Search Result in All

Description:

An organizational talk by a pious, brave, dedicated, and sincere leader in Pakistan. Martyr Arif Husayni (R) highlights one of the reasons why some Islamic organizations and projects fail. This is probably one of the most common pitfalls in organizational work. He was martyred by the American subservient Takfiris on August 5, 1988.

Description:

The Zionists cooked \'the deal of the century\' to \"resolve\" the issue of Palestine. The Leader of the Muslim Ummah, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei, highlights that this plot of the enemies will fail - like the previous ones. So, what is the solution that the Islamic Republic suggests? #TheDealOfTheCentury #Future #Palestine #israel #Iran #Solution

Description:

Every day, a thousand jobs are lost in France. 3.2 million French are looking for jobs, that\'s a record since the 1990s. According to the International Labour Organisation, western countries like France are focusing too much on austerity and too little on creating jobs. The worst affected are those who have been out of the job market for more than six months. At state run job centers, the wait for jobs offers is getting longer. But a study shows, the centers are unable to handle fresh waves of job seekers. The study shows employment offices like the one right behind me are have such complicated administrations that they will need over three dozen reforms in order to serve the French and help them find jobs that are badly needed. Anustup Roy, Press TV, Paris

Description:

Doctors for former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who\\\'s been in a coma for nearly eight years now, say his vital body organs have failed, and he\\\'s close to death. The former premier has been on life support at a medical center near Tel Aviv. He suffered a massive stroke in January 2006, and has been in a coma ever since. He was Israel\\\'s prime minister from 2001 until 2006. Sharon was also the minister of military affairs during the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 19-82. Back then, the Israeli army invaded Lebanon and allowed the Lebanese militiamen, known as Phalangists, to go on a killing spree in the camps. Reports say between 8-hundred and 35-hundred civilians, mostly Palestinians, were killed in the massacre.

Description:

Some people take lightly the role of the defenders of the shrines and assume that the security of this region is automatically attained. Know that the resistance forces resisted against the terrorist outfits, such as ISIS, to defend the people of this region. And this is exactly why the US, UK, israel and its allies are upset with the camp of resistance. All justice seekers must value the blessing of the defenders of the holy shrines. Their Jihad in the way of Allah is what failed and continues to fail the plots of the enemy in this region. #DeathToAmerica #DeathToISIS

Description:

