Do you fear an attack from the state of Israel on your nuclear facilities?
Larijani: Well I am beyond the fear. What is the difference between us and Israel? Israel has a bomb, not a member of NPT; it doesn't disclose anything to agency, nothing wrong with it. You see what the double standard is in here.
We are member of NPT, they periodically come to Iran, their cameras are there, we don't have the weapon then the whole pressure is put on us. No, not at all. We don't fear any attack from anyone. We take it serious in our calculation but we don't fear. There is a difference between that.
Mitchum: Given your tone again Sir when you talk about Israel, just a second ago why shouldn't we suspect that there would be ambitions for Iran to join the club of which Israel is a part with the nuclear arms?
Larijani: We are very advanced in the nuclear technology which is a matter of pride for us and that gentleman mentioned that we have plenty of gas and oil with all good calculations, the age of this is up to 20-25 period, 25 years from now.
It means that if we don't have it, then we should beg in front of the Western countries to light our houses and we know how bad they are treating us in this area. We are right now very happy that we have the first power plant, we know how to make the fuel. We already have more than 25 percent share of sodalite and erudite they don't give us a bit of this fuel that we need, even the twenty percent that we needed for Tehran.
Haass: It's important to keep in mind we are not talking about an established democracy that treats its own people with respect, we are talking about a country also that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So this is obvious and understandable concern about what Iran is doing.
Larijani: In terms of record I think United States of America is the largest and the greatest country supporting terrorism. The records of terrorist activity which is supported by the tax money of these people is enormous, I can go one by one.
Barnicle: Wait a minute. This is a free country. And part of our gift is we have the liberty and the freedom to say anything and to sound foolish, to sound absurd, to sound smart. That's absurd saying that America is the biggest terrorist nation in the world.
My question to you Sir is, you seem like a really nice guy, alright, why doesn't your country be a better neighbor?
Larijani: We have fantastic relations with all of our neighbors...
Barnicle: Really? [laughing]
Larijani: Definitely, but the policy of demonizing Iran, a very important policy which is pursued in the region- well it has its own benefit.
Barnicle But it's just in little things, like the American tourists cross the border, supposedly cross the border, you grab them, you scoop them, you hold them for months on end. Why?
Larijani: This is a very simple question I answered before; suppose the security of your people...
Barnicle You're here...
Larijani: No, I'm here with visa- It's quite different. [Suppose] The security of the United States' people, on a patrol with Mexico elsewhere they pick 3 Iranians and ask them why are you here? They say well we are just walking in the desert.
Well, with the whole hostility and suspicion which is between the two countries, you are in here to blow up somewhere definitely they will be put into jail for years if not in Guantanamo, they bring them somewhere else.
It took a lot of time that we convince- I was working on this case because they were like me from ... Berkeley. I talked with their families, managed to contact between them and their families when they were arrested- for their families to come to Iran to take the suspicion away.
This is very natural for security of people to suspect a cross bordering which is in the most volatile regional area of Iran- in which there is daily shooting over there.
Barnicle Ok. They're going to blow up the desert. What is the root? What do you think is the root of Iranian paranoia towards the United States and towards many of its neighbors?
What is the root of this paranoia? Is it the fear that we find out about your nuclear program?
Larijani: We don't have any paranoia about our neighbors. We are very suspicious of American paranoia with us. The question is what is wrong with Iran that this persistent hostility...
Barnicle: You have a track record of international terrorism.
Larijani: This is not true. We are ourselves the victim of international terrorism- terrorism in the area. Let me ask you, who was helping Al-Qaida and Taliban for years while we were at war with them in Afghanistan? The United States of America.
The money from the United States was pouring to Al-Qaida and Taliban- the idea was we should curb Iran by another religious front. Is it correct?
Haass: No it's not correct. The United States did support the Mujahidin; obviously in order to get rid of the Soviet... to say that the United States supported Al-Qaida is again preposterous- the fact is that Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon, it's supporting groups like Hezbollah, groups like Hamas; it is involved in Iraq; it is involved in Afghanistan.
Iran has basically become a regional power that is trying to destabilize many countries, trying to make them in some ways heavily influenced by Tehran and that is simply a fact of life- which again is one of the reasons the world is so concerned about Iranian nuclear program.
How do we know Iran will not become even more aggressive? How do we know that nuclear materials will not end in the hands of a group like Hezbollah? What do we see about Iran's track record that would lead us to believe that Iran in any way would be responsible with nuclear material?
This is a genuine concern and if you dismiss it as laughable Sir you are seriously underestimating not simply the American, not simply the Israeli, but I would suggest the world's concern over the direction your government is heading.
Larijani: The disastrous thing is the blind policy of the United States in supporting carte blanche renegade Israel which is the source of all tension in the region. If you call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups- they are fighting to be given the permission to live. What about Israel?
Israel is involved in government sponsored terrorism. Kills anybody who thinks that it's not correct and deprives millions of people from basic tenures of life. 60 years of atrocity in that area is supported carte blanche by the US, this is even against the basic interests of that nation- they don't know it.
Mitchum:Sir do you recognize the right of Israel to exist?
Larijani: We recognize the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together in peace and tranquility- to create a racist regime in the middle of a land put the others out is like creating a small colony for the blacks and leave the rest for the whites.
Mitchum: Thank you for the answer.
Barnicle: The answer is no.
Larijani: No, the answer is not no. We respect any decision by Palestinians. We are not in a position to tell them what kind of state they [should] have. But they should be given the chance to decide.
MSNBC:This has been fascinating and a great picture window into the choices that Americans make when they're choosing their president and also a sense of what our Secretary of State and what our diplomats have to confront in dealing with when they're going out into the world and working with other countries.
It is extremely complicated and often conversations feel like they're going in circles because it's very hard to develop a common understanding or even a place where you can start engaging and I think this was an example of that. Mohammad Javad Larijani, thank you for coming on the show this morning.
Message of Rehbar, Intelligence Minister and Rafsanjani - English
As Iran continues its efforts to cope with post-election unrest, Leader of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says the country will deal with the crisis under the law while relying...
As Iran continues its efforts to cope with post-election unrest, Leader of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says the country will deal with the crisis under the law while relying on national unity.
The Leader said Sunday that legal measures were the only solution to the issues that the country has been facing since the 10th presidential elections on June 12.
“The people\'s emotions, especially that of the youth, must not be toyed with and they should not be pitted against one another as the Iranian nation, regardless of the differences of opinion, is a united nation that has good relations with the [Islamic] establishment.”
Ayatollah Khamenei went on to urge political parties not to play with one another\'s feelings and said, “If the nation and political elite are united in heart and mind, the incitement of international traitors and oppressive politicians will be ineffective.”
The Leader\'s remarks came after certain European countries and the US condemned the measures taken by the Tehran government to restore stability in the country following the election, which saw incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win by a landslide.
“They express their opinions about Iran in a manner that one would think all their other problems have been resolved and only the Iranian problem remains,” said Ayatollah Khamenei.
“However, what they do not understand is that wherever they politically set foot in becomes tainted in the eyes of the Iranian nation.”
“Their support will only have a negative effect as the Iranian nation knows during the eight-year sacred defense [the Iraq-Iran war] when their homes were bombarded and destroyed by missiles and chemical weapons were used against them, these governments showed no concern and [instead] aided the enemy of the Iranian nation.”
Pointing to the crimes committed by the US and certain European countries against the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Palestine, Ayatollah Khamenei stressed that their “concern and show of humanitarianism is not befitting of these governments and when they voice support for the Iranian nation and certain figures, their intentions are clear and the people are well aware of them.”
Iran\'s Intelligence Minister has dismissed claims of vote-rigging in the presidential election, blaming the US and Israel for the spread of such rumors among the people.
\"I announce that no organized rigging which could affect the result of the election has taken place,\" Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei said in an interview with IRIB\'s Channel Two on Sunday night.
He said the nation\'s enemies conspired several months before the presidential election to stir unrest in the country and dissuade the Iranians from voting.
\"Americans and Zionists sought to destabilize Iran ... they were upset with a stabilized and secure Iran ... even months before the election they started to talk about the possibility of vote-rigging in the election and they continued the course following the vote,\" Ejei said.
He said the Iranian intelligence services were aware of US and Israeli plots to mar the election months before the vote, adding that Iran foiled some assassination attempts masterminded by Washington and Tel Aviv.
Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner of the presidential election with almost two-thirds of the votes.
The announcement triggered opposition rallies in protest at the result with defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi calling for the result to be annulled.
Ejei took a swipe at Mousavi, saying his demand for holding the election anew would undermine the credibility of the electoral system.
The three defeated candidates -- Mousavi, Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaei -- have lodged more than 600 alleged \'irregularities\' with the electoral watchdog, the Guardian Council.
Mousavi and Karroubi believe these irregularities are enough for the election results to be annulled.
However, the head of Iran\'s Electoral Office, Kamran Daneshjou, has criticized the complaints filed by the defeated presidential candidates for being \'too general\'. The Guardian Council has also stressed that there were no \'major\' irregularities in the presidential election.
More...
Description:
As Iran continues its efforts to cope with post-election unrest, Leader of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says the country will deal with the crisis under the law while relying on national unity.
The Leader said Sunday that legal measures were the only solution to the issues that the country has been facing since the 10th presidential elections on June 12.
“The people\'s emotions, especially that of the youth, must not be toyed with and they should not be pitted against one another as the Iranian nation, regardless of the differences of opinion, is a united nation that has good relations with the [Islamic] establishment.”
Ayatollah Khamenei went on to urge political parties not to play with one another\'s feelings and said, “If the nation and political elite are united in heart and mind, the incitement of international traitors and oppressive politicians will be ineffective.”
The Leader\'s remarks came after certain European countries and the US condemned the measures taken by the Tehran government to restore stability in the country following the election, which saw incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win by a landslide.
“They express their opinions about Iran in a manner that one would think all their other problems have been resolved and only the Iranian problem remains,” said Ayatollah Khamenei.
“However, what they do not understand is that wherever they politically set foot in becomes tainted in the eyes of the Iranian nation.”
“Their support will only have a negative effect as the Iranian nation knows during the eight-year sacred defense [the Iraq-Iran war] when their homes were bombarded and destroyed by missiles and chemical weapons were used against them, these governments showed no concern and [instead] aided the enemy of the Iranian nation.”
Pointing to the crimes committed by the US and certain European countries against the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Palestine, Ayatollah Khamenei stressed that their “concern and show of humanitarianism is not befitting of these governments and when they voice support for the Iranian nation and certain figures, their intentions are clear and the people are well aware of them.”
Iran\'s Intelligence Minister has dismissed claims of vote-rigging in the presidential election, blaming the US and Israel for the spread of such rumors among the people.
\"I announce that no organized rigging which could affect the result of the election has taken place,\" Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei said in an interview with IRIB\'s Channel Two on Sunday night.
He said the nation\'s enemies conspired several months before the presidential election to stir unrest in the country and dissuade the Iranians from voting.
\"Americans and Zionists sought to destabilize Iran ... they were upset with a stabilized and secure Iran ... even months before the election they started to talk about the possibility of vote-rigging in the election and they continued the course following the vote,\" Ejei said.
He said the Iranian intelligence services were aware of US and Israeli plots to mar the election months before the vote, adding that Iran foiled some assassination attempts masterminded by Washington and Tel Aviv.
Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner of the presidential election with almost two-thirds of the votes.
The announcement triggered opposition rallies in protest at the result with defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi calling for the result to be annulled.
Ejei took a swipe at Mousavi, saying his demand for holding the election anew would undermine the credibility of the electoral system.
The three defeated candidates -- Mousavi, Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaei -- have lodged more than 600 alleged \'irregularities\' with the electoral watchdog, the Guardian Council.
Mousavi and Karroubi believe these irregularities are enough for the election results to be annulled.
However, the head of Iran\'s Electoral Office, Kamran Daneshjou, has criticized the complaints filed by the defeated presidential candidates for being \'too general\'. The Guardian Council has also stressed that there were no \'major\' irregularities in the presidential election.
33:34
|
[English Translation] Interview Bashar Al-Asad - President Syria on current situation - 30 May 2013
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
More...
Description:
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
34:40
|
[Arabic] لقاء خاص مع الرئيس بشار الأسد - Bashar Asad Interview - 30 May 2013
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
More...
Description:
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
14:49
|
Political Achievements of the Lebanese People and the Israeli Invasion - Saba Mahmood - English
Saba Mahmood opens up the teach-in session with a brief overview of Lebanese politics. Talks about the increasing maturity of Lebanese politics as could be seen in the formation of political ethics...
Saba Mahmood opens up the teach-in session with a brief overview of Lebanese politics. Talks about the increasing maturity of Lebanese politics as could be seen in the formation of political ethics of sorts and the common concern for protecting sectarian harmony. One of the primary motives - or resultant - of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 was to damage this political process. The clip is from a Berkeley Teach-in organized in Sep 2006.
More...
Description:
Saba Mahmood opens up the teach-in session with a brief overview of Lebanese politics. Talks about the increasing maturity of Lebanese politics as could be seen in the formation of political ethics of sorts and the common concern for protecting sectarian harmony. One of the primary motives - or resultant - of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 was to damage this political process. The clip is from a Berkeley Teach-in organized in Sep 2006.
3:01
|
Case against Aafia Siddiqui - Female Pakistani Doctor on trial in US - English
A Pakistani woman has gone on trial in the US in a case that has provoked anger and concern from Islamabad to New York. Aafia Siddiqui is charged with trying to kill American troops in Afghanistan.
A Pakistani woman has gone on trial in the US in a case that has provoked anger and concern from Islamabad to New York. Aafia Siddiqui is charged with trying to kill American troops in Afghanistan.
IMI-Imamia Medics International-Haj Presentation-Urdu
Imamia Medics International (IMI) is a professional, not for profit organization of Physicians, Pharmacists, Nurses, Scientists and other healthcare professionals. The membership to this...
Imamia Medics International (IMI) is a professional, not for profit organization of Physicians, Pharmacists, Nurses, Scientists and other healthcare professionals. The membership to this organization is not limited to medical personnel; it also includes people from other walks of life who are working to uplift the medical, social, intellectual and spiritual wellbeing of our communities.
IMI’s global activities are focused on health and welfare of the community. This is achieved through educational programs, community based clinics, vaccination programs, mother and child welfare programs, health missions, disaster relief operations and interactions with various governments to formulate long term and short term strategies. IMI has been an active partner in Pulse Polio Immunization Program, Global Tuberculosis Control Programs, Haj Medical Missions and Disaster Relief Operations during earthquakes, famines and other natural calamities.
IMI is headquartered out of Princeton, New Jersey (USA). Its global presence spans across fifteen countries and four continents. Around the world IMI professionals are engaged in improving the quality of lives through education, better health, spirituality and concern for the fellow human being.
More...
Description:
Imamia Medics International (IMI) is a professional, not for profit organization of Physicians, Pharmacists, Nurses, Scientists and other healthcare professionals. The membership to this organization is not limited to medical personnel; it also includes people from other walks of life who are working to uplift the medical, social, intellectual and spiritual wellbeing of our communities.
IMI’s global activities are focused on health and welfare of the community. This is achieved through educational programs, community based clinics, vaccination programs, mother and child welfare programs, health missions, disaster relief operations and interactions with various governments to formulate long term and short term strategies. IMI has been an active partner in Pulse Polio Immunization Program, Global Tuberculosis Control Programs, Haj Medical Missions and Disaster Relief Operations during earthquakes, famines and other natural calamities.
