2:03
|
2:58
|
3:00
|
3:17
|
1:28
|
3:03
|
NO TALKS with the USA under pressure - Leader: Syed Ali Khamenei - 7 Feb 2013 - English
The comments made by Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei are crystal-clear: No bilateral talks with the United States as long as...
The comments made by Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei are crystal-clear: No bilateral talks with the United States as long as Washington\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s words do not match its deeds. Ayatollah Khamenei made the comments just days after US Vice President Joe Biden said Washington was prepared to hold direct talks with Iran.
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has rejected any talks with the United States under pressure and threats.
“I am not a diplomat. I am a revolutionary and speak frankly, honestly, and firmly. An offer of talks makes sense only when the side [that makes the offer] shows its goodwill,” Ayatollah Khamenei said in a meeting with the officials and commanders of Iran Navy on Thursday.
“Negotiation is meaningful when the two sides talk with goodwill, under equal conditions and without seeking to deceive each other. Therefore, ‘negotiation for the sake of negotiation’, ‘tactical negotiation’ and negotiation offer in order to sell a superpower\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s gesture to the world is a deceptive move,” the Leader stated.
Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that during the past four years, nothing has been seen from the United States but continuation of conspiracies, abetting seditionists and supporting the terrorists which assassinated Iranian nation’s scientists.
“You (the Americans) point the gun at Iran and say either negotiations or we pull the trigger! You should know that pressure and negotiations do not go together, and the [Iranian] nation will not be intimidated by such things.”
Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the remarks by American officials that ‘the ball is now in Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s court,’ and noted, “The ball is in your court, because you should answer the question of whether speaking of negotiations at the same time as continuing pressure and threats makes any sense at all.”
The Leader pointed out, however, that, “We, of course, understand their (the Americans’) need for negotiations, because the Middle East policy of the Americans has failed, and in order to compensate for this failure, they need to play a trump card.”
Taking Iran to the negotiating table is the trump card that the US needs, Ayatollah Khamenei noted, adding that the US seeks to tell the world it has good will. “However, no one sees any goodwill.”
“Negotiation with the United States does not solve any problem because they have not fulfilled any of their promises in the past 60 years.”
Referring to the conspiracies by the enemies of the Iran including coups, military provocation, all-out support for the aggressor enemies, hard war, soft war, intensive pressure by the West’s evil media empire as well as harsh and increasing sanctions, Ayatollah Khamenei pointed out that for the past 30 years the enemies have tried to make Iranian nation disappointed at the Islamic Republic, but they have failed.
The Leader also stressed that the Iranian nation will castigate anybody who would renounce the national interests, sovereignty and progress of the country in order to satisfy the United States.
Speaking at the 49th annual Munich Security Conference in Germany on February 2, US Vice President Joe Biden said Washington was ready to hold direct talks with Iran over the country’s nuclear energy program.
The United States, the Israeli regime and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.
Iran argues that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it is entitled to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
More...
Description:
The comments made by Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei are crystal-clear: No bilateral talks with the United States as long as Washington\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s words do not match its deeds. Ayatollah Khamenei made the comments just days after US Vice President Joe Biden said Washington was prepared to hold direct talks with Iran.
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has rejected any talks with the United States under pressure and threats.
“I am not a diplomat. I am a revolutionary and speak frankly, honestly, and firmly. An offer of talks makes sense only when the side [that makes the offer] shows its goodwill,” Ayatollah Khamenei said in a meeting with the officials and commanders of Iran Navy on Thursday.
“Negotiation is meaningful when the two sides talk with goodwill, under equal conditions and without seeking to deceive each other. Therefore, ‘negotiation for the sake of negotiation’, ‘tactical negotiation’ and negotiation offer in order to sell a superpower\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s gesture to the world is a deceptive move,” the Leader stated.
Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that during the past four years, nothing has been seen from the United States but continuation of conspiracies, abetting seditionists and supporting the terrorists which assassinated Iranian nation’s scientists.
“You (the Americans) point the gun at Iran and say either negotiations or we pull the trigger! You should know that pressure and negotiations do not go together, and the [Iranian] nation will not be intimidated by such things.”
Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the remarks by American officials that ‘the ball is now in Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s court,’ and noted, “The ball is in your court, because you should answer the question of whether speaking of negotiations at the same time as continuing pressure and threats makes any sense at all.”