The following is the full text of the speech delivered on June 4, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution on the occasion of the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The speech was delivered at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s shrine. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al-Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad, upon his immaculate, pure, chosen, guided and infallible household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth. We are thankful to Allah the Exalted who gave us another opportunity to commemorate our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) on such a day and express our respect for him. Although the memory of Imam (r.a.) is alive among our people at all times, the 14th of Khordad is the manifestation of the Iranian nation\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s love for him. This year the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) has coincided with the martyrdom anniversary of his great ancestor, Imam Musa ibn Ja\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'far (a.s.). Also, this occasion has coincided with the 50th anniversary of the determining and important event that took place on the 15th of Khordad in the year 1342. The 15th of Khordad was an important historical juncture. I would like to briefly discuss a few points in this regard and then I will discuss the pressing issues that are necessary to discuss. The 15th of Khordad was not the beginning of the great movement by the people and the clergy. Before the 15th of Khordad, important events had taken place in the year 1341 as well as at the beginning of the year 1342. For example, the event in Feiziyeh School took place on the 2nd of Farvardin in 1342: it resulted in the injury of seminarians and the insult to the great marja taqlid, the late Ayatollah Golpaygani. Before that event, towards the end of the year 1341, there were demonstrations in Tehran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s bazaar and the great marja taqlid, the late Ayatollah Hajj Sayyid Ahmad Khansari, was insulted. These things show that the movement by the clergy had reached such levels in 1341 and early 1342 that security forces of the oppressive regime had started to treat seminarians, religious scholars and even marja taqlids in a brutal way. However, the 15th of Khordad of 1342 was a very important juncture. The reason is that the event which took place on the 15th of Khordad revealed that the bond between the people and the clergy had reached a so-called dangerous level. In that year, on the anniversary of Ashura - which fell on the 13th of Khordad - our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) delivered a historic speech in Feiziyeh School. Later on when they had arrested Imam (r.a.), on the 15th of Khordad there was a great movement in Tehran as well as in Qom and other cities and the taghuti regime decided to do everything in its power to suppress the movement by relying on its army, police and security organizations. There was a popular uprising on the 15th of Khordad, which was indicative of the strong bond between the people of Iran and the clergy and marja taqlids, who were represented by Imam (r.a.). The point is that it was this bond that ensured the spread and victory of the movement. Wherever a movement is supported by the people, that movement will prevail. But if the people do not develop a bond with a protest movement, that movement will fail. For example, after the Constitutional Movement in Iran, there were certain events and certain activities by both leftist and nationalist groups, but all of them were destined to fail because they did not have the support of the people. When the people step into the arena and support a movement with their hearts and minds and with their presence, it becomes possible for that movement to prevail and achieve victory. The event that took place on the 15th of Khordad proved this point. It proved that our people support the clergy. The arrest of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) resulted in such an uprising in Tehran and certain other parts of the country that the regime had to step in to suppress the people in a brutal way. A large number of people were killed. The streets of Tehran were covered with the blood of pious people and youth. On the 15th of Khordad, the brutal and ruthless nature of the taghuti regime was fully revealed. Another point regarding the event which happened on the 15th of Khordad - a point to which our youth and dear people should pay attention - is that no international community and none of the so-called human rights organizations protested against the brutal killings in Tehran and other parts of the country. All of them stayed silent. The people and the clergy remained in the arena. Marxists and leftist groups and governments even condemned the popular movement of the 15th of Khordad. They said that it was a feudalist movement. The nationalists - who were claiming to support anti-government activities - also condemned the movement. They said that the movement was a blind and aimless movement, that it was a radical movement. Wherever lazy people fail to take risks and play a role in the arena, they accuse pious combatants of extremism. They said that the movement was an extremist movement. They rejected it as a radical movement. Imam (r.a.) remained in the arena, relying on the support of the people, and he managed to present the image of a truly decisive and determined spiritual leader to all people and to all history. Our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) had three beliefs which made him decisive, courageous and steadfast: namely, faith in God, faith in the people and faith in himself. These three beliefs revealed themselves in the character, decisions and actions of Imam (r.a.) in the true sense of the word. Imam (r.a.) spoke to the people through his heart and the people accepted his call with their heart and soul. They stepped into the arena and resisted in a brave way. Their movement - which had no sympathizers in the world and received no assistance - gradually moved towards ultimate victory. I would like to briefly explain the three beliefs of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The points I will discuss in this regard are important points that can illuminate our path only if they find their way into our hearts. Regarding faith in God, Imam (r.a.) was the manifestation of this holy ayah: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those to whom the people said: Surely men have gathered against you, therefore fear them, but this increased their faith, and they said: Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 173] Imam (r.a.) was firmly committed to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allah is sufficient for us and most excellent is the Protector\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" with all his heart and soul. Imam (r.a.) had faith in Allah the Exalted. He had faith in divine promises. He acted, worked and spoke for the sake of God and he knew that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"if you help (the cause of) Allah, He will help you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 47: 7] is a divine promise and that it is definite and inviolable. Regarding faith in the people, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) knew