IMI is headquartered out of Princeton, New Jersey (USA). Its global presence spans across fifteen countries and four continents. Around the world IMI professionals are engaged in improving the quality of lives through education, better health, spirituality and concern for the fellow human being.
Shame on World Leaders - Turkish PM Erdogan Slams Israeli President For Israeli Killings And Walks Off Stage - English
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan receives a hero's welcome on his return home after his spat with Israel over its war on Gaza.
Erdogan stormed off stage at the World Economic Forum in...
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan receives a hero's welcome on his return home after his spat with Israel over its war on Gaza.
Erdogan stormed off stage at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos on Thursday during a heated discussion over Israel's 23-day assault on the Gaza Strip.
He told Israeli President Shimon Peres, who had launched a fiery defense of Tel Aviv's attack on the coastal enclave over the past month, that Israel "knows very well how to kill".
More than 1,330 Palestinians, a third of them children, were killed and 5,450 others injured since Israel waged its Cast Lead Operation against Gaza on December 27.
The Turkish premier vowed he would never return to the annual gathering of the rich and powerful in Davos.
Around 3,000 supporters gathered at Istanbul's Ataturk airport on Friday, waving red and white Turkish flags and banners reading "Conqueror of Davos" upon Erdogan arrival.
Many carried banners denouncing Israel, a move which raises concern among the Jewish State as Ankara is its closest ally in the Islamic world.
"I did what I had to do," Erdogan told reporters gathered at the airport, adding, "I cannot remain apathetic when it comes to these things, it's just not in my nature. I am duty-bound to defend the honor of my country."
He said that he was not "at heart a diplomat but a politician."
More...
Description:
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan receives a hero's welcome on his return home after his spat with Israel over its war on Gaza.
Erdogan stormed off stage at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos on Thursday during a heated discussion over Israel's 23-day assault on the Gaza Strip.
He told Israeli President Shimon Peres, who had launched a fiery defense of Tel Aviv's attack on the coastal enclave over the past month, that Israel "knows very well how to kill".
More than 1,330 Palestinians, a third of them children, were killed and 5,450 others injured since Israel waged its Cast Lead Operation against Gaza on December 27.
The Turkish premier vowed he would never return to the annual gathering of the rich and powerful in Davos.
Around 3,000 supporters gathered at Istanbul's Ataturk airport on Friday, waving red and white Turkish flags and banners reading "Conqueror of Davos" upon Erdogan arrival.
Many carried banners denouncing Israel, a move which raises concern among the Jewish State as Ankara is its closest ally in the Islamic world.
"I did what I had to do," Erdogan told reporters gathered at the airport, adding, "I cannot remain apathetic when it comes to these things, it's just not in my nature. I am duty-bound to defend the honor of my country."
He said that he was not "at heart a diplomat but a politician."
Islamic Republic of Iran
Islamic Republic of Iran's growing power worries Arab countries - 3Feb09 - English. Iran's growing power and strong ties with countries and armed groups in the region, is a chief concern among Arab...
Islamic Republic of Iran's growing power worries Arab countries - 3Feb09 - English. Iran's growing power and strong ties with countries and armed groups in the region, is a chief concern among Arab countries.
This influence has revived fear of the creation of the so called ''Shia Crescent.'' (Majority Shia populations or strong Shia minority)
Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr reports from Tehran.
More...
Description:
Islamic Republic of Iran's growing power worries Arab countries - 3Feb09 - English. Iran's growing power and strong ties with countries and armed groups in the region, is a chief concern among Arab countries.
This influence has revived fear of the creation of the so called ''Shia Crescent.'' (Majority Shia populations or strong Shia minority)
Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr reports from Tehran.
2:48
|
Pakistan suspicious of Indias aid to Afghanistan - 08Apr09 - English
The US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke has arrived with high ranking American military commander, Admiral Mike Mulle, in India for top level meetings.
Their trip comes amid...
The US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke has arrived with high ranking American military commander, Admiral Mike Mulle, in India for top level meetings.
Their trip comes amid India's concern over Barack Obama, the US president's new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, which it fears is biased towards Pakistan.
But, as Al Jazeera's Todd Baer reports from Kabul, Pakistan is also worried about the motives behind India's increasing aid to Afghanistan.
More...
Description:
The US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke has arrived with high ranking American military commander, Admiral Mike Mulle, in India for top level meetings.
Their trip comes amid India's concern over Barack Obama, the US president's new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, which it fears is biased towards Pakistan.
But, as Al Jazeera's Todd Baer reports from Kabul, Pakistan is also worried about the motives behind India's increasing aid to Afghanistan.
8:35
|
5:11
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 1 Surprise Attack
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 1Part 1 - Surprise Attack. Enver Pasha, minister of war for the Ottoman Empire, agrees to a secret alliance with Germany in August 1914. Istanbul mobilizes its...
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 1Part 1 - Surprise Attack. Enver Pasha, minister of war for the Ottoman Empire, agrees to a secret alliance with Germany in August 1914. Istanbul mobilizes its army but remains neutral for nearly three months. Eager for a fight against Russia, Enver orders the Turkish Black Sea Fleet to bombard Russian seaports on October 29th. The Triple Entente -- France, Russia and Great Britain -- reacts swiftly and declares war against the Turks within a week.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 1Part 1 - Surprise Attack. Enver Pasha, minister of war for the Ottoman Empire, agrees to a secret alliance with Germany in August 1914. Istanbul mobilizes its army but remains neutral for nearly three months. Eager for a fight against Russia, Enver orders the Turkish Black Sea Fleet to bombard Russian seaports on October 29th. The Triple Entente -- France, Russia and Great Britain -- reacts swiftly and declares war against the Turks within a week.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
3:19
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 2 Military Disaster English
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI P2 Enver Pasha takes personal command of the Ottoman Third Army (95,000 men) and sends it to attack Russian forces in the Caucasus. German military advisor,...
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI P2 Enver Pasha takes personal command of the Ottoman Third Army (95,000 men) and sends it to attack Russian forces in the Caucasus. German military advisor, General Liman von Sanders, advises against a mountain offensive in winter. On December 29, 1914, the Ottoman advance is halted by about 100,000 Russian troops at Sarikamesh. Six days later, the Turks have lost 30,000 men and reel back toward the city of Erzurum. More soldiers desert or die of frostbite; more than half of the Third Army is lost.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI P2 Enver Pasha takes personal command of the Ottoman Third Army (95,000 men) and sends it to attack Russian forces in the Caucasus. German military advisor, General Liman von Sanders, advises against a mountain offensive in winter. On December 29, 1914, the Ottoman advance is halted by about 100,000 Russian troops at Sarikamesh. Six days later, the Turks have lost 30,000 men and reel back toward the city of Erzurum. More soldiers desert or die of frostbite; more than half of the Third Army is lost.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
5:49
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 3 The Dardanelles English
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 3 The DardanellesA Franco-British fleet under Admiral Sackville Carden bombards Ottoman fortifications along the Dardanelles Straits, hoping to break through to...
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 3 The DardanellesA Franco-British fleet under Admiral Sackville Carden bombards Ottoman fortifications along the Dardanelles Straits, hoping to break through to Istanbul. Carden has a nervous breakdown and Rear Admiral John de Robeck takes charge of the 16-battleship task force. On March 18th, three Allied battleships are sunk by mines and three others are disabled. De Robeck fears losing more ships and decides to call off the attack. Despite the pleas of First Admiralty Lord Winston Churchill, the Allied Fleet withdraws. If only one British battleship had made it to Istanbul, the entire course of the war might have changed.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 3 The DardanellesA Franco-British fleet under Admiral Sackville Carden bombards Ottoman fortifications along the Dardanelles Straits, hoping to break through to Istanbul. Carden has a nervous breakdown and Rear Admiral John de Robeck takes charge of the 16-battleship task force. On March 18th, three Allied battleships are sunk by mines and three others are disabled. De Robeck fears losing more ships and decides to call off the attack. Despite the pleas of First Admiralty Lord Winston Churchill, the Allied Fleet withdraws. If only one British battleship had made it to Istanbul, the entire course of the war might have changed.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
2:47
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 4 Suez Advance English
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 4 Suez Advance Suez Advance. Less than two weeks after the disaster at Sarikamesh, Minister of the Navy Jemal Pasha leads 20,000 men in a secret operation across...
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 4 Suez Advance Suez Advance. Less than two weeks after the disaster at Sarikamesh, Minister of the Navy Jemal Pasha leads 20,000 men in a secret operation across the Sinai Peninsula -- the target is the Suez Canal, British lifeline to the Persian Gulf and India. A Turkish assault against the canal is broken up by the British defenders with the loss of 2,000 men. London sends so many troops to Egypt that the Ottoman Army will never attack the Canal again.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 4 Suez Advance Suez Advance. Less than two weeks after the disaster at Sarikamesh, Minister of the Navy Jemal Pasha leads 20,000 men in a secret operation across the Sinai Peninsula -- the target is the Suez Canal, British lifeline to the Persian Gulf and India. A Turkish assault against the canal is broken up by the British defenders with the loss of 2,000 men. London sends so many troops to Egypt that the Ottoman Army will never attack the Canal again.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
8:56
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 5 Gallipoli English
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 5 Gallipoli Gallipoli. April 25, 1915: 78,000 British and Anzac troops land on two beachheads on the Gallipoli peninsula. They are opposed by 60,000 Ottoman...
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 5 Gallipoli Gallipoli. April 25, 1915: 78,000 British and Anzac troops land on two beachheads on the Gallipoli peninsula. They are opposed by 60,000 Ottoman troops, commanded by German General Liman von Sanders. At Anzac Cove, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps move up the slopes and are stopped by Colonel Mustafa Kemal and men from his 19th Division. On the other beach, Cape Helles, British troops land in broad daylight and pay a heavy price. As the Turks encircle the small beachheads with fortified positions, the British find themselves in the same kind of trench warfare that exists on the Western Front.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 5 Gallipoli Gallipoli. April 25, 1915: 78,000 British and Anzac troops land on two beachheads on the Gallipoli peninsula. They are opposed by 60,000 Ottoman troops, commanded by German General Liman von Sanders. At Anzac Cove, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps move up the slopes and are stopped by Colonel Mustafa Kemal and men from his 19th Division. On the other beach, Cape Helles, British troops land in broad daylight and pay a heavy price. As the Turks encircle the small beachheads with fortified positions, the British find themselves in the same kind of trench warfare that exists on the Western Front.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
Middle East in WWI Pt 6 Iraq Expedition - English
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 6 Iraq Expedition
Part 6 - Iraq Expedition. The British land near Basra in southern Iraq to protect the oil fields in nearby Iran. British General John Nixon...
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 6 Iraq Expedition
Part 6 - Iraq Expedition. The British land near Basra in southern Iraq to protect the oil fields in nearby Iran. British General John Nixon sends General Charles Townshend and his troops up the Tigris River Valley in the spring of 1915. After beating the Turks at Kut-el-Amara, Townshend is stopped in November at the Battle of Ctesiphon, only 25 miles from Baghdad. With supplies and ammunition running low, the British retreat downriver to Kut. The Turkish forces pursue Townshend and surround the city. They intend to starve the British into surrender.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Blood and Oil Middle East in WWI Pt 6 Iraq Expedition
Part 6 - Iraq Expedition. The British land near Basra in southern Iraq to protect the oil fields in nearby Iran. British General John Nixon sends General Charles Townshend and his troops up the Tigris River Valley in the spring of 1915. After beating the Turks at Kut-el-Amara, Townshend is stopped in November at the Battle of Ctesiphon, only 25 miles from Baghdad. With supplies and ammunition running low, the British retreat downriver to Kut. The Turkish forces pursue Townshend and surround the city. They intend to starve the British into surrender.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
4:41
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 7 Caucasus Front English
Middle East in WWI Pt 7 Caucasus After the disaster at Sarikamesh, Russian troops arrive in force by February 1915 and begin an advance into eastern Turkey. In a series of battles, control over...
Middle East in WWI Pt 7 Caucasus After the disaster at Sarikamesh, Russian troops arrive in force by February 1915 and begin an advance into eastern Turkey. In a series of battles, control over the region seesaws between the opposing forces. In September, Grand Duke Nicholas (uncle of Tsar Nicholas II) arrives to take command of the Caucasus front and plans a new offensive for the following year. In January 1916, the Russians advance again and capture the fortress city of Erzurum. By the end of August, Nicholas and his army have eastern Turkey firmly in their grasp.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Middle East in WWI Pt 7 Caucasus After the disaster at Sarikamesh, Russian troops arrive in force by February 1915 and begin an advance into eastern Turkey. In a series of battles, control over the region seesaws between the opposing forces. In September, Grand Duke Nicholas (uncle of Tsar Nicholas II) arrives to take command of the Caucasus front and plans a new offensive for the following year. In January 1916, the Russians advance again and capture the fortress city of Erzurum. By the end of August, Nicholas and his army have eastern Turkey firmly in their grasp.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
2:53
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 8 Iraq Revisited English
Middle East in WWI Iraq Revisited. General Townshend's troops, besieged by the Turks at Kut, wait in vain for rescue in the spring of 1916. British forces under the command of General Aylmer try to...
Middle East in WWI Iraq Revisited. General Townshend's troops, besieged by the Turks at Kut, wait in vain for rescue in the spring of 1916. British forces under the command of General Aylmer try to break through the Turkish ring, but fail repeatedly. As Townshend's troops run out of food and ammunition, the situation becomes critical. On April 29th, about 13,000 British soldiers surrender to the Turks. The campaign to capture Baghdad has ended in disaster.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory
More...
Description:
Middle East in WWI Iraq Revisited. General Townshend's troops, besieged by the Turks at Kut, wait in vain for rescue in the spring of 1916. British forces under the command of General Aylmer try to break through the Turkish ring, but fail repeatedly. As Townshend's troops run out of food and ammunition, the situation becomes critical. On April 29th, about 13,000 British soldiers surrender to the Turks. The campaign to capture Baghdad has ended in disaster.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory
3:35
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 9 Desert War English
Middle East in WWIPart 9 - Desert War. Beginning in early 1917, British troops under General Archibald Murray clear the Sinai Peninsula of Turkish forces. Murray begins a limited offensive into...
Middle East in WWIPart 9 - Desert War. Beginning in early 1917, British troops under General Archibald Murray clear the Sinai Peninsula of Turkish forces. Murray begins a limited offensive into Palestine, where the Turks have built defensive positions along the ridges between Gaza and Beersheba, two natural gateways into the region. The British advance is slow and methodical; a railroad is built for supplies and reinforcements, and a pipeline is built to carry water for the troops and animals. But the searing Sinai Desert has a fierce effect on the British soldiers, and the sun's terrible heat becomes their worst enemy.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Middle East in WWIPart 9 - Desert War. Beginning in early 1917, British troops under General Archibald Murray clear the Sinai Peninsula of Turkish forces. Murray begins a limited offensive into Palestine, where the Turks have built defensive positions along the ridges between Gaza and Beersheba, two natural gateways into the region. The British advance is slow and methodical; a railroad is built for supplies and reinforcements, and a pipeline is built to carry water for the troops and animals. But the searing Sinai Desert has a fierce effect on the British soldiers, and the sun's terrible heat becomes their worst enemy.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
3:12
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 10 Baghdad Taken English
Middle East in WWI Part 10 - Baghdad Taken. Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in...