The Leader pointed out, however, that, “We, of course, understand their (the Americans’) need for negotiations, because the Middle East policy of the Americans has failed, and in order to compensate for this failure, they need to play a trump card.”
Taking Iran to the negotiating table is the trump card that the US needs, Ayatollah Khamenei noted, adding that the US seeks to tell the world it has good will. “However, no one sees any goodwill.”
“Negotiation with the United States does not solve any problem because they have not fulfilled any of their promises in the past 60 years.”
Referring to the conspiracies by the enemies of the Iran including coups, military provocation, all-out support for the aggressor enemies, hard war, soft war, intensive pressure by the West’s evil media empire as well as harsh and increasing sanctions, Ayatollah Khamenei pointed out that for the past 30 years the enemies have tried to make Iranian nation disappointed at the Islamic Republic, but they have failed.
The Leader also stressed that the Iranian nation will castigate anybody who would renounce the national interests, sovereignty and progress of the country in order to satisfy the United States.
Speaking at the 49th annual Munich Security Conference in Germany on February 2, US Vice President Joe Biden said Washington was ready to hold direct talks with Iran over the country’s nuclear energy program.
The United States, the Israeli regime and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.
Iran argues that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it is entitled to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
[ENGLISH] Leader rejects talks with the USA - Full Speech - 7 February 2013
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech to Air Force Commanders and Personnel
07/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 7, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme...
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech to Air Force Commanders and Personnel
07/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 7, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with commanders and personnel of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. The meeting was held on the occasion of the historic pledge of allegiance of Air Force officers to Imam Khomeini (r.a.) on the 19th of Bahman of 1357.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I am very happy to meet you - once more at our annual meeting - brothers and dear youth from the glorious Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. I welcome all of you. As for the song which was performed, the lyrics were good, the melody was good, the content was good and it was performed well. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, our hearts will always be imbued with the scent of mercy and divine guidance which is the most important source of support.
If we take a look at the history of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army over the past years, we will discover a number of important facts. There was one day when we could not and were not allowed to fix the plane parts that we had bought. Today, you build training planes, fighters and flight simulators. You carry out a lot of important radar-related work and you produce complex components. This great movement towards blossoming of talents, love, innovation, self-confidence and self-sufficiency - which has been established in the Air Force, in the entire Islamic Republic of Iran Army, in the Armed Forces and throughout the country - is such a movement that cannot be denied even by the opponents and the enemies of the Islamic Republic.
Dominant powers tried to take control of all nations and countries throughout the world by using force, money and weapons and by launching military attacks. They tried to make nations believe that they cannot find the path towards greatness, identity and independence without relying on superpowers and on those who have money and power - Zionist and non-Zionist companies have lined up behind them. You shattered their hopes.
Compare the Iranian nation, today, with nations who have been under the domination of American power. See where you are and where they are. With their movement, independence, self-confidence and reliance on God, the Iranian people proved that one can and should stand up against the domination of foreigners and those who seek domination. The Iranian nation has proved this. Thirty years ago, what was the position of the Iranian nation in science, civilization, progress, technology and political influence? What position does it enjoy today? It achieved such a position by putting up a resistance, relying on God and bringing all its capacities into the arena. This is an experience for both the Iranian nation and future generations. It is also an experience for other nations. The Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army is one of the examples of this resistance and this movement which has been based on self-confidence. We should continue this. We Iranian people should continue this path. This path is full of blessings.
For more than thirty years, the enemies of the Iranian nation have done everything in their power to harm the Iranian nation. There is not a thing which they have not used against the Iranian nation. They provoked conflicts, waged wars, supported the enemy of the Islamic Republic with all their power and they waged hard and soft wars. They fought the people of Iran as hard as they could, but our people stood up against them and they resisted. Not only could they not bring our people to their knees and destroy them, but they also failed to prevent them from making progress. Our nation has made progress. They made use of everything they could. They hatched plots, launched coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'états, provoked military conflicts, shot down passenger airliners, imposed heavy sanctions and increased them on a daily basis. They did these things in the hope that our people would lose their hope, disappear from the scene and lose their trust in Islam and the Islamic Republic. But they failed. This is the record of the Islamic Republic.