the Iranian nation in the true sense of the word. Imam (r.a.) believed that our nation enjoys deep religious faith and is intelligent and courageous, a nation that has the capacity to shine like the sun in different areas only if it has competent leaders. One time an incompetent person like Shah Sultan Hussein caused the Iranian nation to retreat into a corner, but another time a courageous person like Nader Gholi - without those honorary titles - emerged among the people and became their leader by relying on his courage and as a result, our nation managed to expand the arena of its glory from Delhi to the Black Sea. Imam (r.a.) had noticed this truth about our history and he had witnessed the examples. He believed in this truth. He knew our nation. He had faith in the Iranian nation. The people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s deep religious faith - which had been concealed by materialistic people - was revived by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). He provoked the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s religious pride and the Iranian nation became the role model of resistance and insight. In the eyes of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the people were the dearest and enemies of the people were the most hated. The fact that Imam (r.a.) did not stop his battle against the domineering powers even for one single moment, was mainly because the domineering powers were enemies of the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s happiness, and Imam (r.a.) believed that enemies of the people were his enemies too. As for self-confidence, Imam (r.a.) taught the people of Iran to be confident. Before instilling a sense of confidence into the people of Iran, Imam (r.a.) first revived this sense of self-confidence in himself. He exhibited his faith in his capabilities in the true sense of the word. On the anniversary of Ashura in the year 1342, while he was alone, Imam (r.a.) threatened the Shah that he would ask the people of Iran to force him out of the country if he continued acting like that. He said this among the people and seminarians of Qom in Feiziyeh School and he threatened Mohammadreza Shah, who was wielding unrestricted power in the country by relying on America and other foreign powers. This threat was made by a cleric in Qom who had no weapons, no equipment, no money and no international support. He managed to resist in this arena by relying on his faith in God and in himself. The day when Imam (r.a.) returned from exile, he threatened the government of Bakhtiar at Behesht Zahra Cemetery and he announced in a resonating voice that he would punch Bakhtiar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s government in the mouth and that he would establish another government. This was indicative of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) self-confidence. Imam (r.a.) had faith in himself and in his capabilities. It was this self-confidence that was transferred to the people of Iran through his words and actions. My dear ones, for a hundred years, they had convinced us that we were incapable, incapable of managing the country, incapable of achieving dignity and glory, incapable of developing the country, incapable of moving forward in the arena of knowledge and other such things. And we had started to believe these things. Instilling a sense of inability - with the purpose of making nations lose faith in their capabilities - is one of the effective ways in which domineering powers spread their domination over different nations. In this way, they managed to keep the Iranian nation backwards in politics, science and economic activities as well as in all other arenas of life. Imam (r.a.) reversed this situation and took this means of hegemony away from the superpowers. He told the Iranian nation, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You can.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" He restored our courage. He restored our determination. He restored our self-confidence. We people of Iran felt that we were capable again. We moved forward and we took action. For this reason, the Iranian nation has achieved victory over the past thirty-something in all the areas that I will discuss later on in this meeting. These three beliefs of Imam (r.a.) - namely faith in God, faith in the people and faith in himself - became the axis of all his decisions, actions and policies. At the beginning of the movement, these three beliefs were a source of energy for Imam (r.a.). The same is true of the time when he was in exile, the time when he left for Paris and the time when he returned to Iran. It was these three beliefs that gave Imam (r.a.) the power to enter Tehran in those conditions. These three beliefs were exhibited in the events that happened during Bahman of 1357, in the fitnas that happened in the country, in the establishment of the Islamic Republic, in his open resistance against the oppressive global order, in the slogan of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"neither the East, nor the West\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", in the imposed war and in all the events that took place in those eventful ten years of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s life. These three beliefs were the basis of Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decisions, actions and policies. Even in the last few days of his life, nobody noticed any signs of despair, doubt, exhaustion, weakness or submission in the words and actions of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). Many revolutionaries throughout the world start to have doubts and become conservative as they grow older. Sometimes they even take back their main statements. The statements that were issued by Imam (r.a.) during the last few years of his life were sometimes even more strongly worded and revolutionary than his statements in the year 1342. He was growing old, but he was young at heart and his soul was vibrant. This is the same steadfastness that has been described in the Holy Quran: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And that if they should keep to the (right) way, We would certainly give them to drink of abundant water.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 72: 16] In another ayah, Allah the Exalted says: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"(As for) those who say: Our Lord is Allah, then continue in the right way, the angels descend upon them, saying: Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 41: 30] These three beliefs kept Imam (r.a.) young and vibrant. They consolidated Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s thought and path for our nation and then these three beliefs gradually spread among our people, our youth and individuals from different social backgrounds. These three beliefs created hope. They created self-confidence. They resulted in reliance on God. These things replaced despair and pessimism. The people of Iran changed their characteristics and Allah the Exalted changed their conditions. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 13: 11] The people of Iran reformed their path, their movement and their motives and Allah the Exalted helped and supported them. What was the result? The result was that Iran became an independent country. There are many lessons that our dear youth should learn from the dependence of the taghuti Pahlavi regime - which is was even worse than the reactionary and disgraced Qajar regime - on England and subsequently on America. Their dependence had reached a disgraceful level. After the Revolution, an outstanding American diplomat mentioned the same thing in his writings. He said that it was the Americans who used to tell the Shah what he needed and what he did not need. It was the Americans who used to tell him with whom to establish relations and with whom not to. They used to tell him how much oil he had to produce and sell. It was the Americans who used to tell him to whom he should sell oil and to whom he should not. Our country used to be managed on the basis of America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s policies and plans, and before that our country used to be run on the basis of the plans and policies of England. That dependent country transformed into an independent and proud country. Corrupt, treasonous and materialistic rulers, who were immersed in their carnal desires and human passions, were in charge of our country. They were replaced by representatives of the people. They were replaced by officials who had been elected by the people. In the past thirty-something years, the individuals who have assumed power in our country and taken control of our policies and economy, have been representatives of the people. They did not line their own pockets after assuming power, which is a very important point. Of course, some of them were more pious than others. Those evil, dependent and greedy politicians who were submissive against the enemies and treated the people in an angry way, were replaced by representatives of the people. Our scientifically backward country transformed into a country that was advanced in terms of science. Before the Revolution, we had not made any scientific achievements in the country. Today international centers say that the rate of Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s scientific progress is eleven times more than the global average. Is this an insignificant achievement? International scientific centers predict that in a few years - by the year 2017 - Iran will rank fourth in the world in terms of science. Is this an insignificant accomplishment? Our country, which had made no scientific achievements, has achieved this position. There was a time we had to ask foreigners to send their engineers to our country to build dams, roads and factories for us whenever we needed a road, a highway, a dam or a factory. Today Iranian youth are building thousands of factories and hundreds of dams, bridges, roads and highways in the country without receiving the slightest help from foreigners. Today our scientific and technological growth and our capabilities to develop the country have reached this level. Would it be appropriate if we ignored these things? In areas relating to health and medicine, Iranian patients who had the money had to travel to Europe for slightly complicated operations, and those who did not have the money had to die. Today the most complicated operations - liver transplants, lung transplants and important things in other medical areas - are being carried out in our country, not just in Tehran but in many distant cities across the country. These capabilities exist today in our country. The Iranian nation does not need foreigners in this area. Our nation has achieved independence and self-sufficiency in this vital area. Many parts of this country had been ignored. Before the Revolution, I used to travel to different places across the country. Remote parts of the country used to be completelyignored. However, different services are being offered in different parts of the country, including remote towns and villages. Today nobody can say that a particular area does not have electricity or roads and other such things. Before the Revolution, it was surprising to see a remote place that enjoyed such facilities. Today the opposite is surprising. At that time, our population was 35 million and there were 150,000 university students in the country. Today our population has increased a hundred percent, but the number of our university students has increased by 20, even 30 times. This means that we have paid attention to science. The number of students, professors and universities in the country is remarkable. In every remote town, there are one, two, five and sometimes ten universities. At that time, there were certain provinces in which the number of high schools was less than ten. Today in every city of the same provinces, there are several universities. This is a great movement by the people of Iran which is the result of the Revolution and selfless efforts of Iranian youth and government officials over the past thirty-something years. These are important developments. Thanks to the Revolution, many infrastructure-related projects were carried out in the country. Thousands of factories were built. Many mother companies were built. The products which we had to beg for and buy in small amounts from foreigners are being mass produced in the country today. It is necessary to see these things. All of these things are the blessings of the three beliefs that Imam (r.a.) instilled into our nation: faith in God, faith in the people and faith in oneself. I am not saying these things in order to create a false sense of pride and happiness. I am not saying these things to make you feel happy and thankful for the victory that has been achieved. No, there is still a long way to go. I would say that if we compare our conditions with the era of taghut, these achievements will look remarkable, but we will realize that we have a long way to go if we compare our conditions with the conditions of an ideal Islamic Iran - namely, a country which Islam wants us to have, a society that Islam wants us to have, a society in which there is worldly pride and welfare as well as religious faith, ethics and spirituality, all in abundance. I am saying these things so that our dear youth and our courageous nation realize that they can continue this path by relying on the three beliefs that I spoke about. You should know that there is a long way to go, but you have the capability. You have the power to continue this path. You have the necessary means. You can continue traversing this long path at a high speed until you reach the peaks in a powerful way. I am saying these things so that you realize that the enemies who want to create despair in our hearts are acting out of spite. All the signs show that we should remain hopeful. The roadmap lies in front of our eyes. We have a roadmap. What is this roadmap? Our roadmap is the principles of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the same principles that transformed that backward and humiliated nation into this pioneering and proud nation. These principles will be useful for us along the path and they will be our roadmap. Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s principles are clear principles. Fortunately, his statements and writings have been made available to our people in the form of twenty-something volumes [of Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s speeches] and the main points have been presented in his testament. Everybody can refer to those documents and read them. I believe it is not advisable to keep mentioning the name of Imam (r.a.) but let his principles sink into oblivion. This is wrong. The name and memory of Imam (r.a.) is not sufficient in itself. Imam (r.a.) will remain a leader for our nation with his principles and his roadmap. Imam (r.a.) gave this roadmap to us. He had specific principles. As for domestic policy, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require relying on the votes of the people, preserving unity of the people, choosing rulers who are populist and non-aristocratic [humble], having government officials who are committed to national interests and making comprehensive efforts in order to bring about progress for the country. As far as foreign policy is concerned, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require that we put up a resistance against interventionist and domineering policies, that we establish brotherly relations with other Muslim nations, that we develop relations with all countries except the ones that have drawn their swords against the Iranian nation and are being hostile, that we fight Zionism, that we resist in order to liberate Palestine, that we help oppressed people throughout the world and that we put up a resistance against oppressors. Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s testament is available to us. His writings and statements have been recorded and are available in the form of books. Regarding culture, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require rejection of the permissive Western culture, rejection of rigidity and reactionary attitudes, rejection of hypocrisy in religion, decisive defense of ethics and Islamic commands, and fighting the spread of immorality and corruption in society. As for economic matters, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require relying on the national economy, relying on self-sufficiency, ensuring economic justice in production and distribution, defending underprivileged people and confronting the capitalist culture coupled with respect for ownership rights. Imam (r.a.) rejected the oppressive capitalist culture, but he also stressed the need for respecting ownership and property rights, capital and labor. Also, the principles of Imam (r.a.) require that we resist melting into the global economy and that we preserve independence of our national economy. These are Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s principles regarding economic matters. These things are obvious in Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s statements. Imam (r.a.) always demanded government officials of the country to implement these principles in a powerful and wise way. This was the roadmap of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). The Iranian nation can bridge the gap between current conditions and those ideal conditions by following this roadmap, by relying on their firm religious faith, by remembering their Imam (r.a.). The Iranian nation can move forward. Considering its capabilities and talent and the outstanding individuals who are thankfully present among our people, the Iranian nation can continue the revolutionary path that we have been following over the past thirty-something years with more power and firmer determination. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, our nation will be able to become a genuine role model for other Muslim nations. Now let me speak about the elections, which is a sensitive and current issue these days. Dear brothers and sisters and dear people of Iran, elections are the manifestation of all the three beliefs of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) and we should have faith in the same things. Elections are the manifestation of faith in God, because taking part in elections is a religious obligation. It is our responsibility to play a role in the destiny of our country. Everybody in our country has this responsibility. Elections are the manifestation of faith in the people, because the will of the people manifests itself in the form of elections: it is the people who choose government officials through elections. Elections are the manifestation of having faith in oneself, because anybody who casts his vote into the ballot box feels that he is playing a role in the destiny of the country and that his role is determining in its own right. This is a very important point. Therefore, elections are the manifestation of faith in God, faith in the people and faith in oneself. Giving rise to political valor through epic presence of the people at our polling stations is the most important point regarding the upcoming elections. What is the meaning of valor? Valor means that the attempt to achieve glory should be accompanied by excitement and enthusiasm. Every vote that you cast into the ballot box for any of the eight honorable candidates is a vote for the Islamic Republic. A vote for any of the candidates is a vote for the Islamic Republic: it is a vote of confidence for the [political] system and its electoral mechanism. When you enter the arena of elections - either as a voter or as a candidate - your mere presence in this arena means that you have confidence in the Islamic Republic and in our electoral mechanism. On a less important level, your presence results in a vote for the person whom you consider as more valuable for the future of the country than the other candidates. Our helpless foreign enemies are thinking of a way to turn this election into a threat against the Islamic Republic. This is while an election is a great opportunity for the Islamic Republic. They are hoping for a cold and lifeless election so that they can say the people are not interested in the Islamic Republic or they can create a fitna after the election, just as they did in the year 1388 after that enthusiastic election. These are what the enemies of our nation are after. But they are making a mistake. They do not know our people. The enemies of our nation have forgotten the 9th of Dey. Those who think that in our country there is a silent majority who are opposed to the Islamic Republic, have forgotten that over the past thirty-four years massive numbers of people have taken to the streets every year on the 22nd of Bahman in different cities of our country in order to support the Islamic Republic and shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"death to America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". In order to make our elections lifeless, their think tanks constantly produce ideas and feed them to their media and their spokesmen. One day they say our elections have been engineered, another day they say our elections are not free, yet another day they say our elections are not legitimate in the eyes of the people. They do not know our people, neither do they know our elections and the Islamic Republic. And those who are aware of the facts, make unfair comments. They do not shrink from making such comments. In which part of the world are different candidates - ranging from famous figures to unknown individuals - allowed to use national and state media equally? If somebody knows an exception, he should come forward and say it. In which part of the world does such a thing exist? Does it exist in America? Does it exist in capitalist countries? In capitalist countries, if candidates are members of the existing two or three parties and enjoy the support of capitalists, company owners, wealthy people and mafias of wealth and power, they can campaign and if not, they cannot even campaign. Anybody who has