Middle East in WWI Part 10 - Baghdad Taken. Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Middle East in WWI Part 10 - Baghdad Taken. Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
6:06
|
Middle East in WWI Pt 11 Gaza Battles English
Middle East in WWI Pt 11 Gaza Battles In March and April of 1917, the Turks win the first and second battles of Gaza, driving back the forces of General Archibald Murray. In June, the War Office in...
Middle East in WWI Pt 11 Gaza Battles In March and April of 1917, the Turks win the first and second battles of Gaza, driving back the forces of General Archibald Murray. In June, the War Office in London removes Murray from command. In his place, General Edmund Allenby arrives with the succinct orders to "take Jerusalem by Christmas." October 31, 1917: in the Third Battle of Gaza, Allenby's army battles all day against the Turks at Beersheba, when a furious charge by the Australian Light Horse Regiment finally breaks the Turkish line. The British advance and capture Gaza soon after.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
More...
Description:
Middle East in WWI Pt 11 Gaza Battles In March and April of 1917, the Turks win the first and second battles of Gaza, driving back the forces of General Archibald Murray. In June, the War Office in London removes Murray from command. In his place, General Edmund Allenby arrives with the succinct orders to "take Jerusalem by Christmas." October 31, 1917: in the Third Battle of Gaza, Allenby's army battles all day against the Turks at Beersheba, when a furious charge by the Australian Light Horse Regiment finally breaks the Turkish line. The British advance and capture Gaza soon after.
Except for the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaigns, the extensive combat operations in the Middle East during World War I have been largely overlooked in documentary programs. Given the historical significance of the Ottoman Empire's demise in 1918, and the ongoing importance of Middle Eastern oil reserves to Western economies, a close study of this conflict provides two important lessons:
1. The Treaty of Versailles, agreed to by the Western Powers in 1919, paved the way for military and political chaos in the Middle East, which continues to this very day.
2. Oil reserves in the Middle East became an important strategic concern for Western Powers, helping to justify their economic, diplomatic and military interference in the region.
After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence", controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 -- after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination.
With little regard for cultural, historical, religious and demographic considerations, the West sponsored the creation of several new nations: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Thus, a "tinderbox" was built from Western greed, igniting a multitude of wars, revolts, coups and military occupations that truly have made the defeat of the Ottoman Empire little more than a hollow victory.
3:25
|
Iran Summoned Western Diplomats - English
Iran's Foreign Ministry summons the Swiss ambassador, who represents US interest in Tehran, in protest to 'interventionist' statements by American officials on Iran's election.
The ministry...
Iran's Foreign Ministry summons the Swiss ambassador, who represents US interest in Tehran, in protest to 'interventionist' statements by American officials on Iran's election.
The ministry also summoned the Canadian charge d'affaires to convey Iran's official protest to Ottawa over the Canadian officials' recent remarks on Iran's presidential vote.
Several European envoys were also summoned on Tuesday over what Iran's Foreign Ministry called 'malicious stance' taken by their countries toward Iran.
On Tuesday, US President Barack Obama expressed 'deep concern' about the post-election unrest in Iran but warned that meddling in Iran's internal affairs would be counterproductive.
"We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," he said.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon also called on Monday for what he called 'a full and transparent investigation into electoral fraud and discrepancies' in Iran's presidential vote.
Friday's presidential election, which saw incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud re-elected for a second term in office, has caused mass rallies by hundreds of thousands of supporters of former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi who reject the election as fraudulent.
The interior minister, who is appointed by president and is in charge of holding the election, has denied the allegation, saying the ministry adopted methods which could not possibly be subject to 'irregularities'.
At least eight people have been killed so far in recent post-election violence in Tehran.
More...
Description:
Iran's Foreign Ministry summons the Swiss ambassador, who represents US interest in Tehran, in protest to 'interventionist' statements by American officials on Iran's election.
The ministry also summoned the Canadian charge d'affaires to convey Iran's official protest to Ottawa over the Canadian officials' recent remarks on Iran's presidential vote.
Several European envoys were also summoned on Tuesday over what Iran's Foreign Ministry called 'malicious stance' taken by their countries toward Iran.
On Tuesday, US President Barack Obama expressed 'deep concern' about the post-election unrest in Iran but warned that meddling in Iran's internal affairs would be counterproductive.
"We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran," he said.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon also called on Monday for what he called 'a full and transparent investigation into electoral fraud and discrepancies' in Iran's presidential vote.
Friday's presidential election, which saw incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud re-elected for a second term in office, has caused mass rallies by hundreds of thousands of supporters of former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi who reject the election as fraudulent.
The interior minister, who is appointed by president and is in charge of holding the election, has denied the allegation, saying the ministry adopted methods which could not possibly be subject to 'irregularities'.
At least eight people have been killed so far in recent post-election violence in Tehran.
Part 2 (Must Watch) Tehran Sermon - Rehbar Syed Ali Khamenie Speech - English & Persian
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has described the \\\\\\\'unprecedented\\\\\\\' turnout of almost 85% in the election as a \\\\\\\'political quake\\\\\\\' for the enemy.
Ayatollah Seyyed...
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has described the \\\\\\\'unprecedented\\\\\\\' turnout of almost 85% in the election as a \\\\\\\'political quake\\\\\\\' for the enemy.
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said high turnout in the election, which witnessed more than 40 million Iranians casting their votes, was a great manifestation of people\\\\\\\'s solidarity with the Islamic establishment.
Addressing Friday prayers congregation, Ayatollah Khamenei said that last Friday\\\\\\\'s election indicated a \\\\\\\'common sense of responsibility\\\\\\\' of the Iranian nation to determine the future of the country.
The Leader added that all those who took part in the election proved their \\\\\\\'political consciousness and commitment\\\\\\\' towards the establishment to the whole world.
The Leader said the high voter turnout in the election was a \\\\\\\'political quake\\\\\\\' for the enemy and a \\\\\\\'real celebration\\\\\\\' for the friends of the country.
\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic of Iran will by no means betray the votes of the nation,\\\\\\\" the Leader said, adding the legal system of the election will not allow any ballot rigging in Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei, however, maintained that the Guardian Council, the body tasked with overseeing the election, would look into the complaints of the candidates who are unhappy with the election results.
The Leader also added that the establishment would never give-in to illegal demands, urging all presidential candidates to pursue their complaints through legal channels. Ayatollah Khamenei called for an end to illegal street protests aimed at reversing the result of the election.
Following the announcement of the election outcome, supporters of the defeated candidate Mir-Hussein Mousavi-who rejected the election results-- took to the streets of Tehran and other cities in daily rallies.
The Leader also warned against attempts made by foreign media outlets seeking to destabilize the country and blamed Britain in particular. Ayatollah Khamenei also decried the slander of former and incumbent top officials in pre-election debates by candidates.
President Ahmadinejad was re-elected the next president of the country with over 60% percent of the votes.
He won over his three rivals Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaei with almost 25 million votes.
The Leader said the time is over for rivalry, stressing that all should unite and line up behind the president-elect
Complete Transcript
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98610
In this sermon, I call all the respected brothers and sisters who have attended the Friday prayers here to piety and I advise them against any wrongdoing.
In this sermon, I will address the issue of the election, which is a hot topic in our country.
I want to address three different groups on three different issues; firstly, I want to address the general public. Secondly, I want to address the political elite, the candidates of the presidential election, activists and those who have been active in the process of election.
I also have something to say to the leaders of the global arrogance, certain Western governments and their media.
On the first issue, where I address you dear people, I want to express my appreciation and gratitude. I do not like to exaggerate while I am addressing my audience, but regarding the recent election, I must tell you great people that no matter what I say, words cannot describe the greatness of your great accomplishment.
The June 12 election was a great show of the people\\\\\\\'s sense of responsibility, their will to participate, and their dedication to the system.
Truly, I have never heard of anything similar to what you have accomplished taking place in any of the democratic systems around the world, whether they are false democracies or truly built on their people\\\\\\\'s vote.
In the Islamic Republic, aside from the 1979 referendum, there has no election like the one held last Friday with a turnout of almost 85 percent. This means almost 40 million voters. You can see the presence of the 12 and last Shia Imam behind this. This is a sign of God\\\\\\\'s blessing to us.
It is necessary that I address you all across the nation from the depths of my heart, to express my respect and tell you that I feel humble in your presence.
Our young generation showed and proved they have insight and that like the first generation of the Islamic Revolution, they are committed. The difference is, during the days of the revolution, revolutionary fire burned in the hearts of all. It was the same is the days of the imposed war but in a different sense.
Today, however, there is no more of that but we still witness this commitment, this sense of responsibility, this understanding and fervor in our youth. This is not something that can be ignored.
Of course, there are differences of taste and of opinion among our people. Some people support a certain candidate; others back another person and his words and ideas. This is natural, but you can see a collective commitment amid all this and amongst people of all walks of life. You can see a consensus, a collective commitment to the protection of our country and system.
Everyone entered the political scene in villages, towns, cities, major cities, different ethnic groups, people of different faiths, men, women, young and old. They all entered the scene. They all took part in this great movement.
My dear people, this election was a political tremor for your enemies. For your friends across the world, it was a real celebration -- a historical ceremony and victory.
Thirty years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, such a huge turnout and show of commitment to the Islamic system and the late Imam [Khomeini] shows the renewal of the pledge of allegiance to the late Imam and the martyrs. This was a breath of fresh air, a new movement and a great opportunity for the Islamic system.
This election put religious democracy on display for the whole world to witness. All ill-wishers of the Islamic establishment saw for themselves the meaning of religious democracy.
This is an alternative path in the face of dictatorships and arrogant regimes on the one side and democracies devoid of spirituality and religion on the other. This is religious democracy. This is what brings the hearts of people together and draws them to the scene.
This is the first point I wanted to make about the election. The second point is that the June 12 election showed that people live with trust, hope and national enthusiasm in this country.
This is against a great deal of comments your enemies make in their propaganda. If the people of this country were not hopeful about their future, they would not have taken part in any election.
If people were not dedicated to the Islamic establishment, they would have never voted. If they did not feel free, they would have never shown up at polling stations. The trust they have in the Islamic system was evident in this election.
Later on, I will tell you how the enemy targeted the very trust of the people in the Islamic establishment. This trust is the very thing they want to crush. This trust is the greatest asset of the Islamic system, so they want to take it away from the Islamic establishment.
They want to cast doubt on the election and weaken the confidence of the people in the system. They want to cause the people to panic. The enemies of the Iranian nation know that without trust there would have been a low turnout.
A low turnout would have questioned the legitimacy of the establishment. That is what they are after. They wanted to take away your [people] trust and keep you away from the polls to target this legitimacy, and if they had achieved this goal, the damage done would have been incomparable to any other.
For the people to come to the polls en masse and then be told that they made a mistake and should not have trusted the Islamic establishment, this is an enemy game.
This path is the same one they pursued even before the elections. A few months before the election, in late march, I said in Mashhad that the enemy has started whispers and rumors that their will be vote rigging. They were preparing the grounds for the events of today.
I advised our friends in the country not to repeat what the enemy wants to plant in people\\\\\\\'s minds. The Islamic establishment has the people\\\\\\\'s trust and it has not gained this trust easily.
For the past 30 years, authorities in the Islamic Republic have managed to maintain this trust, with their performance and painstaking efforts.
The third issue I want to touch upon is the issue of rivalry. This competition was a free, serious and transparent race between four candidates as we all witnessed.
These competitions, debates and discussion were so transparent that some began to voice objections. I will tell you that to they had the right to object to some extent.
Certain problems were also created that resulted in what you see today. I must tell you that we were and still are under the impression that these rivalries were between the four candidates who are all individuals committed to the system.
The Enemies want to portray the situation in the media - some of which belong to the Zionists -as if there is a row between the proponents and opponents of the Islamic Republic. No, this is not the case, this very untrue.
The four candidates who entered the presidential race all belonged and still belong to the Islamic establishment. One of these four is the president of our country - a hardworking and trustworthy president. One of them is the two-term prime minister, he served the country when I myself was president. He was my prime minister for eight years. One of them was the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and one of the wartime commanders. One them was two-time head of parliament and Majlis speaker. They are all members of our Islamic establishment.
Of course, they have differences of opinion and plans that differ from one another. But, they all belong to this Islamic establishment. This race was defined within the framework of the system. It was not a competition between insiders and outsiders as the Zionist and the US were trying to portray. No, this was a competition within the framework of the system between members of the system.
I know them all personally, I know their system of thought and their tastes very well. I am familiar with their personalities. I have worked with all of them closely. I know them all. But of course, I do not share all their views. I believe some of their views and executive records are subject to criticism.
I see some more suitable to serve the country than others. But, this is up to the people to decide, and this is exactly what happened, they chose who they wanted.
My desire and my choice was never announced nor was there any need for the people to pay heed to it. The people had their own criteria and this is what they based their decision on. Millions here and outside the country decided for themselves. This is an internal issue.
Misrepresenting the problem is underhand. The row is not between insiders of the system and outsiders. The row is not between revolutionary and anti-revolutionary forces, it is a difference of opinion between the members of the Islamic Revolution.
People who voted for these four candidates, voted with faith in the system. They believed their candidate of choice was better for the country so they voted for him. They voted in favor of the person they found most competent.
Well, these campaigns and debates were an important and interesting initiative. They were very clear, to the point and serious. The televised debates proved wrong those who were trying to say from the outside that these competitions are formalities.
They saw that these rivalries are real and serious. They saw that they are really battling it out and exchanging viewpoints. From this perspective, these debates were positive. But, they also had some negative points which I will touch upon.
The positive aspect was that in these televised discussions and debates everyone spoke their mind clearly and casually. A flood of criticism followed. Everyone was forced to respond. Everyone was criticized and they defended themselves. The stances that these individuals and groups had were unveiled before the eyes of the nation. They talked about their plans, commitments and projects.
All this was publicized for the people so that they could judge for themselves. People felt that in the Islamic system they are not the outsiders. Everything was clearly laid out before the people.
They were shown that the nature of their vote is not ceremonial. The right to vote truly does belong to the people. People want to have the right to choose. This is what the televised debates indicated.
One of the main reasons that ten million additional voters participated in this election was because the people\\\\\\\'s minds had been engaged, therefore they came and voted for the candidate of their choice.
These debates found their way into the streets and homes. These debates helped the people become better informed and hence make better decisions. The Islamic establishment is in favor of such debates.
Note that such debates should not be steered in a direction that may cause people to hold grudges against one another. If these debates had remained within their intended framework, they would have been positive. But when they turn into arguments than they will gradually bring grudges and hard feelings.
Of course, such debates should continue at managerial levels, but without a negative aspect. Officials should allow criticism and feel responsible to answer. If an individual is criticized, he must see it as an opportunity to enlighten the people and reveal fact and truth.
If these debates are regularly carried out [as normal government practice], at election time when there are such debates we would not witness such reactions. All arguments would emerge and all ideas would be exchanged over time. These are the positive aspects of such debates.
But, there have also been some negative aspects to the debates that need to be dealt with. In some cases, we saw that logical points were undermined and emotional and destructive responses dominated the debate.
There were efforts to portray the last four years as a dark era. There were also attempts to portray previous administrations in a similar light. Allegations were made that have not been proven in any court, rumors were used as a reference, and unjust remarks were made.
This administration, despite the excellent services it had rendered came under unjust attacks. Similarly, the performance of previous governments in the past 30 years came under attack. The candidates gave in to their emotions.