These days, referred to as ten-day Fajr celebrations, are good opportunities for our intellectuals, our youth and all the people of Iran to spend some time evaluating their actions during the past thirty-something years and see their achievements, see their successful efforts, see the divine assistance and see the weakness of the enemies\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' plots. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And they (the unbelievers) planned, and Allah planned, and Allah is the best of planners\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 54]. This is the general guideline for us, to see how we should choose our future path. You the people in the Air Force should move forward according to this outlook and orientation. Different sectors of the country, all the people and the officials of the country should move forward according to this outlook.
Of course, the enemy inflicts harm, but it cannot do anything except for causing slight annoyance. I mentioned a few days ago that Allah the Exalted said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 111]. Their job is to harm you. But, they cannot create obstacles for you and block your path. Over the past 30 years, the Americans have been ranting and raving against the Iranian nation. They said and did whatever they could. They broadcast negative propaganda and they established an evil media empire against the Iranian nation. But the result is this: today, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the Iranian nation has become happier, more determined and more active than ever and it is witnessing more blossoming in different areas.
They have been trying to separate the people from the Islamic Republic and the Revolution. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the Iranian people frustrate the enemy with their presence in the national and revolutionary rallies. They are trying to separate the people from one another. The previous inexperienced American secretary of state said openly that they are imposing sanctions in order to pit the people of Iran against the Islamic Republic. The people of Iran have always responded to such statements through their rallies and their actions. You will see that on the 22nd of Bahman, the Iranian people will, once more, frustrate their efforts with a crushing move [Audience shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
The good thing is that the people are wise and vigilant. They know the purpose of the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plot, they predict the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s moves, they understand why the enemy has adopted a certain policy and they move in the opposite direction. They rely on their own achievements and they will show their presence in this great arena of national dignity. They will show themselves and they will prove their presence. This is the good thing. In the face of the negative propaganda by the enemy - particularly, the Americans and the Zionists - the people do not take the wrong path because of their communal wisdom and they do not make the mistake which the enemy is waiting for. This is the good thing about large-scale issues of our country.
Now the Americans have raised the issue of negotiations again. They repeat that America is prepared to directly negotiate with Iran. This is not new. The Americans have repeatedly raised the issue of negotiations at every juncture. Now their newly appointed politicians repeat that we should negotiate. And they say that the ball is in Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s court. The ball is in your court. It is you who should explain the meaning of negotiations that are accompanied by pressure and threats. Negotiations are for the sake of proving one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s goodwill. You commit tens of acts which show lack of goodwill and then you speak about negotiations. Do you expect the Iranian nation to believe that you have goodwill? Of course, we understand why the Americans repeatedly raise the issue of negotiations and why they speak about it in different ways. We know what the reason is. As the Americans themselves say, their Middle East policies have failed. They need to play their trump card. Their trump card is dragging the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is based on the people, to the negotiating table. They need this. They want to say to the world that they have goodwill. No, we do not see any goodwill.
Four years ago - during the early days of the current American administration - when they were saying the same words, I announced that we will not prejudge and we will wait to see what action they will take and then we will judge. Now after four years, how should the Iranian nation judge their actions? They supported the fitna in Iran, they helped those who started the fitna, they sent their troops to Afghanistan under the claim that they were fighting terrorism, they trampled on so many people and they destroyed them. They are also supporting and cooperating with the same terrorists in Syria and they used the same terrorists wherever they could in Iran. Their agents, their allies and Zionist spies openly killed the scientists of the Islamic Republic. They did not even condemn these terrorist activities. [On the contrary] They supported them. This is their record. They imposed sanctions - which they wanted to be crippling - on the Iranian nation. They openly said, crippling. Who do you want to cripple? Did you want to cripple the Iranian nation? Do you have goodwill?
Negotiations are meaningful when the two sides negotiate with good intentions and without planning to deceive one another. Negotiations should be on equal terms. Negotiations for the sake of negotiations, tactical negotiations and offer of negotiations as a superpower gesture, are deceptive moves. They are not honest moves.