followed American elections - which I have - will confirm this. There were certain individuals who did not enjoy the support of the Zionists and blood-thirsty international capitalist networks, and they could not enter the arena of election no matter how hard they tried. They neither had access to a media outlet, nor were any TV channels available to them. For every second of campaigning, they had to spend huge amounts of money. In our country, candidates are given equal opportunities to speak to the people for many hours through state media without having to spend one single rial. In which part of the world do such things exist? The only thing that controls entry into our elections is the law. According to the law, some people can run in our elections and some others cannot. The law has specified what the conditions are, what the qualifications are and who are in charge of vetting. All of these things are being done on the basis of the law. Our foreign enemies close their eyes to these realities and say certain things, and as I have pointed out before, sadly there are impious people who repeat the same things. But by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and with their presence, resistance and firm determination, our people will respond to all these machinations and their response will be crushing and decisive. Now I would like to give a piece of advice to the honorable candidates. The honorable candidates speak critically in the televised programs. This is their right. They can criticize whatever they believe should be criticized. However, they should pay attention to the point that criticism should signify a determination to move towards a future that is full of hard work and glory. It should not signify an effort to paint a bleak picture and promote pessimism and unfair comments. They should pay attention to this point. I do not favor anybody. From this moment onwards, foreign media will say with ulterior motives that I favor a particular candidate. This is a lie. I do not favor anybody. I only lay out the facts. I advise the brothers who want to win the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s trust that their comments should be fair. They can make criticisms, but in doing so, they should not paint a bleak picture and deny the outstanding achievements that have been accomplished under the incumbent administration or previous administrations thanks to the constant efforts of individuals like themselves. Criticism does not mean denying positive aspects. Criticism means that one should point out the positive thing that has been done and then point out the weaknesses and flaws as well. The next president will not have to start from zero: thousands of outstanding things have already been done. Over the course of many years, thousands of fundamental infrastructure-related projects have been carried out in the country under different administrations. There has been scientific progress. There has been industrial progress. There has been progress in areas relating to infrastructure. Very important things have been planned and implemented in different areas. They should not disregard these things. Whenever they want to do something, they should start from the achievements that have already been made. We cannot afford to deny all this work under the pretext that we have economic problems, that we have the problem of rising prices and inflation. After all, this is not the right thing to do. Yes, we have economic problems and inflation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the person who will be voted into office will be able to resolve these problems and remove these obstacles. This is the wish of the Iranian nation. However, this does not mean that we should deny everything that has been done in order to present a solution to the existing problems. Also, the candidates should not make impossible promises. You should speak in a way that if your recorded statements are replayed to you next year in Khordad, you do not feel ashamed. Make such promises that you would not have to blame other people under the pretext that they did not let you do what you wanted to do. Only make promises that you will be able to fulfill. In our country and according to our Constitution, the president has extraordinary powers. The Constitution has given vast powers to the president. The president has control over the national budget. He has control over all executive pillars of the country. He has control over the implementation of the laws and regulations in the country. He has the power to utilize the capacities of all experts throughout the country. The president has room for maneuver in the case of different issues. The only thing that restricts the president in our country is the law. His actions can only be restricted by the law, which is not in fact a restriction. The law provides guidance: it does not restrict. The law shows the path and tells us how to move forward. Those who address the people today and say different things, should discuss what they are capable of doing and what the people need. They should promise that they will act in a wise and prudent way. If they have plans for different areas, they should present their plans to the people. They should promise that they will move forward on this path in a persistent and steadfast way. They should promise that they will make use of all the capacities of the Constitution in order to carry out their great responsibility. They should promise that they will manage the conditions of the country. They should promise that they will focus their efforts on the economy - which is a challenge that has been imposed on the Iranian nation by foreigners. They should promise that they will not create controversy. They should promise that they will not give their friends and relative a free rein. They should promise that they will not prefer the interests of foreigners over the interests of the Iranian nation under different pretexts. Some people argue that we should make concessions to the enemies in order to appease them and in this way they effectively prefer the interests of the enemies over the interests of the Iranian nation. This is wrong. They are angry because you exist, because the Islamic Republic exists, because Imam (r.a.) is alive in the minds of the people and in our national plans, because the people show their feelings for Imam (r.a.) every year on his demise anniversary. These are the causes of their anger. The enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s anger should be controlled and suppressed with our national power. If our nation becomes powerful and capable, if it reduces its needs, if it eliminates its problems, if it manages to improve the economy which is our main issue today, the enemy will be defenseless against the Iranian nation. In any case, what is important is to have determination, faith in God, faith in the people and faith in ourselves, and this applies to both the presidential candidates and the people. My dear brothers, my dear ones, there will a great test in ten days, and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor we hope that in this great test Allah the Exalted will cause an auspicious instance of valor with brilliant outcomes for our nation. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"There is no power except with the permission of Great Almighty Allah.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings

Description:

A segment from the documentary - We - where Arundhati Roy - the writer and activist - talks about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in the world. See the entire documentary at www.weroy.org. Roys comments in this segment end at a very insightful point where she says that both socialism and market capitalism are inherently flawed and are bound to fail. Because both are conjured up by the human-mind but they destroy themselves by human nature! I am reminded here of Shaheed Sadrs profound analysis at the beginning of his book - Our Philosophy. Any social system that does not take into account the various dimensions of human nature - including the material and the spiritual - any system that does not have a program for curing the problems in hearts and for developing the good potentials in human souls and only focuses upon the material factors is bound to fail - be they the socialist states or the welfare systems in capitalist economies. The strength and beauty of Islam is in its comprehensive-ness - in its comprehensive and wholistic guiding principles for all dimensions of human nature and for both individual lives and collective issues of society.

Description:

The Israeli Parliament (Knesset) approves the deportation of 400 children and their families whom Tel Aviv considers a "tangible threat" to Israel. Those affected by the new measure fail to meet the regime's criteria of speaking Hebrew and having lived in Israel for more than five years, AFP reported on Sunday. They have been given only 21 days to return to their homelands. The motion passed 13 to 10 after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to table an earlier proposal, which he said "is much more harsh and dramatic," Ynetnews reported. The Israeli Children organization warned that the decision targets kindergarten kids and other children, who "will fail to meet impossible bureaucratic demands."