They made some positive points. They also raised some unpleasant negative issues. Like the rest of the nation, I sat and watched these TV debates. I took pride in the freedom of speech I witnessed. I enjoyed the fact that the Islamic Republic has been able to aid the people in deciding their future, but the shortcomings saddened me.
For supporters of the candidates the shortcomings and negative aspects were also a cause for concern; both sides were a party to this... both sides had their problems.
On the one hand, insults were hurled against the president of the country, even two to three months prior to these debates, speeches were brought to me and in them, I read the insults made and the accusations leveled against the president of the country who was elected by the vote of the people. They accused him of lying. This is not good. They fabricated documents against the government and distributed them everywhere.
I saw what was going on. They [accusations] were all untrue and contrary to the facts. They swore at the president, called him superstitious, and called him names. They closed their eyes to ethics and the law.
On the other hand, almost the same thing happened. The performance of the past 30 years of the Revolution was brought under question. People were named who are among the system\\\\\\\'s veteran figures.
They are people who have dedicated their lives to this establishment. Never before have I mentioned people by name in the Friday prayer sermons, but today, I have to mention some names, particularly Mr. [Akbar] Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mr. [Ali Akbar] Nateq-Nouri. I must mention their names and point out that nobody has accused them of corruption.
Now, if anyone has any claims or complaints regarding their [Hashemi Rafsanjani and Nateq-Nouri\\\\\\\'s] relatives they should refer to judicial authorities.
You cannot raise these issues in the media before they are proven. If it is proven, you can raise the issue as every member of society is equal, but you are not allowed to make claims. When such things are mentioned, misunderstandings are the outcome. This can cause misunderstandings for the younger generation.
Everyone knows Mr. Hashemi. My relationship with him goes back to before the Islamic Revolution. I have known him for more than 25 years. Mr. Hashemi was one of the main revolutionary figures.
He was one of the most active proponents of the revolution, and after the Islamic Revolution, he was one of the main political figures serving the people alongside the late Imam, And after the departure of the founder of the Islamic Revolution he has been alongside the leadership to date.
On several occasions, there were assassination attempts on his life. Before the revolution, he donated his possessions for the revolutionary cause. Our youth should know these facts. After the revolution, he had different responsibilities.
For eight years, he served as the president and before that he was the parliament speaker. He held other sensitive positions as well. Throughout these years, I am not aware of one incident in which he gathered wealth. These are the facts that everyone should know.
In the most sensitive of periods, he served the revolution and the establishment. Of course, my opinion and Mr. Rafsanjani\\\\\\\'s differs on numerous issues, which is natural. However, we should not create any misunderstandings for the people.
The president and Mr. Rafsanjani have had differences of opinion since the president took office in 2005. They have differences of opinion in foreign policy, in the manner of spreading social justice as well as on some cultural issues. However, the president\\\\\\\'s ideas are closer to mine.
The same goes fort Mr. Nateq-Nouri. He has also served the revolution, rendered great services for the establishment and there is not a shred of doubt about that.
The live televised debates are a positive step, but these shortcomings should be removed. After the debates, I had a talk with the president because I knew he would listen to me. The stance of the Islamic establishment is clear-cut regarding corruption and social justice. Corruption should be fought anywhere it is traced.
There is a point I want to make here. We do not claim that our establishment is free of all economic and financial corruption. Yes, there is corruption. If there was no corruption, I would not have written the eight-point letter to the heads of the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches of the country.
We have corruption, but the Islamic establishment is one of the healthiest establishments in the world today. However, it is not right to accuse the country of corruption based on some Zionist reports and sources.
Moreover, questioning the credibility of statesmen goes beyond the bounds of decency. Financial corruption is an important issue in the Islamic establishment. The judiciary, executive and legislative branches of the country must do everything within their power to fight against it.
Everyone is duty-bound to fight corruption. If corruption is not contained, it will spread in the same manner as you see occurring in many countries…. They are struggling with an alarming level of corruption as you have heard about in the UK. This is only a fraction of the scandal as it goes way beyond what has been publicized.
Let me summarize the points I made. The Friday election was a historical event, which touched the entire world. Some of our enemies, however, attempted to cast doubt over this absolute and definitive victory. Some even attempted to portray it as a national defeat.
They did not want you to enjoy this victory. They did not want to see the highest turnout in the world go down in history in your name. However, it has happened, it has been recorded in history. They cannot manipulate this.
The time for rivalry is passed... These four candidates have all fought in the battlefront of this revolution and they are members of this establishment. Forty million people went to the polls and cast their votes for this revolution.
It was not only the 24 million votes that went to the president; 40 million votes were cast in favor of the revolution. The people have trust [in the establishment], and all supporters of candidates should rest assured that the Islamic establishment would never betray the people\\\\\\\'s trust.
In fact, the electoral system of the country does not allow for any vote rigging, which is testified to by all those in charge of the election process.
When there is a margin of one hundred thousand or one million at most, then one can doubt that there may have been some form of manipulation or irregularity; however, when there is a difference of eleven million votes, how could any vote rigging have taken place?
However, as I have said, and the Guardian Council has accepted, if some people have doubts then it should be dealt with through legal channels. Everything must be dealt strictly though legal channels. I will never accept illegal demands.
If the legal frameworks are breached today, then no future election can be guaranteed. In every election, there is only one winner, and of course, some defeated candidates. Complaints, if there is any doubt, should be pursued through legal channels. We have a comprehensive and competent legal system.
Just as the candidates have the right to appoint observers, they are given the right to file complaints. I have requested the Guardian Council conduct a partial vote recount in the presence of the candidates and their representatives. We have no problem with this.
I want to address the politicians, candidates and political parties at this point. We are at a critical historical juncture. Look at current world affairs, the situation in the Middle East, global economic woes and the situation in our neighboring countries.
We are duty bound to remain vigilant and to be careful not to commit mistakes at this critical point in time. In the election, people fulfilled their duty in the best way possible, which was by going to the polls. We have heavier responsibilities on our shoulders now.
Those figures who are looked up to by the people and politicians, should be cautious about their words and deeds. If they show any amount of extremist attitude, it will penetrate into the ranks of the people.
It may have dangerous consequences and may eventually get out of control. Extremism in society will trigger or fan other extremist moves in the country. If political elites disobey the law and make wrong decisions, they will be held accountable for any violent actions or rioting that ensues.
I urge these people, these friends of mine, to exercise restraint and patience. You should see enemy hands at work [against the country]. You should see hungry wolves laying in ambush. They are taking off their masks of diplomacy and are showing their true colors. I urge you to open your eyes and see the enemy.
In the past few days the prominent diplomats of some Western countries, which have been dealing with us through diplomatic rhetoric, have removed their masks. Today you can see their true face. They are now showing their enmity toward the Islamic establishment and the most treacherous of them all is Britain.
I tell these brothers of ours to think of their responsibility. You are responsible before God. I call on you to remember what Imam has written in his will; the law has the final say.
All differences should be settled at the ballot box. This is what elections are for, to let ballot boxes and not the streets determine what the people want.
If after every election, the supporters of the candidates who have lost take to streets and the supporters of the candidate who has won respond in the same manner, then what need would we have for elections?
Why should the people have to suffer? We should not take to the streets to show off with the number of our supporters to the people. Such acts are not a political issue for those terrorists who take advantage of the situation to hide among the masses in order to carry out their agenda.
It is a very good cover for these saboteurs. Who will take responsible for this? Some of the people who were killed in these riots were ordinary people, ordinary Basij members. Who will be held accountable for this?
They may start taking advantage of this situation to assassinate Basij members, which will naturally provoke emotional reactions. Who is to be held responsible for this? One is grieved to see them attack religious students at Tehran University dormitories and afterwards chant slogans in support of the leadership.
Post-election rivalry on the streets is not the right way to go. It only challenges the election. I want all sides to put an end to this. If they do not stop such actions, then they will be responsible for the repercussions of such incidents.
It is also wrong to assume that street riots can be used as leverage to pressure the establishment and to force officials to listen to them for what they believe is in the interest of the country.
Giving in to illegal demands under pressure is in itself the beginning of dictatorship. This is a miscalculation and the consequences will be directed at those who orchestrated them. If necessary, I will tell the people about them in due time.
I ask all these brothers and friends of mine to act based on friendship and abide by the law. I hope God will help us choose the righteous path. The celebration of 40 million votes should be appreciated and the enemy must not be allowed to ruin the celebration. However, if certain people decide to choose another path, then I will have no choice but to talk with the people more openly.
The third group I wish to address are the leaders of the Western media and arrogant powers. In the past two to three weeks, I have heard the words and witnessed the actions of politicians from the United States and certain European countries.
Before the elections, they attempted to cast doubt over the election itself so that there would be a low voter turnout. They had their own assessments of results forecasts, but they did not expect the mass participation of the people. They never predicted an 85 percent turnout, or 40 million voters.
When they saw the mass turnout, they were shocked. They realized the reality of Iran. They came to understand that they need to adapt themselves to the new situation be it regional, nuclear or internal.
When they saw the great popular movement on Election Day, they realized that a new chapter had been opened with regards to Iran and that they must come to terms with it. When some candidates began protesting the results, they felt that there was a change, so they jumped at the chance to ride this wave.
Their tone after the election changed on Saturday and Sunday. Their attention shifted to the riots and that was when they gradually began removing their masks.
Western officials, their presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers commented on this situation. The US President said that we were waiting for the day when people would take to the streets. At the same time they write letters saying that they want to have ties and that they respect the Islamic Republic. Which are we to believe?
Inside the country, their elements [foreign countries] began street protests and vandalism, they set fire to public property, they made shops and businesses insecure, and they are trying to rob the people of their security.
This has nothing to do with the people and their preferred candidates. This kind of behavior stems from ill-wishers, mercenaries and elements working for Western and Zionist secret services.
The incidents occurring inside the country have misled some of those outside our borders, who imagine Iran to be the same as Georgia. A Zionist American capitalist a few years ago, had been quoted in the media saying that he had spent 10 million dollars in Georgia to start a velvet revolution.
Our nation cannot be compared to any another nation. Their problem is they have not come to know this revolution and its people.
American officials say they are worried about the Iranian nation, how can you be worried? Can you even speak about human rights when you are responsible for the blood shed in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Palestine who has and is supporting and funding the Zionist regime?
During the term of a previous US government, eighty people affiliated with the Davidian sect were burnt alive in their compound in Waco, Texas. For some reason these people were disliked by the then US administration. Eighty people were burnt in that building, how dare you talk of human rights?
In my opinion, these western officials should at least feel a little embarrassment!
More...
Description:
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has described the \\\\\\\'unprecedented\\\\\\\' turnout of almost 85% in the election as a \\\\\\\'political quake\\\\\\\' for the enemy.
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said high turnout in the election, which witnessed more than 40 million Iranians casting their votes, was a great manifestation of people\\\\\\\'s solidarity with the Islamic establishment.
Addressing Friday prayers congregation, Ayatollah Khamenei said that last Friday\\\\\\\'s election indicated a \\\\\\\'common sense of responsibility\\\\\\\' of the Iranian nation to determine the future of the country.
The Leader added that all those who took part in the election proved their \\\\\\\'political consciousness and commitment\\\\\\\' towards the establishment to the whole world.
The Leader said the high voter turnout in the election was a \\\\\\\'political quake\\\\\\\' for the enemy and a \\\\\\\'real celebration\\\\\\\' for the friends of the country.
\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic of Iran will by no means betray the votes of the nation,\\\\\\\" the Leader said, adding the legal system of the election will not allow any ballot rigging in Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei, however, maintained that the Guardian Council, the body tasked with overseeing the election, would look into the complaints of the candidates who are unhappy with the election results.
The Leader also added that the establishment would never give-in to illegal demands, urging all presidential candidates to pursue their complaints through legal channels. Ayatollah Khamenei called for an end to illegal street protests aimed at reversing the result of the election.
Following the announcement of the election outcome, supporters of the defeated candidate Mir-Hussein Mousavi-who rejected the election results-- took to the streets of Tehran and other cities in daily rallies.
The Leader also warned against attempts made by foreign media outlets seeking to destabilize the country and blamed Britain in particular. Ayatollah Khamenei also decried the slander of former and incumbent top officials in pre-election debates by candidates.
President Ahmadinejad was re-elected the next president of the country with over 60% percent of the votes.
He won over his three rivals Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaei with almost 25 million votes.
The Leader said the time is over for rivalry, stressing that all should unite and line up behind the president-elect
Complete Transcript
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98610
In this sermon, I call all the respected brothers and sisters who have attended the Friday prayers here to piety and I advise them against any wrongdoing.
In this sermon, I will address the issue of the election, which is a hot topic in our country.
I want to address three different groups on three different issues; firstly, I want to address the general public. Secondly, I want to address the political elite, the candidates of the presidential election, activists and those who have been active in the process of election.
I also have something to say to the leaders of the global arrogance, certain Western governments and their media.
On the first issue, where I address you dear people, I want to express my appreciation and gratitude. I do not like to exaggerate while I am addressing my audience, but regarding the recent election, I must tell you great people that no matter what I say, words cannot describe the greatness of your great accomplishment.
The June 12 election was a great show of the people\\\\\\\'s sense of responsibility, their will to participate, and their dedication to the system.
Truly, I have never heard of anything similar to what you have accomplished taking place in any of the democratic systems around the world, whether they are false democracies or truly built on their people\\\\\\\'s vote.
In the Islamic Republic, aside from the 1979 referendum, there has no election like the one held last Friday with a turnout of almost 85 percent. This means almost 40 million voters. You can see the presence of the 12 and last Shia Imam behind this. This is a sign of God\\\\\\\'s blessing to us.
It is necessary that I address you all across the nation from the depths of my heart, to express my respect and tell you that I feel humble in your presence.
Our young generation showed and proved they have insight and that like the first generation of the Islamic Revolution, they are committed. The difference is, during the days of the revolution, revolutionary fire burned in the hearts of all. It was the same is the days of the imposed war but in a different sense.
Today, however, there is no more of that but we still witness this commitment, this sense of responsibility, this understanding and fervor in our youth. This is not something that can be ignored.
Of course, there are differences of taste and of opinion among our people. Some people support a certain candidate; others back another person and his words and ideas. This is natural, but you can see a collective commitment amid all this and amongst people of all walks of life. You can see a consensus, a collective commitment to the protection of our country and system.
Everyone entered the political scene in villages, towns, cities, major cities, different ethnic groups, people of different faiths, men, women, young and old. They all entered the scene. They all took part in this great movement.
My dear people, this election was a political tremor for your enemies. For your friends across the world, it was a real celebration -- a historical ceremony and victory.
Thirty years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, such a huge turnout and show of commitment to the Islamic system and the late Imam [Khomeini] shows the renewal of the pledge of allegiance to the late Imam and the martyrs. This was a breath of fresh air, a new movement and a great opportunity for the Islamic system.
This election put religious democracy on display for the whole world to witness. All ill-wishers of the Islamic establishment saw for themselves the meaning of religious democracy.
This is an alternative path in the face of dictatorships and arrogant regimes on the one side and democracies devoid of spirituality and religion on the other. This is religious democracy. This is what brings the hearts of people together and draws them to the scene.
This is the first point I wanted to make about the election. The second point is that the June 12 election showed that people live with trust, hope and national enthusiasm in this country.