I am not a diplomat. I am a revolutionary. I speak openly and honestly. A diplomat says something, but he actually means something else. We speak openly and honestly. We speak clearly and decisively. Negotiations are meaningful when the two sides show their good intentions. [Negotiations are not meaningful] when one side does not show his good intentions. You yourselves refer to this as pressures and negotiations. These two things are not compatible. You want to point the gun at the people of Iran and say, negotiate or we will shoot. You say these things to intimidate the Iranian nation. You should know that the Iranian nation is not intimidated by these things [Audience shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
A number of people become happy about the American offer of negotiations and they say, come and negotiate with us. This is expressed by a number of people who are either simple-minded or who have some ulterior motives. One cannot make definitive judgments about people. But what a simple-minded person does is no different, in essence, from what a person who has ulterior motives does. Negotiations with America will not solve any problems. When did they keep their promises? Over the past 60 years, since the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad of 1332 until today, the officials of our country have been harmed whenever they trusted the Americans. One day Mosaddeq trusted the Americans, relied on them and considered them as his friends. Then the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad occurred and the Americans found the opportunity to launch a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. The agent responsible for launching the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état came to Tehran with a briefcase full of money and he divided it among thugs and vandals so that they launch the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. The agent was American. They admitted what the purpose of their plot was. After that, they helped the oppressive Pahlavi regime achieve domination over our country. They established SAVAK and chained and tortured political activists. These are the things they did at that time.
During a certain period after the Revolution, the officials of the country trusted them. But the politicians of the American government labeled Iran as \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"axis of evil\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". It is you who are the embodiment of evil. It is you who are doing evil deeds in the world. You wage wars, loot nations and support the Zionist regime. On the issue of Islamic Awakening, you suppress the nations who have risen in revolt as much as you can and you weaken them and pit them against one another. You are evil. Evil is part of your character. They accused the Iranian nation of doing evil acts. This is a big insult. Whenever people trusted them, they made such moves. They should show their good intentions. Negotiations and offer of negotiations are not compatible with pressures. Negotiations and pressures are two different paths. It is not possible for the Iranian nation to accept negotiations under pressures and threats, with those who make threats. What should we negotiate for?
Today, the Iranian nation is vigilant. The true face of America has been revealed not only in Iran, but also in the region. Nations distrust America and there are many reasons for this distrust. The Iranian nation has also accurately read the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' moves. It understands what their purpose is. Our nation is vigilant. Today, if certain people want to help America re-establish its domination and act against our national interests, against the progress of the country and against the path of independence, they will be held responsible by the people and even if I act against this public demand, the people will complain. It is obvious. All the officials are responsible for safeguarding national interests and preserving national independence. They should preserve the dignity of the Iranian nation.
We have negotiated, signed contracts and established relations with countries which have not plotted against Iran. The Iranian nation is peace-loving. The Iranian nation is patient. The unity of the Iranian nation is in line with promoting the interests of humanity. Today, what the Iranian nation does is for the sake of its interests and the interests of the Islamic Ummah and humanity. And undoubtedly, divine assistance is behind the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the people of Iran will be able to help not only themselves but also the Islamic Ummah to reach the peak of glory with their wisdom, with their firm determination and with the resistance that they have shown on this bright path, the path that they will continue following in the future as well. The way to reach this glory is to preserve this wisdom. The way to do this is to preserve our unity. The way to do this is for the officials to safeguard the interests of the country. This improper conduct which is witnessed in certain areas from certain government officials - they should end this. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, I will address this issue in the future and I will speak to the people. Our nation is unified, determined and active. Even if there are differences of opinion between the people over different issues, all the officials and all the people join hands against the enemy, global arrogance and those who have prepared themselves to destroy the roots of the people and the Islamic Republic. There is no disagreement among the people over this issue.
By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, on the 22nd of Bahman the people will show, once more, that they are present on the scene, that they are prepared, that they are united, that they are moving in the same direction. And undoubtedly, divine blessings will be bestowed on them.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1741&Itemid=4
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech to Air Force Commanders and Personnel
07/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 7, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with commanders and personnel of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. The meeting was held on the occasion of the historic pledge of allegiance of Air Force officers to Imam Khomeini (r.a.) on the 19th of Bahman of 1357.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I am very happy to meet you - once more at our annual meeting - brothers and dear youth from the glorious Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. I welcome all of you. As for the song which was performed, the lyrics were good, the melody was good, the content was good and it was performed well. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, our hearts will always be imbued with the scent of mercy and divine guidance which is the most important source of support.