Description:

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called on the US administration and the Zionist entity to understand very well that a war against Iran and Syria will not stay inside Iran and Syria, but will roll instead and spread out to the entire region. During a ceremony on the Martyr’s Day in Master of Martyrs Complex (PBUH) in the southern suburb of Beirut Friday afternoon, his eminence delivered his speech via video link at the rally, noting that despite all the threats in the region, all the local, regional and international situations of today are in favor of the peoples of the region and the axis of defiance and resistance more than any time ever. Sayyed Nasrallah believed that talk of an attack or a new war on Lebanon is an intimidation. “We still rule out such an enemy assault on Lebanon regardless the developments in the region and the regional situation,” his eminence said, pointing out that if there is no plan for a regional war, any plan for an imminent war on Lebanon is ruled out. His Eminence went on to call upon those who bet on the fall of the Syrian regime to abandon their bet. “Put this bet aside, it will fail just like previous bets had failed,” he said. In his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah saw no reason why Lebanon should be expected to contribute its share of the tribunal\\\\\\\'s funding given Washington\\\\\\\'s decision to cut off funds to the United Nations cultural agency UNESCO after members voted to admit Palestine as a full member. \\\\\\\"Isn\\\\\\\'t the funding of UNESCO an international obligation for the US?\\\\\\\" he said. \\\\\\\"Why can it shirk its obligation and not Lebanon?\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\"If Lebanon doesn\\\\\\\'t fund this unconstitutional and illegal court, Feltman comes along and threatens sanctions,\\\\\\\" he added, referring to Jeffrey Feltman, the US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. OUR SOUTH, STRONG and SAFE At the beginning of his speech, Sayyed Nasrallah said that martyrs are “life makers” by the will of God, and that Jihad, martyrdom and the will of those resisting and steadfasting constitute the key path of this concept. Noting that lovers of Imam Mousa al-Sadr live today special sentiment waiting for his return to Lebanon, God willing, his eminence read the words of Imam al-Sadr said in 1978, when he felt sorry for what suffered by Southern Lebanon attacked by Zionist entity. “I told him to myself when you return you will be proud of your students, sons and the resistance, which was founded and sacrificed in order to be,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, adding “the South today is safe, strong and constant firm. It is no more under the mercy of anyone, but strongly present in the regional equation.” TURNING TABLE OVER THE AGRESSOR His Eminence added: “We still rule out an enemy assault on Lebanon regardless the regional developments and situation,” his eminence said, pointing out that if there is no plan for a regional war, any scheme for an imminent war on Lebanon is ruled out. He stressed this is not due to the moral generosity of Israel, the US and the UN Security Council, but because “Lebanon is not weak anymore. It is a strong state and is able - with his army, people and resistance - to defeat.” “Lebanon has become able to turn the table on anyone who attacks him. Lebanon has become able to turn the threats into real opportunities,” he noted, stressing that Resistance did not sleep one day. In Martyr\\\\\\\'s Day, Hezbollah S.G. went on to call for adherence to the resistance, the army and the popular will for being the real element of force. LOCALS AND SECURITY The Lebanese government has so far proved to be the government of diversity, for it represents a popular majority, a cabinet of research, discussion and dialogue. “Members of Lebanese cabinet discuss and make decisions. They neither wait for \\\\\\\"sms\\\\\\\", nor receive signals or suggestions from anyone. We call upon cabinet today to work, achieve, follow-up files and not to listen to all the noise, Sayyed Nasrallah said. “The most important of the government\\\\\\\'s work is giving priority to livelihood issues.” Addressing the Lebanese Army, his eminence called to neutralize the army as a guarantor of the sovereignty, national unity and security. “All harsh experiences of Lebanon had proven that at the end of the day Lebanon was lost and divided, while this institution remained the salvation stage,” he added. UNESCO SCANDAL Sayyed Nasrallah said that the issue of STL fund should be discussed in the cabinet, calling to learn lessons from the UNESCO event. “It is useful that Lebanese and the public recognize what happened in the issue of UNESCO, an international organization recognized the state of Palestine. The USA became angry and stopped funding the organization. Why Lebanon should be expected to contribute its share of the tribunal\\\\\\\'s funding given Washington\\\\\\\'s decision to cut off funds to the United Nations cultural agency UNESCO?\\\\\\\" his eminence asked. IRAN AND SYRIA Hezbollah Secretary General assured that betting on regional developments will eventually fail. Touching the recent US and Zionist threats against Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that Iran will not be afraid of fleets and intimidation. “Iran and Syria were the two countries that opposed the US occupation of Iraq and the killing of its people. Iran did neither weaken nor subjected to the American terms. \\\\\\\"Whoever dares to launch war against Iran will be met with doubly that force,\\\\\\\" he warned. \\\\\\\"Iran is strong, solid and united; Iran is powerful and has a leader unique to the whole world.\\\\\\\" He added that any military action against Iran or Syria would engulf the entire region. “They want to drag Iran into negotiations, and to force Syria to accept what it rejected in the past,” he noted. “American defeat in Iraq has strategic results at every level of our region. I call to shed light upon American withdrawal and defeat in Iraq. Ben Ali\\\\\\\'s and Gaddafi\\\\\\\'s regimes fall is a loss to the US project; fall of Mubarak\\\\\\\'s regime is a major loss for the US and Israel,” his eminence added addressing the US project defeat in the Middle East. “We affirm that since the reign of martyr Ahmad Qasir to the day we entered the era of victories, where days of defeats had gone. Local, regional and international situations are today in the interests of peoples of the region, as well as the axis of defiance and resistance more than any time ever”. “As long as we are the people of faith, determination and will in all next expectations, God willing we will win,” Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah concluded.

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.

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.