This is against a great deal of comments your enemies make in their propaganda. If the people of this country were not hopeful about their future, they would not have taken part in any election.
If people were not dedicated to the Islamic establishment, they would have never voted. If they did not feel free, they would have never shown up at polling stations. The trust they have in the Islamic system was evident in this election.
Later on, I will tell you how the enemy targeted the very trust of the people in the Islamic establishment. This trust is the very thing they want to crush. This trust is the greatest asset of the Islamic system, so they want to take it away from the Islamic establishment.
They want to cast doubt on the election and weaken the confidence of the people in the system. They want to cause the people to panic. The enemies of the Iranian nation know that without trust there would have been a low turnout.
A low turnout would have questioned the legitimacy of the establishment. That is what they are after. They wanted to take away your [people] trust and keep you away from the polls to target this legitimacy, and if they had achieved this goal, the damage done would have been incomparable to any other.
For the people to come to the polls en masse and then be told that they made a mistake and should not have trusted the Islamic establishment, this is an enemy game.
This path is the same one they pursued even before the elections. A few months before the election, in late march, I said in Mashhad that the enemy has started whispers and rumors that their will be vote rigging. They were preparing the grounds for the events of today.
I advised our friends in the country not to repeat what the enemy wants to plant in people\\\\\\\'s minds. The Islamic establishment has the people\\\\\\\'s trust and it has not gained this trust easily.
For the past 30 years, authorities in the Islamic Republic have managed to maintain this trust, with their performance and painstaking efforts.
The third issue I want to touch upon is the issue of rivalry. This competition was a free, serious and transparent race between four candidates as we all witnessed.
These competitions, debates and discussion were so transparent that some began to voice objections. I will tell you that to they had the right to object to some extent.
Certain problems were also created that resulted in what you see today. I must tell you that we were and still are under the impression that these rivalries were between the four candidates who are all individuals committed to the system.
The Enemies want to portray the situation in the media - some of which belong to the Zionists -as if there is a row between the proponents and opponents of the Islamic Republic. No, this is not the case, this very untrue.
The four candidates who entered the presidential race all belonged and still belong to the Islamic establishment. One of these four is the president of our country - a hardworking and trustworthy president. One of them is the two-term prime minister, he served the country when I myself was president. He was my prime minister for eight years. One of them was the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and one of the wartime commanders. One them was two-time head of parliament and Majlis speaker. They are all members of our Islamic establishment.
Of course, they have differences of opinion and plans that differ from one another. But, they all belong to this Islamic establishment. This race was defined within the framework of the system. It was not a competition between insiders and outsiders as the Zionist and the US were trying to portray. No, this was a competition within the framework of the system between members of the system.
I know them all personally, I know their system of thought and their tastes very well. I am familiar with their personalities. I have worked with all of them closely. I know them all. But of course, I do not share all their views. I believe some of their views and executive records are subject to criticism.
I see some more suitable to serve the country than others. But, this is up to the people to decide, and this is exactly what happened, they chose who they wanted.
My desire and my choice was never announced nor was there any need for the people to pay heed to it. The people had their own criteria and this is what they based their decision on. Millions here and outside the country decided for themselves. This is an internal issue.
Misrepresenting the problem is underhand. The row is not between insiders of the system and outsiders. The row is not between revolutionary and anti-revolutionary forces, it is a difference of opinion between the members of the Islamic Revolution.
People who voted for these four candidates, voted with faith in the system. They believed their candidate of choice was better for the country so they voted for him. They voted in favor of the person they found most competent.
Well, these campaigns and debates were an important and interesting initiative. They were very clear, to the point and serious. The televised debates proved wrong those who were trying to say from the outside that these competitions are formalities.
They saw that these rivalries are real and serious. They saw that they are really battling it out and exchanging viewpoints. From this perspective, these debates were positive. But, they also had some negative points which I will touch upon.
The positive aspect was that in these televised discussions and debates everyone spoke their mind clearly and casually. A flood of criticism followed. Everyone was forced to respond. Everyone was criticized and they defended themselves. The stances that these individuals and groups had were unveiled before the eyes of the nation. They talked about their plans, commitments and projects.
All this was publicized for the people so that they could judge for themselves. People felt that in the Islamic system they are not the outsiders. Everything was clearly laid out before the people.
They were shown that the nature of their vote is not ceremonial. The right to vote truly does belong to the people. People want to have the right to choose. This is what the televised debates indicated.
One of the main reasons that ten million additional voters participated in this election was because the people\\\\\\\'s minds had been engaged, therefore they came and voted for the candidate of their choice.
These debates found their way into the streets and homes. These debates helped the people become better informed and hence make better decisions. The Islamic establishment is in favor of such debates.
Note that such debates should not be steered in a direction that may cause people to hold grudges against one another. If these debates had remained within their intended framework, they would have been positive. But when they turn into arguments than they will gradually bring grudges and hard feelings.
Of course, such debates should continue at managerial levels, but without a negative aspect. Officials should allow criticism and feel responsible to answer. If an individual is criticized, he must see it as an opportunity to enlighten the people and reveal fact and truth.
If these debates are regularly carried out [as normal government practice], at election time when there are such debates we would not witness such reactions. All arguments would emerge and all ideas would be exchanged over time. These are the positive aspects of such debates.
But, there have also been some negative aspects to the debates that need to be dealt with. In some cases, we saw that logical points were undermined and emotional and destructive responses dominated the debate.
There were efforts to portray the last four years as a dark era. There were also attempts to portray previous administrations in a similar light. Allegations were made that have not been proven in any court, rumors were used as a reference, and unjust remarks were made.
This administration, despite the excellent services it had rendered came under unjust attacks. Similarly, the performance of previous governments in the past 30 years came under attack. The candidates gave in to their emotions.
They made some positive points. They also raised some unpleasant negative issues. Like the rest of the nation, I sat and watched these TV debates. I took pride in the freedom of speech I witnessed. I enjoyed the fact that the Islamic Republic has been able to aid the people in deciding their future, but the shortcomings saddened me.
For supporters of the candidates the shortcomings and negative aspects were also a cause for concern; both sides were a party to this... both sides had their problems.
On the one hand, insults were hurled against the president of the country, even two to three months prior to these debates, speeches were brought to me and in them, I read the insults made and the accusations leveled against the president of the country who was elected by the vote of the people. They accused him of lying. This is not good. They fabricated documents against the government and distributed them everywhere.
I saw what was going on. They [accusations] were all untrue and contrary to the facts. They swore at the president, called him superstitious, and called him names. They closed their eyes to ethics and the law.
On the other hand, almost the same thing happened. The performance of the past 30 years of the Revolution was brought under question. People were named who are among the system\\\\\\\'s veteran figures.
They are people who have dedicated their lives to this establishment. Never before have I mentioned people by name in the Friday prayer sermons, but today, I have to mention some names, particularly Mr. [Akbar] Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mr. [Ali Akbar] Nateq-Nouri. I must mention their names and point out that nobody has accused them of corruption.
Now, if anyone has any claims or complaints regarding their [Hashemi Rafsanjani and Nateq-Nouri\\\\\\\'s] relatives they should refer to judicial authorities.
You cannot raise these issues in the media before they are proven. If it is proven, you can raise the issue as every member of society is equal, but you are not allowed to make claims. When such things are mentioned, misunderstandings are the outcome. This can cause misunderstandings for the younger generation.
Everyone knows Mr. Hashemi. My relationship with him goes back to before the Islamic Revolution. I have known him for more than 25 years. Mr. Hashemi was one of the main revolutionary figures.
He was one of the most active proponents of the revolution, and after the Islamic Revolution, he was one of the main political figures serving the people alongside the late Imam, And after the departure of the founder of the Islamic Revolution he has been alongside the leadership to date.
On several occasions, there were assassination attempts on his life. Before the revolution, he donated his possessions for the revolutionary cause. Our youth should know these facts. After the revolution, he had different responsibilities.
For eight years, he served as the president and before that he was the parliament speaker. He held other sensitive positions as well. Throughout these years, I am not aware of one incident in which he gathered wealth. These are the facts that everyone should know.
In the most sensitive of periods, he served the revolution and the establishment. Of course, my opinion and Mr. Rafsanjani\\\\\\\'s differs on numerous issues, which is natural. However, we should not create any misunderstandings for the people.
The president and Mr. Rafsanjani have had differences of opinion since the president took office in 2005. They have differences of opinion in foreign policy, in the manner of spreading social justice as well as on some cultural issues. However, the president\\\\\\\'s ideas are closer to mine.
The same goes fort Mr. Nateq-Nouri. He has also served the revolution, rendered great services for the establishment and there is not a shred of doubt about that.
The live televised debates are a positive step, but these shortcomings should be removed. After the debates, I had a talk with the president because I knew he would listen to me. The stance of the Islamic establishment is clear-cut regarding corruption and social justice. Corruption should be fought anywhere it is traced.
There is a point I want to make here. We do not claim that our establishment is free of all economic and financial corruption. Yes, there is corruption. If there was no corruption, I would not have written the eight-point letter to the heads of the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches of the country.
We have corruption, but the Islamic establishment is one of the healthiest establishments in the world today. However, it is not right to accuse the country of corruption based on some Zionist reports and sources.
Moreover, questioning the credibility of statesmen goes beyond the bounds of decency. Financial corruption is an important issue in the Islamic establishment. The judiciary, executive and legislative branches of the country must do everything within their power to fight against it.
Everyone is duty-bound to fight corruption. If corruption is not contained, it will spread in the same manner as you see occurring in many countries…. They are struggling with an alarming level of corruption as you have heard about in the UK. This is only a fraction of the scandal as it goes way beyond what has been publicized.
Let me summarize the points I made. The Friday election was a historical event, which touched the entire world. Some of our enemies, however, attempted to cast doubt over this absolute and definitive victory. Some even attempted to portray it as a national defeat.
They did not want you to enjoy this victory. They did not want to see the highest turnout in the world go down in history in your name. However, it has happened, it has been recorded in history. They cannot manipulate this.
The time for rivalry is passed... These four candidates have all fought in the battlefront of this revolution and they are members of this establishment. Forty million people went to the polls and cast their votes for this revolution.
It was not only the 24 million votes that went to the president; 40 million votes were cast in favor of the revolution. The people have trust [in the establishment], and all supporters of candidates should rest assured that the Islamic establishment would never betray the people\\\\\\\'s trust.
In fact, the electoral system of the country does not allow for any vote rigging, which is testified to by all those in charge of the election process.
When there is a margin of one hundred thousand or one million at most, then one can doubt that there may have been some form of manipulation or irregularity; however, when there is a difference of eleven million votes, how could any vote rigging have taken place?
However, as I have said, and the Guardian Council has accepted, if some people have doubts then it should be dealt with through legal channels. Everything must be dealt strictly though legal channels. I will never accept illegal demands.
If the legal frameworks are breached today, then no future election can be guaranteed. In every election, there is only one winner, and of course, some defeated candidates. Complaints, if there is any doubt, should be pursued through legal channels. We have a comprehensive and competent legal system.
Just as the candidates have the right to appoint observers, they are given the right to file complaints. I have requested the Guardian Council conduct a partial vote recount in the presence of the candidates and their representatives. We have no problem with this.
I want to address the politicians, candidates and political parties at this point. We are at a critical historical juncture. Look at current world affairs, the situation in the Middle East, global economic woes and the situation in our neighboring countries.
We are duty bound to remain vigilant and to be careful not to commit mistakes at this critical point in time. In the election, people fulfilled their duty in the best way possible, which was by going to the polls. We have heavier responsibilities on our shoulders now.
Those figures who are looked up to by the people and politicians, should be cautious about their words and deeds. If they show any amount of extremist attitude, it will penetrate into the ranks of the people.
It may have dangerous consequences and may eventually get out of control. Extremism in society will trigger or fan other extremist moves in the country. If political elites disobey the law and make wrong decisions, they will be held accountable for any violent actions or rioting that ensues.
I urge these people, these friends of mine, to exercise restraint and patience. You should see enemy hands at work [against the country]. You should see hungry wolves laying in ambush. They are taking off their masks of diplomacy and are showing their true colors. I urge you to open your eyes and see the enemy.
In the past few days the prominent diplomats of some Western countries, which have been dealing with us through diplomatic rhetoric, have removed their masks. Today you can see their true face. They are now showing their enmity toward the Islamic establishment and the most treacherous of them all is Britain.
I tell these brothers of ours to think of their responsibility. You are responsible before God. I call on you to remember what Imam has written in his will; the law has the final say.
All differences should be settled at the ballot box. This is what elections are for, to let ballot boxes and not the streets determine what the people want.
If after every election, the supporters of the candidates who have lost take to streets and the supporters of the candidate who has won respond in the same manner, then what need would we have for elections?
Why should the people have to suffer? We should not take to the streets to show off with the number of our supporters to the people. Such acts are not a political issue for those terrorists who take advantage of the situation to hide among the masses in order to carry out their agenda.
It is a very good cover for these saboteurs. Who will take responsible for this? Some of the people who were killed in these riots were ordinary people, ordinary Basij members. Who will be held accountable for this?
They may start taking advantage of this situation to assassinate Basij members, which will naturally provoke emotional reactions. Who is to be held responsible for this? One is grieved to see them attack religious students at Tehran University dormitories and afterwards chant slogans in support of the leadership.
Post-election rivalry on the streets is not the right way to go. It only challenges the election. I want all sides to put an end to this. If they do not stop such actions, then they will be responsible for the repercussions of such incidents.
It is also wrong to assume that street riots can be used as leverage to pressure the establishment and to force officials to listen to them for what they believe is in the interest of the country.
Giving in to illegal demands under pressure is in itself the beginning of dictatorship. This is a miscalculation and the consequences will be directed at those who orchestrated them. If necessary, I will tell the people about them in due time.
I ask all these brothers and friends of mine to act based on friendship and abide by the law. I hope God will help us choose the righteous path. The celebration of 40 million votes should be appreciated and the enemy must not be allowed to ruin the celebration. However, if certain people decide to choose another path, then I will have no choice but to talk with the people more openly.
The third group I wish to address are the leaders of the Western media and arrogant powers. In the past two to three weeks, I have heard the words and witnessed the actions of politicians from the United States and certain European countries.
Before the elections, they attempted to cast doubt over the election itself so that there would be a low voter turnout. They had their own assessments of results forecasts, but they did not expect the mass participation of the people. They never predicted an 85 percent turnout, or 40 million voters.
When they saw the mass turnout, they were shocked. They realized the reality of Iran. They came to understand that they need to adapt themselves to the new situation be it regional, nuclear or internal.
When they saw the great popular movement on Election Day, they realized that a new chapter had been opened with regards to Iran and that they must come to terms with it. When some candidates began protesting the results, they felt that there was a change, so they jumped at the chance to ride this wave.
Their tone after the election changed on Saturday and Sunday. Their attention shifted to the riots and that was when they gradually began removing their masks.
Western officials, their presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers commented on this situation. The US President said that we were waiting for the day when people would take to the streets. At the same time they write letters saying that they want to have ties and that they respect the Islamic Republic. Which are we to believe?
Inside the country, their elements [foreign countries] began street protests and vandalism, they set fire to public property, they made shops and businesses insecure, and they are trying to rob the people of their security.
This has nothing to do with the people and their preferred candidates. This kind of behavior stems from ill-wishers, mercenaries and elements working for Western and Zionist secret services.