If we take a look at the history of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army over the past years, we will discover a number of important facts. There was one day when we could not and were not allowed to fix the plane parts that we had bought. Today, you build training planes, fighters and flight simulators. You carry out a lot of important radar-related work and you produce complex components. This great movement towards blossoming of talents, love, innovation, self-confidence and self-sufficiency - which has been established in the Air Force, in the entire Islamic Republic of Iran Army, in the Armed Forces and throughout the country - is such a movement that cannot be denied even by the opponents and the enemies of the Islamic Republic.
Dominant powers tried to take control of all nations and countries throughout the world by using force, money and weapons and by launching military attacks. They tried to make nations believe that they cannot find the path towards greatness, identity and independence without relying on superpowers and on those who have money and power - Zionist and non-Zionist companies have lined up behind them. You shattered their hopes.
Compare the Iranian nation, today, with nations who have been under the domination of American power. See where you are and where they are. With their movement, independence, self-confidence and reliance on God, the Iranian people proved that one can and should stand up against the domination of foreigners and those who seek domination. The Iranian nation has proved this. Thirty years ago, what was the position of the Iranian nation in science, civilization, progress, technology and political influence? What position does it enjoy today? It achieved such a position by putting up a resistance, relying on God and bringing all its capacities into the arena. This is an experience for both the Iranian nation and future generations. It is also an experience for other nations. The Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army is one of the examples of this resistance and this movement which has been based on self-confidence. We should continue this. We Iranian people should continue this path. This path is full of blessings.
For more than thirty years, the enemies of the Iranian nation have done everything in their power to harm the Iranian nation. There is not a thing which they have not used against the Iranian nation. They provoked conflicts, waged wars, supported the enemy of the Islamic Republic with all their power and they waged hard and soft wars. They fought the people of Iran as hard as they could, but our people stood up against them and they resisted. Not only could they not bring our people to their knees and destroy them, but they also failed to prevent them from making progress. Our nation has made progress. They made use of everything they could. They hatched plots, launched coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'états, provoked military conflicts, shot down passenger airliners, imposed heavy sanctions and increased them on a daily basis. They did these things in the hope that our people would lose their hope, disappear from the scene and lose their trust in Islam and the Islamic Republic. But they failed. This is the record of the Islamic Republic.
These days, referred to as ten-day Fajr celebrations, are good opportunities for our intellectuals, our youth and all the people of Iran to spend some time evaluating their actions during the past thirty-something years and see their achievements, see their successful efforts, see the divine assistance and see the weakness of the enemies\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' plots. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And they (the unbelievers) planned, and Allah planned, and Allah is the best of planners\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 54]. This is the general guideline for us, to see how we should choose our future path. You the people in the Air Force should move forward according to this outlook and orientation. Different sectors of the country, all the people and the officials of the country should move forward according to this outlook.
Of course, the enemy inflicts harm, but it cannot do anything except for causing slight annoyance. I mentioned a few days ago that Allah the Exalted said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 111]. Their job is to harm you. But, they cannot create obstacles for you and block your path. Over the past 30 years, the Americans have been ranting and raving against the Iranian nation. They said and did whatever they could. They broadcast negative propaganda and they established an evil media empire against the Iranian nation. But the result is this: today, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the Iranian nation has become happier, more determined and more active than ever and it is witnessing more blossoming in different areas.
They have been trying to separate the people from the Islamic Republic and the Revolution. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the Iranian people frustrate the enemy with their presence in the national and revolutionary rallies. They are trying to separate the people from one another. The previous inexperienced American secretary of state said openly that they are imposing sanctions in order to pit the people of Iran against the Islamic Republic. The people of Iran have always responded to such statements through their rallies and their actions. You will see that on the 22nd of Bahman, the Iranian people will, once more, frustrate their efforts with a crushing move [Audience shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
The good thing is that the people are wise and vigilant. They know the purpose of the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plot, they predict the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s moves, they understand why the enemy has adopted a certain policy and they move in the opposite direction. They rely on their own achievements and they will show their presence in this great arena of national dignity. They will show themselves and they will prove their presence. This is the good thing. In the face of the negative propaganda by the enemy - particularly, the Americans and the Zionists - the people do not take the wrong path because of their communal wisdom and they do not make the mistake which the enemy is waiting for. This is the good thing about large-scale issues of our country.