The incidents occurring inside the country have misled some of those outside our borders, who imagine Iran to be the same as Georgia. A Zionist American capitalist a few years ago, had been quoted in the media saying that he had spent 10 million dollars in Georgia to start a velvet revolution.
Our nation cannot be compared to any another nation. Their problem is they have not come to know this revolution and its people.
American officials say they are worried about the Iranian nation, how can you be worried? Can you even speak about human rights when you are responsible for the blood shed in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Palestine who has and is supporting and funding the Zionist regime?
During the term of a previous US government, eighty people affiliated with the Davidian sect were burnt alive in their compound in Waco, Texas. For some reason these people were disliked by the then US administration. Eighty people were burnt in that building, how dare you talk of human rights?
In my opinion, these western officials should at least feel a little embarrassment!
[FULL SPEECH] Supreme Leader Ayatullah Sayyed Ali Khamenei - Friday Prayer - 19Jun09 - English
Complete Transcript
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98610
In this sermon, I call all the respected brothers and sisters who have attended the Friday prayers here to piety and I advise...
Complete Transcript
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98610
In this sermon, I call all the respected brothers and sisters who have attended the Friday prayers here to piety and I advise them against any wrongdoing.
In this sermon, I will address the issue of the election, which is a hot topic in our country.
I want to address three different groups on three different issues; firstly, I want to address the general public. Secondly, I want to address the political elite, the candidates of the presidential election, activists and those who have been active in the process of election.
I also have something to say to the leaders of the global arrogance, certain Western governments and their media.
On the first issue, where I address you dear people, I want to express my appreciation and gratitude. I do not like to exaggerate while I am addressing my audience, but regarding the recent election, I must tell you great people that no matter what I say, words cannot describe the greatness of your great accomplishment.
The June 12 election was a great show of the people\\\\\\\'s sense of responsibility, their will to participate, and their dedication to the system.
Truly, I have never heard of anything similar to what you have accomplished taking place in any of the democratic systems around the world, whether they are false democracies or truly built on their people\\\\\\\'s vote.
In the Islamic Republic, aside from the 1979 referendum, there has no election like the one held last Friday with a turnout of almost 85 percent. This means almost 40 million voters. You can see the presence of the 12 and last Shia Imam behind this. This is a sign of God\\\\\\\'s blessing to us.
It is necessary that I address you all across the nation from the depths of my heart, to express my respect and tell you that I feel humble in your presence.
Our young generation showed and proved they have insight and that like the first generation of the Islamic Revolution, they are committed. The difference is, during the days of the revolution, revolutionary fire burned in the hearts of all. It was the same is the days of the imposed war but in a different sense.
Today, however, there is no more of that but we still witness this commitment, this sense of responsibility, this understanding and fervor in our youth. This is not something that can be ignored.
Of course, there are differences of taste and of opinion among our people. Some people support a certain candidate; others back another person and his words and ideas. This is natural, but you can see a collective commitment amid all this and amongst people of all walks of life. You can see a consensus, a collective commitment to the protection of our country and system.
Everyone entered the political scene in villages, towns, cities, major cities, different ethnic groups, people of different faiths, men, women, young and old. They all entered the scene. They all took part in this great movement.
My dear people, this election was a political tremor for your enemies. For your friends across the world, it was a real celebration -- a historical ceremony and victory.
Thirty years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, such a huge turnout and show of commitment to the Islamic system and the late Imam [Khomeini] shows the renewal of the pledge of allegiance to the late Imam and the martyrs. This was a breath of fresh air, a new movement and a great opportunity for the Islamic system.
This election put religious democracy on display for the whole world to witness. All ill-wishers of the Islamic establishment saw for themselves the meaning of religious democracy.
This is an alternative path in the face of dictatorships and arrogant regimes on the one side and democracies devoid of spirituality and religion on the other. This is religious democracy. This is what brings the hearts of people together and draws them to the scene.
This is the first point I wanted to make about the election. The second point is that the June 12 election showed that people live with trust, hope and national enthusiasm in this country.
This is against a great deal of comments your enemies make in their propaganda. If the people of this country were not hopeful about their future, they would not have taken part in any election.
If people were not dedicated to the Islamic establishment, they would have never voted. If they did not feel free, they would have never shown up at polling stations. The trust they have in the Islamic system was evident in this election.
Later on, I will tell you how the enemy targeted the very trust of the people in the Islamic establishment. This trust is the very thing they want to crush. This trust is the greatest asset of the Islamic system, so they want to take it away from the Islamic establishment.
They want to cast doubt on the election and weaken the confidence of the people in the system. They want to cause the people to panic. The enemies of the Iranian nation know that without trust there would have been a low turnout.
A low turnout would have questioned the legitimacy of the establishment. That is what they are after. They wanted to take away your [people] trust and keep you away from the polls to target this legitimacy, and if they had achieved this goal, the damage done would have been incomparable to any other.
For the people to come to the polls en masse and then be told that they made a mistake and should not have trusted the Islamic establishment, this is an enemy game.
This path is the same one they pursued even before the elections. A few months before the election, in late march, I said in Mashhad that the enemy has started whispers and rumors that their will be vote rigging. They were preparing the grounds for the events of today.
I advised our friends in the country not to repeat what the enemy wants to plant in people\\\\\\\'s minds. The Islamic establishment has the people\\\\\\\'s trust and it has not gained this trust easily.
For the past 30 years, authorities in the Islamic Republic have managed to maintain this trust, with their performance and painstaking efforts.
The third issue I want to touch upon is the issue of rivalry. This competition was a free, serious and transparent race between four candidates as we all witnessed.
These competitions, debates and discussion were so transparent that some began to voice objections. I will tell you that to they had the right to object to some extent.
Certain problems were also created that resulted in what you see today. I must tell you that we were and still are under the impression that these rivalries were between the four candidates who are all individuals committed to the system.
The Enemies want to portray the situation in the media - some of which belong to the Zionists -as if there is a row between the proponents and opponents of the Islamic Republic. No, this is not the case, this very untrue.
The four candidates who entered the presidential race all belonged and still belong to the Islamic establishment. One of these four is the president of our country - a hardworking and trustworthy president. One of them is the two-term prime minister, he served the country when I myself was president. He was my prime minister for eight years. One of them was the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and one of the wartime commanders. One them was two-time head of parliament and Majlis speaker. They are all members of our Islamic establishment.
Of course, they have differences of opinion and plans that differ from one another. But, they all belong to this Islamic establishment. This race was defined within the framework of the system. It was not a competition between insiders and outsiders as the Zionist and the US were trying to portray. No, this was a competition within the framework of the system between members of the system.
I know them all personally, I know their system of thought and their tastes very well. I am familiar with their personalities. I have worked with all of them closely. I know them all. But of course, I do not share all their views. I believe some of their views and executive records are subject to criticism.
I see some more suitable to serve the country than others. But, this is up to the people to decide, and this is exactly what happened, they chose who they wanted.
My desire and my choice was never announced nor was there any need for the people to pay heed to it. The people had their own criteria and this is what they based their decision on. Millions here and outside the country decided for themselves. This is an internal issue.
Misrepresenting the problem is underhand. The row is not between insiders of the system and outsiders. The row is not between revolutionary and anti-revolutionary forces, it is a difference of opinion between the members of the Islamic Revolution.
People who voted for these four candidates, voted with faith in the system. They believed their candidate of choice was better for the country so they voted for him. They voted in favor of the person they found most competent.
Well, these campaigns and debates were an important and interesting initiative. They were very clear, to the point and serious. The televised debates proved wrong those who were trying to say from the outside that these competitions are formalities.
They saw that these rivalries are real and serious. They saw that they are really battling it out and exchanging viewpoints. From this perspective, these debates were positive. But, they also had some negative points which I will touch upon.
The positive aspect was that in these televised discussions and debates everyone spoke their mind clearly and casually. A flood of criticism followed. Everyone was forced to respond. Everyone was criticized and they defended themselves. The stances that these individuals and groups had were unveiled before the eyes of the nation. They talked about their plans, commitments and projects.
All this was publicized for the people so that they could judge for themselves. People felt that in the Islamic system they are not the outsiders. Everything was clearly laid out before the people.
They were shown that the nature of their vote is not ceremonial. The right to vote truly does belong to the people. People want to have the right to choose. This is what the televised debates indicated.
One of the main reasons that ten million additional voters participated in this election was because the people\\\\\\\'s minds had been engaged, therefore they came and voted for the candidate of their choice.
These debates found their way into the streets and homes. These debates helped the people become better informed and hence make better decisions. The Islamic establishment is in favor of such debates.
Note that such debates should not be steered in a direction that may cause people to hold grudges against one another. If these debates had remained within their intended framework, they would have been positive. But when they turn into arguments than they will gradually bring grudges and hard feelings.
Of course, such debates should continue at managerial levels, but without a negative aspect. Officials should allow criticism and feel responsible to answer. If an individual is criticized, he must see it as an opportunity to enlighten the people and reveal fact and truth.
If these debates are regularly carried out [as normal government practice], at election time when there are such debates we would not witness such reactions. All arguments would emerge and all ideas would be exchanged over time. These are the positive aspects of such debates.
But, there have also been some negative aspects to the debates that need to be dealt with. In some cases, we saw that logical points were undermined and emotional and destructive responses dominated the debate.
There were efforts to portray the last four years as a dark era. There were also attempts to portray previous administrations in a similar light. Allegations were made that have not been proven in any court, rumors were used as a reference, and unjust remarks were made.
This administration, despite the excellent services it had rendered came under unjust attacks. Similarly, the performance of previous governments in the past 30 years came under attack. The candidates gave in to their emotions.
They made some positive points. They also raised some unpleasant negative issues. Like the rest of the nation, I sat and watched these TV debates. I took pride in the freedom of speech I witnessed. I enjoyed the fact that the Islamic Republic has been able to aid the people in deciding their future, but the shortcomings saddened me.
For supporters of the candidates the shortcomings and negative aspects were also a cause for concern; both sides were a party to this... both sides had their problems.
On the one hand, insults were hurled against the president of the country, even two to three months prior to these debates, speeches were brought to me and in them, I read the insults made and the accusations leveled against the president of the country who was elected by the vote of the people. They accused him of lying. This is not good. They fabricated documents against the government and distributed them everywhere.
I saw what was going on. They [accusations] were all untrue and contrary to the facts. They swore at the president, called him superstitious, and called him names. They closed their eyes to ethics and the law.
On the other hand, almost the same thing happened. The performance of the past 30 years of the Revolution was brought under question. People were named who are among the system\\\\\\\'s veteran figures.
They are people who have dedicated their lives to this establishment. Never before have I mentioned people by name in the Friday prayer sermons, but today, I have to mention some names, particularly Mr. [Akbar] Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mr. [Ali Akbar] Nateq-Nouri. I must mention their names and point out that nobody has accused them of corruption.
Now, if anyone has any claims or complaints regarding their [Hashemi Rafsanjani and Nateq-Nouri\\\\\\\'s] relatives they should refer to judicial authorities.
You cannot raise these issues in the media before they are proven. If it is proven, you can raise the issue as every member of society is equal, but you are not allowed to make claims. When such things are mentioned, misunderstandings are the outcome. This can cause misunderstandings for the younger generation.
Everyone knows Mr. Hashemi. My relationship with him goes back to before the Islamic Revolution. I have known him for more than 25 years. Mr. Hashemi was one of the main revolutionary figures.
He was one of the most active proponents of the revolution, and after the Islamic Revolution, he was one of the main political figures serving the people alongside the late Imam, And after the departure of the founder of the Islamic Revolution he has been alongside the leadership to date.
On several occasions, there were assassination attempts on his life. Before the revolution, he donated his possessions for the revolutionary cause. Our youth should know these facts. After the revolution, he had different responsibilities.
For eight years, he served as the president and before that he was the parliament speaker. He held other sensitive positions as well. Throughout these years, I am not aware of one incident in which he gathered wealth. These are the facts that everyone should know.
In the most sensitive of periods, he served the revolution and the establishment. Of course, my opinion and Mr. Rafsanjani\\\\\\\'s differs on numerous issues, which is natural. However, we should not create any misunderstandings for the people.
The president and Mr. Rafsanjani have had differences of opinion since the president took office in 2005. They have differences of opinion in foreign policy, in the manner of spreading social justice as well as on some cultural issues. However, the president\\\\\\\'s ideas are closer to mine.
The same goes fort Mr. Nateq-Nouri. He has also served the revolution, rendered great services for the establishment and there is not a shred of doubt about that.
The live televised debates are a positive step, but these shortcomings should be removed. After the debates, I had a talk with the president because I knew he would listen to me. The stance of the Islamic establishment is clear-cut regarding corruption and social justice. Corruption should be fought anywhere it is traced.
There is a point I want to make here. We do not claim that our establishment is free of all economic and financial corruption. Yes, there is corruption. If there was no corruption, I would not have written the eight-point letter to the heads of the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches of the country.
We have corruption, but the Islamic establishment is one of the healthiest establishments in the world today. However, it is not right to accuse the country of corruption based on some Zionist reports and sources.
Moreover, questioning the credibility of statesmen goes beyond the bounds of decency. Financial corruption is an important issue in the Islamic establishment. The judiciary, executive and legislative branches of the country must do everything within their power to fight against it.
Everyone is duty-bound to fight corruption. If corruption is not contained, it will spread in the same manner as you see occurring in many countries…. They are struggling with an alarming level of corruption as you have heard about in the UK. This is only a fraction of the scandal as it goes way beyond what has been publicized.
Let me summarize the points I made. The Friday election was a historical event, which touched the entire world. Some of our enemies, however, attempted to cast doubt over this absolute and definitive victory. Some even attempted to portray it as a national defeat.
They did not want you to enjoy this victory. They did not want to see the highest turnout in the world go down in history in your name. However, it has happened, it has been recorded in history. They cannot manipulate this.
The time for rivalry is passed... These four candidates have all fought in the battlefront of this revolution and they are members of this establishment. Forty million people went to the polls and cast their votes for this revolution.
It was not only the 24 million votes that went to the president; 40 million votes were cast in favor of the revolution. The people have trust [in the establishment], and all supporters of candidates should rest assured that the Islamic establishment would never betray the people\\\\\\\'s trust.
In fact, the electoral system of the country does not allow for any vote rigging, which is testified to by all those in charge of the election process.
When there is a margin of one hundred thousand or one million at most, then one can doubt that there may have been some form of manipulation or irregularity; however, when there is a difference of eleven million votes, how could any vote rigging have taken place?
However, as I have said, and the Guardian Council has accepted, if some people have doubts then it should be dealt with through legal channels. Everything must be dealt strictly though legal channels. I will never accept illegal demands.
If the legal frameworks are breached today, then no future election can be guaranteed. In every election, there is only one winner, and of course, some defeated candidates. Complaints, if there is any doubt, should be pursued through legal channels. We have a comprehensive and competent legal system.
Just as the candidates have the right to appoint observers, they are given the right to file complaints. I have requested the Guardian Council conduct a partial vote recount in the presence of the candidates and their representatives. We have no problem with this.
I want to address the politicians, candidates and political parties at this point. We are at a critical historical juncture. Look at current world affairs, the situation in the Middle East, global economic woes and the situation in our neighboring countries.
We are duty bound to remain vigilant and to be careful not to commit mistakes at this critical point in time. In the election, people fulfilled their duty in the best way possible, which was by going to the polls. We have heavier responsibilities on our shoulders now.