Now the Americans have raised the issue of negotiations again. They repeat that America is prepared to directly negotiate with Iran. This is not new. The Americans have repeatedly raised the issue of negotiations at every juncture. Now their newly appointed politicians repeat that we should negotiate. And they say that the ball is in Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s court. The ball is in your court. It is you who should explain the meaning of negotiations that are accompanied by pressure and threats. Negotiations are for the sake of proving one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s goodwill. You commit tens of acts which show lack of goodwill and then you speak about negotiations. Do you expect the Iranian nation to believe that you have goodwill? Of course, we understand why the Americans repeatedly raise the issue of negotiations and why they speak about it in different ways. We know what the reason is. As the Americans themselves say, their Middle East policies have failed. They need to play their trump card. Their trump card is dragging the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is based on the people, to the negotiating table. They need this. They want to say to the world that they have goodwill. No, we do not see any goodwill.
Four years ago - during the early days of the current American administration - when they were saying the same words, I announced that we will not prejudge and we will wait to see what action they will take and then we will judge. Now after four years, how should the Iranian nation judge their actions? They supported the fitna in Iran, they helped those who started the fitna, they sent their troops to Afghanistan under the claim that they were fighting terrorism, they trampled on so many people and they destroyed them. They are also supporting and cooperating with the same terrorists in Syria and they used the same terrorists wherever they could in Iran. Their agents, their allies and Zionist spies openly killed the scientists of the Islamic Republic. They did not even condemn these terrorist activities. [On the contrary] They supported them. This is their record. They imposed sanctions - which they wanted to be crippling - on the Iranian nation. They openly said, crippling. Who do you want to cripple? Did you want to cripple the Iranian nation? Do you have goodwill?
Negotiations are meaningful when the two sides negotiate with good intentions and without planning to deceive one another. Negotiations should be on equal terms. Negotiations for the sake of negotiations, tactical negotiations and offer of negotiations as a superpower gesture, are deceptive moves. They are not honest moves.
I am not a diplomat. I am a revolutionary. I speak openly and honestly. A diplomat says something, but he actually means something else. We speak openly and honestly. We speak clearly and decisively. Negotiations are meaningful when the two sides show their good intentions. [Negotiations are not meaningful] when one side does not show his good intentions. You yourselves refer to this as pressures and negotiations. These two things are not compatible. You want to point the gun at the people of Iran and say, negotiate or we will shoot. You say these things to intimidate the Iranian nation. You should know that the Iranian nation is not intimidated by these things [Audience shout \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
A number of people become happy about the American offer of negotiations and they say, come and negotiate with us. This is expressed by a number of people who are either simple-minded or who have some ulterior motives. One cannot make definitive judgments about people. But what a simple-minded person does is no different, in essence, from what a person who has ulterior motives does. Negotiations with America will not solve any problems. When did they keep their promises? Over the past 60 years, since the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad of 1332 until today, the officials of our country have been harmed whenever they trusted the Americans. One day Mosaddeq trusted the Americans, relied on them and considered them as his friends. Then the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad occurred and the Americans found the opportunity to launch a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. The agent responsible for launching the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état came to Tehran with a briefcase full of money and he divided it among thugs and vandals so that they launch the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. The agent was American. They admitted what the purpose of their plot was. After that, they helped the oppressive Pahlavi regime achieve domination over our country. They established SAVAK and chained and tortured political activists. These are the things they did at that time.
During a certain period after the Revolution, the officials of the country trusted them. But the politicians of the American government labeled Iran as \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"axis of evil\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". It is you who are the embodiment of evil. It is you who are doing evil deeds in the world. You wage wars, loot nations and support the Zionist regime. On the issue of Islamic Awakening, you suppress the nations who have risen in revolt as much as you can and you weaken them and pit them against one another. You are evil. Evil is part of your character. They accused the Iranian nation of doing evil acts. This is a big insult. Whenever people trusted them, they made such moves. They should show their good intentions. Negotiations and offer of negotiations are not compatible with pressures. Negotiations and pressures are two different paths. It is not possible for the Iranian nation to accept negotiations under pressures and threats, with those who make threats. What should we negotiate for?
Today, the Iranian nation is vigilant. The true face of America has been revealed not only in Iran, but also in the region. Nations distrust America and there are many reasons for this distrust. The Iranian nation has also accurately read the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' moves. It understands what their purpose is. Our nation is vigilant. Today, if certain people want to help America re-establish its domination and act against our national interests, against the progress of the country and against the path of independence, they will be held responsible by the people and even if I act against this public demand, the people will complain. It is obvious. All the officials are responsible for safeguarding national interests and preserving national independence. They should preserve the dignity of the Iranian nation.
We have negotiated, signed contracts and established relations with countries which have not plotted against Iran. The Iranian nation is peace-loving. The Iranian nation is patient. The unity of the Iranian nation is in line with promoting the interests of humanity. Today, what the Iranian nation does is for the sake of its interests and the interests of the Islamic Ummah and humanity. And undoubtedly, divine assistance is behind the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the people of Iran will be able to help not only themselves but also the Islamic Ummah to reach the peak of glory with their wisdom, with their firm determination and with the resistance that they have shown on this bright path, the path that they will continue following in the future as well. The way to reach this glory is to preserve this wisdom. The way to do this is to preserve our unity. The way to do this is for the officials to safeguard the interests of the country. This improper conduct which is witnessed in certain areas from certain government officials - they should end this. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, I will address this issue in the future and I will speak to the people. Our nation is unified, determined and active. Even if there are differences of opinion between the people over different issues, all the officials and all the people join hands against the enemy, global arrogance and those who have prepared themselves to destroy the roots of the people and the Islamic Republic. There is no disagreement among the people over this issue.
By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, on the 22nd of Bahman the people will show, once more, that they are present on the scene, that they are prepared, that they are united, that they are moving in the same direction. And undoubtedly, divine blessings will be bestowed on them.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1741&Itemid=4
53:59
|
[۱۳۹۱/۱۱/۲۸] دیدار مردم آذربایجان شرقی با رهبر انقلاب - Azerbaijan - Farsi
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has called for the destruction of nuclear weapons across the world, saying Iran never plans to build such arms.
\\\\\\\"We...
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has called for the destruction of nuclear weapons across the world, saying Iran never plans to build such arms.
\\\\\\\"We believe that nuclear weapons must be obliterated, and we do not intend to make nuclear weapons, but if we had not had this belief and had decided to possess nuclear weapons, no power could have prevented us,\\\\\\\" Ayatollah Khamenei said in an address to thousands of clerics, officials and people of the northwestern Iranian city of Tabriz on Saturday.
The US, the Israeli regime and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of seeking to produce an atomic bomb under the cover of its nuclear energy program, a claim Iran has categorically rejected.
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2012, US President Barack Obama said, \\\\\\\"A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,\\\\\\\" adding \\\\\\\"The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.\\\\\\\"
Reflecting on the US offer of direct talks with Iran, the Leader said Washington is using the media network which is under the influence of the Zionists and the Americans, to deceive the public opinion in the world, region and Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei added that the global media network either does not reflect the truth about Iran, or distorts the truth.
The Leader stated that Washington proposes negotiations \\\\\\\"to show to the Muslim and proud nations of the region that despite all its tenacity and steadfastness, the Islamic Republic of Iran has finally come to the negotiating table; therefore you have no other choice but to surrender as well.\\\\\\\"
Ayatollah Khamenei said from the Western point of view, the real meaning of negotiation is to accept what they say, adding that they want to negotiate with Iran to make it give up its nuclear program while \\\\\\\"they need to hear our reasoning if they are after logical talks.\\\\\\\"
The Leader noted that the US claim that it would lift sanctions on Iran if the country comes to the negotiating table was a \\\\\\\"false promise.\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\"In fact, this promise is one of [the United States] deceitful remarks, which shows that they are not after real and fair negotiations, but seek the surrender of the Iranian nation,\\\\\\\" the Leader added.
On February 2, US Vice President Joe Biden said his country was ready to hold direct talks with Iran over its nuclear energy program.
Only four days later, the US government imposed new sanctions on Iran\\\\\\\'s energy sector. The sanctions aim to prevent Iran from gaining access to crude export revenues.
The Leader also criticized Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a recent row during the impeachment of the labor minister.
Ayatollah Khamenei said that leveling accusations by the head of one branch of the government against the other two, the legislative and judicial branches, over an \\\\\\\"unsubstantiated document\\\\\\\" is unlawful and in violation of the rights of the Iranian nation.