Those figures who are looked up to by the people and politicians, should be cautious about their words and deeds. If they show any amount of extremist attitude, it will penetrate into the ranks of the people.
It may have dangerous consequences and may eventually get out of control. Extremism in society will trigger or fan other extremist moves in the country. If political elites disobey the law and make wrong decisions, they will be held accountable for any violent actions or rioting that ensues.
I urge these people, these friends of mine, to exercise restraint and patience. You should see enemy hands at work [against the country]. You should see hungry wolves laying in ambush. They are taking off their masks of diplomacy and are showing their true colors. I urge you to open your eyes and see the enemy.
In the past few days the prominent diplomats of some Western countries, which have been dealing with us through diplomatic rhetoric, have removed their masks. Today you can see their true face. They are now showing their enmity toward the Islamic establishment and the most treacherous of them all is Britain.
I tell these brothers of ours to think of their responsibility. You are responsible before God. I call on you to remember what Imam has written in his will; the law has the final say.
All differences should be settled at the ballot box. This is what elections are for, to let ballot boxes and not the streets determine what the people want.
If after every election, the supporters of the candidates who have lost take to streets and the supporters of the candidate who has won respond in the same manner, then what need would we have for elections?
Why should the people have to suffer? We should not take to the streets to show off with the number of our supporters to the people. Such acts are not a political issue for those terrorists who take advantage of the situation to hide among the masses in order to carry out their agenda.
It is a very good cover for these saboteurs. Who will take responsible for this? Some of the people who were killed in these riots were ordinary people, ordinary Basij members. Who will be held accountable for this?
They may start taking advantage of this situation to assassinate Basij members, which will naturally provoke emotional reactions. Who is to be held responsible for this? One is grieved to see them attack religious students at Tehran University dormitories and afterwards chant slogans in support of the leadership.
Post-election rivalry on the streets is not the right way to go. It only challenges the election. I want all sides to put an end to this. If they do not stop such actions, then they will be responsible for the repercussions of such incidents.
It is also wrong to assume that street riots can be used as leverage to pressure the establishment and to force officials to listen to them for what they believe is in the interest of the country.
Giving in to illegal demands under pressure is in itself the beginning of dictatorship. This is a miscalculation and the consequences will be directed at those who orchestrated them. If necessary, I will tell the people about them in due time.
I ask all these brothers and friends of mine to act based on friendship and abide by the law. I hope God will help us choose the righteous path. The celebration of 40 million votes should be appreciated and the enemy must not be allowed to ruin the celebration. However, if certain people decide to choose another path, then I will have no choice but to talk with the people more openly.
The third group I wish to address are the leaders of the Western media and arrogant powers. In the past two to three weeks, I have heard the words and witnessed the actions of politicians from the United States and certain European countries.
Before the elections, they attempted to cast doubt over the election itself so that there would be a low voter turnout. They had their own assessments of results forecasts, but they did not expect the mass participation of the people. They never predicted an 85 percent turnout, or 40 million voters.
When they saw the mass turnout, they were shocked. They realized the reality of Iran. They came to understand that they need to adapt themselves to the new situation be it regional, nuclear or internal.
When they saw the great popular movement on Election Day, they realized that a new chapter had been opened with regards to Iran and that they must come to terms with it. When some candidates began protesting the results, they felt that there was a change, so they jumped at the chance to ride this wave.
Their tone after the election changed on Saturday and Sunday. Their attention shifted to the riots and that was when they gradually began removing their masks.
Western officials, their presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers commented on this situation. The US President said that we were waiting for the day when people would take to the streets. At the same time they write letters saying that they want to have ties and that they respect the Islamic Republic. Which are we to believe?
Inside the country, their elements [foreign countries] began street protests and vandalism, they set fire to public property, they made shops and businesses insecure, and they are trying to rob the people of their security.
This has nothing to do with the people and their preferred candidates. This kind of behavior stems from ill-wishers, mercenaries and elements working for Western and Zionist secret services.
The incidents occurring inside the country have misled some of those outside our borders, who imagine Iran to be the same as Georgia. A Zionist American capitalist a few years ago, had been quoted in the media saying that he had spent 10 million dollars in Georgia to start a velvet revolution.
Our nation cannot be compared to any another nation. Their problem is they have not come to know this revolution and its people.
American officials say they are worried about the Iranian nation, how can you be worried? Can you even speak about human rights when you are responsible for the blood shed in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Palestine who has and is supporting and funding the Zionist regime?
During the term of a previous US government, eighty people affiliated with the Davidian sect were burnt alive in their compound in Waco, Texas. For some reason these people were disliked by the then US administration. Eighty people were burnt in that building, how dare you talk of human rights?
In my opinion, these western officials should at least feel a little embarrassment!
Supreme Leader Ayatullah Sayyed Ali Khamenei - Friday Prayer Speech - 19Jun09 - English
More...
Description:
Complete Transcript
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98610
In this sermon, I call all the respected brothers and sisters who have attended the Friday prayers here to piety and I advise them against any wrongdoing.
In this sermon, I will address the issue of the election, which is a hot topic in our country.
I want to address three different groups on three different issues; firstly, I want to address the general public. Secondly, I want to address the political elite, the candidates of the presidential election, activists and those who have been active in the process of election.
I also have something to say to the leaders of the global arrogance, certain Western governments and their media.
On the first issue, where I address you dear people, I want to express my appreciation and gratitude. I do not like to exaggerate while I am addressing my audience, but regarding the recent election, I must tell you great people that no matter what I say, words cannot describe the greatness of your great accomplishment.
The June 12 election was a great show of the people\\\\\\\'s sense of responsibility, their will to participate, and their dedication to the system.
Truly, I have never heard of anything similar to what you have accomplished taking place in any of the democratic systems around the world, whether they are false democracies or truly built on their people\\\\\\\'s vote.
In the Islamic Republic, aside from the 1979 referendum, there has no election like the one held last Friday with a turnout of almost 85 percent. This means almost 40 million voters. You can see the presence of the 12 and last Shia Imam behind this. This is a sign of God\\\\\\\'s blessing to us.
It is necessary that I address you all across the nation from the depths of my heart, to express my respect and tell you that I feel humble in your presence.
Our young generation showed and proved they have insight and that like the first generation of the Islamic Revolution, they are committed. The difference is, during the days of the revolution, revolutionary fire burned in the hearts of all. It was the same is the days of the imposed war but in a different sense.
Today, however, there is no more of that but we still witness this commitment, this sense of responsibility, this understanding and fervor in our youth. This is not something that can be ignored.
Of course, there are differences of taste and of opinion among our people. Some people support a certain candidate; others back another person and his words and ideas. This is natural, but you can see a collective commitment amid all this and amongst people of all walks of life. You can see a consensus, a collective commitment to the protection of our country and system.
Everyone entered the political scene in villages, towns, cities, major cities, different ethnic groups, people of different faiths, men, women, young and old. They all entered the scene. They all took part in this great movement.
My dear people, this election was a political tremor for your enemies. For your friends across the world, it was a real celebration -- a historical ceremony and victory.
Thirty years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, such a huge turnout and show of commitment to the Islamic system and the late Imam [Khomeini] shows the renewal of the pledge of allegiance to the late Imam and the martyrs. This was a breath of fresh air, a new movement and a great opportunity for the Islamic system.
This election put religious democracy on display for the whole world to witness. All ill-wishers of the Islamic establishment saw for themselves the meaning of religious democracy.
This is an alternative path in the face of dictatorships and arrogant regimes on the one side and democracies devoid of spirituality and religion on the other. This is religious democracy. This is what brings the hearts of people together and draws them to the scene.
This is the first point I wanted to make about the election. The second point is that the June 12 election showed that people live with trust, hope and national enthusiasm in this country.
This is against a great deal of comments your enemies make in their propaganda. If the people of this country were not hopeful about their future, they would not have taken part in any election.
If people were not dedicated to the Islamic establishment, they would have never voted. If they did not feel free, they would have never shown up at polling stations. The trust they have in the Islamic system was evident in this election.
Later on, I will tell you how the enemy targeted the very trust of the people in the Islamic establishment. This trust is the very thing they want to crush. This trust is the greatest asset of the Islamic system, so they want to take it away from the Islamic establishment.
They want to cast doubt on the election and weaken the confidence of the people in the system. They want to cause the people to panic. The enemies of the Iranian nation know that without trust there would have been a low turnout.
A low turnout would have questioned the legitimacy of the establishment. That is what they are after. They wanted to take away your [people] trust and keep you away from the polls to target this legitimacy, and if they had achieved this goal, the damage done would have been incomparable to any other.
For the people to come to the polls en masse and then be told that they made a mistake and should not have trusted the Islamic establishment, this is an enemy game.
This path is the same one they pursued even before the elections. A few months before the election, in late march, I said in Mashhad that the enemy has started whispers and rumors that their will be vote rigging. They were preparing the grounds for the events of today.
I advised our friends in the country not to repeat what the enemy wants to plant in people\\\\\\\'s minds. The Islamic establishment has the people\\\\\\\'s trust and it has not gained this trust easily.
For the past 30 years, authorities in the Islamic Republic have managed to maintain this trust, with their performance and painstaking efforts.
The third issue I want to touch upon is the issue of rivalry. This competition was a free, serious and transparent race between four candidates as we all witnessed.
These competitions, debates and discussion were so transparent that some began to voice objections. I will tell you that to they had the right to object to some extent.
Certain problems were also created that resulted in what you see today. I must tell you that we were and still are under the impression that these rivalries were between the four candidates who are all individuals committed to the system.
The Enemies want to portray the situation in the media - some of which belong to the Zionists -as if there is a row between the proponents and opponents of the Islamic Republic. No, this is not the case, this very untrue.
The four candidates who entered the presidential race all belonged and still belong to the Islamic establishment. One of these four is the president of our country - a hardworking and trustworthy president. One of them is the two-term prime minister, he served the country when I myself was president. He was my prime minister for eight years. One of them was the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and one of the wartime commanders. One them was two-time head of parliament and Majlis speaker. They are all members of our Islamic establishment.
Of course, they have differences of opinion and plans that differ from one another. But, they all belong to this Islamic establishment. This race was defined within the framework of the system. It was not a competition between insiders and outsiders as the Zionist and the US were trying to portray. No, this was a competition within the framework of the system between members of the system.
I know them all personally, I know their system of thought and their tastes very well. I am familiar with their personalities. I have worked with all of them closely. I know them all. But of course, I do not share all their views. I believe some of their views and executive records are subject to criticism.
I see some more suitable to serve the country than others. But, this is up to the people to decide, and this is exactly what happened, they chose who they wanted.
My desire and my choice was never announced nor was there any need for the people to pay heed to it. The people had their own criteria and this is what they based their decision on. Millions here and outside the country decided for themselves. This is an internal issue.
Misrepresenting the problem is underhand. The row is not between insiders of the system and outsiders. The row is not between revolutionary and anti-revolutionary forces, it is a difference of opinion between the members of the Islamic Revolution.
People who voted for these four candidates, voted with faith in the system. They believed their candidate of choice was better for the country so they voted for him. They voted in favor of the person they found most competent.
Well, these campaigns and debates were an important and interesting initiative. They were very clear, to the point and serious. The televised debates proved wrong those who were trying to say from the outside that these competitions are formalities.
They saw that these rivalries are real and serious. They saw that they are really battling it out and exchanging viewpoints. From this perspective, these debates were positive. But, they also had some negative points which I will touch upon.
The positive aspect was that in these televised discussions and debates everyone spoke their mind clearly and casually. A flood of criticism followed. Everyone was forced to respond. Everyone was criticized and they defended themselves. The stances that these individuals and groups had were unveiled before the eyes of the nation. They talked about their plans, commitments and projects.
All this was publicized for the people so that they could judge for themselves. People felt that in the Islamic system they are not the outsiders. Everything was clearly laid out before the people.
They were shown that the nature of their vote is not ceremonial. The right to vote truly does belong to the people. People want to have the right to choose. This is what the televised debates indicated.
One of the main reasons that ten million additional voters participated in this election was because the people\\\\\\\'s minds had been engaged, therefore they came and voted for the candidate of their choice.
These debates found their way into the streets and homes. These debates helped the people become better informed and hence make better decisions. The Islamic establishment is in favor of such debates.
Note that such debates should not be steered in a direction that may cause people to hold grudges against one another. If these debates had remained within their intended framework, they would have been positive. But when they turn into arguments than they will gradually bring grudges and hard feelings.
Of course, such debates should continue at managerial levels, but without a negative aspect. Officials should allow criticism and feel responsible to answer. If an individual is criticized, he must see it as an opportunity to enlighten the people and reveal fact and truth.
If these debates are regularly carried out [as normal government practice], at election time when there are such debates we would not witness such reactions. All arguments would emerge and all ideas would be exchanged over time. These are the positive aspects of such debates.
But, there have also been some negative aspects to the debates that need to be dealt with. In some cases, we saw that logical points were undermined and emotional and destructive responses dominated the debate.
There were efforts to portray the last four years as a dark era. There were also attempts to portray previous administrations in a similar light. Allegations were made that have not been proven in any court, rumors were used as a reference, and unjust remarks were made.
This administration, despite the excellent services it had rendered came under unjust attacks. Similarly, the performance of previous governments in the past 30 years came under attack. The candidates gave in to their emotions.
They made some positive points. They also raised some unpleasant negative issues. Like the rest of the nation, I sat and watched these TV debates. I took pride in the freedom of speech I witnessed. I enjoyed the fact that the Islamic Republic has been able to aid the people in deciding their future, but the shortcomings saddened me.
For supporters of the candidates the shortcomings and negative aspects were also a cause for concern; both sides were a party to this... both sides had their problems.
On the one hand, insults were hurled against the president of the country, even two to three months prior to these debates, speeches were brought to me and in them, I read the insults made and the accusations leveled against the president of the country who was elected by the vote of the people. They accused him of lying. This is not good. They fabricated documents against the government and distributed them everywhere.
I saw what was going on. They [accusations] were all untrue and contrary to the facts. They swore at the president, called him superstitious, and called him names. They closed their eyes to ethics and the law.
On the other hand, almost the same thing happened. The performance of the past 30 years of the Revolution was brought under question. People were named who are among the system\\\\\\\'s veteran figures.
They are people who have dedicated their lives to this establishment. Never before have I mentioned people by name in the Friday prayer sermons, but today, I have to mention some names, particularly Mr. [Akbar] Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mr. [Ali Akbar] Nateq-Nouri. I must mention their names and point out that nobody has accused them of corruption.
Now, if anyone has any claims or complaints regarding their [Hashemi Rafsanjani and Nateq-Nouri\\\\\\\'s] relatives they should refer to judicial authorities.
You cannot raise these issues in the media before they are proven. If it is proven, you can raise the issue as every member of society is equal, but you are not allowed to make claims. When such things are mentioned, misunderstandings are the outcome. This can cause misunderstandings for the younger generation.
Everyone knows Mr. Hashemi. My relationship with him goes back to before the Islamic Revolution. I have known him for more than 25 years. Mr. Hashemi was one of the main revolutionary figures.
He was one of the most active proponents of the revolution, and after the Islamic Revolution, he was one of the main political figures serving the people alongside the late Imam, And after the departure of the founder of the Islamic Revolution he has been alongside the leadership to date.
On several occasions, there were assassination attempts on his life. Before the revolution, he donated his possessions for the revolutionary cause. Our youth should know these facts. After the revolution, he had different responsibilities.
For eight years, he served as the president and before that he was the parliament speaker. He held other sensitive positions as well. Throughout these years, I am not aware of one incident in which he gathered wealth. These are the facts that everyone should know.
In the most sensitive of periods, he served the revolution and the establishment. Of course, my opinion and Mr. Rafsanjani\\\\\\\'s differs on numerous issues, which is natural. However, we should not create any misunderstandings for the people.
The president and Mr. Rafsanjani have had differences of opinion since the president took office in 2005. They have differences of opinion in foreign policy, in the manner of spreading social justice as well as on some cultural issues. However, the president\\\\\\\'s ideas are closer to mine.
The same goes fort Mr. Nateq-Nouri. He has also served the revolution, rendered great services for the establishment and there is not a shred of doubt about that.
The live televised debates are a positive step, but these shortcomings should be removed. After the debates, I had a talk with the president because I knew he would listen to me. The stance of the Islamic establishment is clear-cut regarding corruption and social justice. Corruption should be fought anywhere it is traced.
There is a point I want to make here. We do not claim that our establishment is free of all economic and financial corruption. Yes, there is corruption. If there was no corruption, I would not have written the eight-point letter to the heads of the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches of the country.
We have corruption, but the Islamic establishment is one of the healthiest establishments in the world today. However, it is not right to accuse the country of corruption based on some Zionist reports and sources.
Moreover, questioning the credibility of statesmen goes beyond the bounds of decency. Financial corruption is an important issue in the Islamic establishment. The judiciary, executive and legislative branches of the country must do everything within their power to fight against it.
Everyone is duty-bound to fight corruption. If corruption is not contained, it will spread in the same manner as you see occurring in many countries…. They are struggling with an alarming level of corruption as you have heard about in the UK. This is only a fraction of the scandal as it goes way beyond what has been publicized.
Let me summarize the points I made. The Friday election was a historical event, which touched the entire world. Some of our enemies, however, attempted to cast doubt over this absolute and definitive victory. Some even attempted to portray it as a national defeat.
They did not want you to enjoy this victory. They did not want to see the highest turnout in the world go down in history in your name. However, it has happened, it has been recorded in history. They cannot manipulate this.
The time for rivalry is passed... These four candidates have all fought in the battlefront of this revolution and they are members of this establishment. Forty million people went to the polls and cast their votes for this revolution.
It was not only the 24 million votes that went to the president; 40 million votes were cast in favor of the revolution. The people have trust [in the establishment], and all supporters of candidates should rest assured that the Islamic establishment would never betray the people\\\\\\\'s trust.
In fact, the electoral system of the country does not allow for any vote rigging, which is testified to by all those in charge of the election process.
When there is a margin of one hundred thousand or one million at most, then one can doubt that there may have been some form of manipulation or irregularity; however, when there is a difference of eleven million votes, how could any vote rigging have taken place?
However, as I have said, and the Guardian Council has accepted, if some people have doubts then it should be dealt with through legal channels. Everything must be dealt strictly though legal channels. I will never accept illegal demands.
If the legal frameworks are breached today, then no future election can be guaranteed. In every election, there is only one winner, and of course, some defeated candidates. Complaints, if there is any doubt, should be pursued through legal channels. We have a comprehensive and competent legal system.
Just as the candidates have the right to appoint observers, they are given the right to file complaints. I have requested the Guardian Council conduct a partial vote recount in the presence of the candidates and their representatives. We have no problem with this.
I want to address the politicians, candidates and political parties at this point. We are at a critical historical juncture. Look at current world affairs, the situation in the Middle East, global economic woes and the situation in our neighboring countries.
We are duty bound to remain vigilant and to be careful not to commit mistakes at this critical point in time. In the election, people fulfilled their duty in the best way possible, which was by going to the polls. We have heavier responsibilities on our shoulders now.
Those figures who are looked up to by the people and politicians, should be cautious about their words and deeds. If they show any amount of extremist attitude, it will penetrate into the ranks of the people.
It may have dangerous consequences and may eventually get out of control. Extremism in society will trigger or fan other extremist moves in the country. If political elites disobey the law and make wrong decisions, they will be held accountable for any violent actions or rioting that ensues.
I urge these people, these friends of mine, to exercise restraint and patience. You should see enemy hands at work [against the country]. You should see hungry wolves laying in ambush. They are taking off their masks of diplomacy and are showing their true colors. I urge you to open your eyes and see the enemy.
In the past few days the prominent diplomats of some Western countries, which have been dealing with us through diplomatic rhetoric, have removed their masks. Today you can see their true face. They are now showing their enmity toward the Islamic establishment and the most treacherous of them all is Britain.
I tell these brothers of ours to think of their responsibility. You are responsible before God. I call on you to remember what Imam has written in his will; the law has the final say.
All differences should be settled at the ballot box. This is what elections are for, to let ballot boxes and not the streets determine what the people want.
If after every election, the supporters of the candidates who have lost take to streets and the supporters of the candidate who has won respond in the same manner, then what need would we have for elections?
Why should the people have to suffer? We should not take to the streets to show off with the number of our supporters to the people. Such acts are not a political issue for those terrorists who take advantage of the situation to hide among the masses in order to carry out their agenda.
It is a very good cover for these saboteurs. Who will take responsible for this? Some of the people who were killed in these riots were ordinary people, ordinary Basij members. Who will be held accountable for this?
They may start taking advantage of this situation to assassinate Basij members, which will naturally provoke emotional reactions. Who is to be held responsible for this? One is grieved to see them attack religious students at Tehran University dormitories and afterwards chant slogans in support of the leadership.
Post-election rivalry on the streets is not the right way to go. It only challenges the election. I want all sides to put an end to this. If they do not stop such actions, then they will be responsible for the repercussions of such incidents.
It is also wrong to assume that street riots can be used as leverage to pressure the establishment and to force officials to listen to them for what they believe is in the interest of the country.
Giving in to illegal demands under pressure is in itself the beginning of dictatorship. This is a miscalculation and the consequences will be directed at those who orchestrated them. If necessary, I will tell the people about them in due time.
I ask all these brothers and friends of mine to act based on friendship and abide by the law. I hope God will help us choose the righteous path. The celebration of 40 million votes should be appreciated and the enemy must not be allowed to ruin the celebration. However, if certain people decide to choose another path, then I will have no choice but to talk with the people more openly.
The third group I wish to address are the leaders of the Western media and arrogant powers. In the past two to three weeks, I have heard the words and witnessed the actions of politicians from the United States and certain European countries.
Before the elections, they attempted to cast doubt over the election itself so that there would be a low voter turnout. They had their own assessments of results forecasts, but they did not expect the mass participation of the people. They never predicted an 85 percent turnout, or 40 million voters.
When they saw the mass turnout, they were shocked. They realized the reality of Iran. They came to understand that they need to adapt themselves to the new situation be it regional, nuclear or internal.
When they saw the great popular movement on Election Day, they realized that a new chapter had been opened with regards to Iran and that they must come to terms with it. When some candidates began protesting the results, they felt that there was a change, so they jumped at the chance to ride this wave.
Their tone after the election changed on Saturday and Sunday. Their attention shifted to the riots and that was when they gradually began removing their masks.
Western officials, their presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers commented on this situation. The US President said that we were waiting for the day when people would take to the streets. At the same time they write letters saying that they want to have ties and that they respect the Islamic Republic. Which are we to believe?
Inside the country, their elements [foreign countries] began street protests and vandalism, they set fire to public property, they made shops and businesses insecure, and they are trying to rob the people of their security.
This has nothing to do with the people and their preferred candidates. This kind of behavior stems from ill-wishers, mercenaries and elements working for Western and Zionist secret services.
The incidents occurring inside the country have misled some of those outside our borders, who imagine Iran to be the same as Georgia. A Zionist American capitalist a few years ago, had been quoted in the media saying that he had spent 10 million dollars in Georgia to start a velvet revolution.
Our nation cannot be compared to any another nation. Their problem is they have not come to know this revolution and its people.
American officials say they are worried about the Iranian nation, how can you be worried? Can you even speak about human rights when you are responsible for the blood shed in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Palestine who has and is supporting and funding the Zionist regime?
During the term of a previous US government, eighty people affiliated with the Davidian sect were burnt alive in their compound in Waco, Texas. For some reason these people were disliked by the then US administration. Eighty people were burnt in that building, how dare you talk of human rights?
In my opinion, these western officials should at least feel a little embarrassment!
Supreme Leader Ayatullah Sayyed Ali Khamenei - Friday Prayer Speech - 19Jun09 - English
5:10
|
*Europe Media* Talk too Much on NIDA Sultan but Quiet on German Court Killing of a Insulted Pregnant Muslim Girl - Engl
شهیده حجاب کے قتل پر جرمنی کے نسل پرستانہ اقدام کی مذمت
حسن قشقاوی نے جرمنی کی عدالت میں باحجاب مصری خاتون...
شهیده حجاب کے قتل پر جرمنی کے نسل پرستانہ اقدام کی مذمت
حسن قشقاوی نے جرمنی کی عدالت میں باحجاب مصری خاتون کوشہید کرنے کے نسل پرستانہ اقدام کی مذمت کی ہے۔
اسلامی جمہوریہ ایران کی وزارت خارجہ کے ترجمان حسن قشقاوی نے جرمنی کی عدالت میں باحجاب مصری خاتون کوشہید کرنے کے نسل پرستانہ اقدام کی مذمت کی ہے۔جرمنی کے شہر درسڈن کی عدالت کے اندر بدھ کےروز ایک نسل پرست جرمن شہری کے ہاتھوں اسلامی حجاب کی پابندی کرنے کی وجہ سے تینتیس سالہ مصری خاتون مروہ الشربینی کو شہید کردیا گیا تھا۔اسلامی جمہوریہ ایران کی وزارت خارجہ کے ترجمان حسن قشقاوی نے انسانی حقوق کے دعویدار ملکوں ميں انسانی اقداراور اصولوں کی کھلی خلاف ورزی کی وضاحت کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ عدالت میں پولیس کی نگاہوں کے سامنے بزدلانہ قتل جرمنی میں بدامنی اور مہاجروں و اقلیتوں کے تئيں بڑہتی ہوئی نفرت کا ثبوت ہے۔اور اس قسم کے ہولناک واقعے کا انسانی معاشرے میں کوئي جواز نہیں پیش کیا جاسکتا۔ وزارت خارجہ کے ترجمان نے مصری عوام اور حکومت نیز مروہ شربینی کے اہل خاندان کو تعزیت پیش کرتے ہوئے اسلامی کانفرنس تنظیم اور دوسرے عالمی اداروں سے مطالبہ کیا ہے کہ اس قسم کے انسانیت دشمن اقدامات کا جائزہ لینے اور اس کا مقابلہ کرنے کیلئے ایک کمیٹی تشکیل دینے کا مطالبہ کیاہے۔
El-Sherbini, who was nearly four months pregnant, was involved in a court case against her neighbor, Axel W., who was found guilty last November for insulting and abusing the woman, calling her a terrorist.
She was set to testify against him when he stabbed her 18 times inside a Dresden courtroom in front of her 3-year-old son.
El-Sherbini's husband came to her aid but was also stabbed by the neighbor and shot in the leg by a security guard who initially mistook him for the attacker, German prosecutors said. He is now in critical condition in a German hospital.
"The guards thought that as long as he wasn't blond, he must be the attacker so they shot him," the victim's brother told an Egyptian television station.
The 28-year-old Axel W. remains in detention and prosecutors have opened an investigation on suspicion of murder.
The incident has received little coverage in German and Western media, sparking widespread criticism by German Muslim groups as well as Egyptian journalists, who say the incident is an example of how hate crimes against Muslims are overlooked in comparison to those committed by Muslims against Westerners.
Many commentators pointed to the uproar that followed the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Muslim who was infuriated by the portrayal of Muslim women in the Dutch director's film.
Nearly four million Muslims living in Dresden condemned el-Sherbini's killing, expressing concern about the consequences of such terrorist attacks against Muslims.
Steg described the killing as 'a horrible and outrageous act', saying the German government had not reacted earlier as details were hazy in the immediate aftermath of the crime.
More...
Description:
شهیده حجاب کے قتل پر جرمنی کے نسل پرستانہ اقدام کی مذمت
حسن قشقاوی نے جرمنی کی عدالت میں باحجاب مصری خاتون کوشہید کرنے کے نسل پرستانہ اقدام کی مذمت کی ہے۔
اسلامی جمہوریہ ایران کی وزارت خارجہ کے ترجمان حسن قشقاوی نے جرمنی کی عدالت میں باحجاب مصری خاتون کوشہید کرنے کے نسل پرستانہ اقدام کی مذمت کی ہے۔جرمنی کے شہر درسڈن کی عدالت کے اندر بدھ کےروز ایک نسل پرست جرمن شہری کے ہاتھوں اسلامی حجاب کی پابندی کرنے کی وجہ سے تینتیس سالہ مصری خاتون مروہ الشربینی کو شہید کردیا گیا تھا۔اسلامی جمہوریہ ایران کی وزارت خارجہ کے ترجمان حسن قشقاوی نے انسانی حقوق کے دعویدار ملکوں ميں انسانی اقداراور اصولوں کی کھلی خلاف ورزی کی وضاحت کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ عدالت میں پولیس کی نگاہوں کے سامنے بزدلانہ قتل جرمنی میں بدامنی اور مہاجروں و اقلیتوں کے تئيں بڑہتی ہوئی نفرت کا ثبوت ہے۔اور اس قسم کے ہولناک واقعے کا انسانی معاشرے میں کوئي جواز نہیں پیش کیا جاسکتا۔ وزارت خارجہ کے ترجمان نے مصری عوام اور حکومت نیز مروہ شربینی کے اہل خاندان کو تعزیت پیش کرتے ہوئے اسلامی کانفرنس تنظیم اور دوسرے عالمی اداروں سے مطالبہ کیا ہے کہ اس قسم کے انسانیت دشمن اقدامات کا جائزہ لینے اور اس کا مقابلہ کرنے کیلئے ایک کمیٹی تشکیل دینے کا مطالبہ کیاہے۔
El-Sherbini, who was nearly four months pregnant, was involved in a court case against her neighbor, Axel W., who was found guilty last November for insulting and abusing the woman, calling her a terrorist.
She was set to testify against him when he stabbed her 18 times inside a Dresden courtroom in front of her 3-year-old son.
El-Sherbini's husband came to her aid but was also stabbed by the neighbor and shot in the leg by a security guard who initially mistook him for the attacker, German prosecutors said. He is now in critical condition in a German hospital.
"The guards thought that as long as he wasn't blond, he must be the attacker so they shot him," the victim's brother told an Egyptian television station.
The 28-year-old Axel W. remains in detention and prosecutors have opened an investigation on suspicion of murder.
The incident has received little coverage in German and Western media, sparking widespread criticism by German Muslim groups as well as Egyptian journalists, who say the incident is an example of how hate crimes against Muslims are overlooked in comparison to those committed by Muslims against Westerners.
Many commentators pointed to the uproar that followed the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Muslim who was infuriated by the portrayal of Muslim women in the Dutch director's film.
Nearly four million Muslims living in Dresden condemned el-Sherbini's killing, expressing concern about the consequences of such terrorist attacks against Muslims.
Steg described the killing as 'a horrible and outrageous act', saying the German government had not reacted earlier as details were hazy in the immediate aftermath of the crime.