On February 3, Iran\\\\\\\'s Majlis voted to dismiss Labor and Social Affairs Minister Abdolreza Sheikholeslami over his failure to remove Saeed Mortazavi from his post as the head of the Social Security Organization.
During Sheikholeslami\\\\\\\'s open impeachment session, Iran\\\\\\\'s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad played a tape showing a meeting between Mortazavi and Fazel Larijani, the brother of the Majlis speaker.
The video purportedly showed Fazel Larijani attempting to use his family\\\\\\\'s political status for financial gain. Fazel Larijani has declared that he would file a lawsuit against Mortazavi and President Ahmadinejad for what he called an intrusion of privacy.
The leader also criticized the Majlis speaker for overreacting to the accusations pressed by the president.
Ayatollah Khamenei also said the very idea of impeachment at Majlis for a reason that did not relate to the minister was wrong.
The Leader stated that Iranian officials must work to set aside differences and resolve domestic problems.
The Leader further pointed to the Iranian nation\\\\\\\'s high turnout in the rallies held across the country to mark the 34th anniversary of the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and said economic problems did not lead to a separation between the people and the Islamic establishment.
More...
Description:
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has called for the destruction of nuclear weapons across the world, saying Iran never plans to build such arms.
\\\\\\\"We believe that nuclear weapons must be obliterated, and we do not intend to make nuclear weapons, but if we had not had this belief and had decided to possess nuclear weapons, no power could have prevented us,\\\\\\\" Ayatollah Khamenei said in an address to thousands of clerics, officials and people of the northwestern Iranian city of Tabriz on Saturday.
The US, the Israeli regime and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of seeking to produce an atomic bomb under the cover of its nuclear energy program, a claim Iran has categorically rejected.
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2012, US President Barack Obama said, \\\\\\\"A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,\\\\\\\" adding \\\\\\\"The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.\\\\\\\"
Reflecting on the US offer of direct talks with Iran, the Leader said Washington is using the media network which is under the influence of the Zionists and the Americans, to deceive the public opinion in the world, region and Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei added that the global media network either does not reflect the truth about Iran, or distorts the truth.
The Leader stated that Washington proposes negotiations \\\\\\\"to show to the Muslim and proud nations of the region that despite all its tenacity and steadfastness, the Islamic Republic of Iran has finally come to the negotiating table; therefore you have no other choice but to surrender as well.\\\\\\\"
Ayatollah Khamenei said from the Western point of view, the real meaning of negotiation is to accept what they say, adding that they want to negotiate with Iran to make it give up its nuclear program while \\\\\\\"they need to hear our reasoning if they are after logical talks.\\\\\\\"
The Leader noted that the US claim that it would lift sanctions on Iran if the country comes to the negotiating table was a \\\\\\\"false promise.\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\"In fact, this promise is one of [the United States] deceitful remarks, which shows that they are not after real and fair negotiations, but seek the surrender of the Iranian nation,\\\\\\\" the Leader added.
On February 2, US Vice President Joe Biden said his country was ready to hold direct talks with Iran over its nuclear energy program.
Only four days later, the US government imposed new sanctions on Iran\\\\\\\'s energy sector. The sanctions aim to prevent Iran from gaining access to crude export revenues.
The Leader also criticized Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a recent row during the impeachment of the labor minister.
Ayatollah Khamenei said that leveling accusations by the head of one branch of the government against the other two, the legislative and judicial branches, over an \\\\\\\"unsubstantiated document\\\\\\\" is unlawful and in violation of the rights of the Iranian nation.
On February 3, Iran\\\\\\\'s Majlis voted to dismiss Labor and Social Affairs Minister Abdolreza Sheikholeslami over his failure to remove Saeed Mortazavi from his post as the head of the Social Security Organization.
During Sheikholeslami\\\\\\\'s open impeachment session, Iran\\\\\\\'s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad played a tape showing a meeting between Mortazavi and Fazel Larijani, the brother of the Majlis speaker.
The video purportedly showed Fazel Larijani attempting to use his family\\\\\\\'s political status for financial gain. Fazel Larijani has declared that he would file a lawsuit against Mortazavi and President Ahmadinejad for what he called an intrusion of privacy.
The leader also criticized the Majlis speaker for overreacting to the accusations pressed by the president.
Ayatollah Khamenei also said the very idea of impeachment at Majlis for a reason that did not relate to the minister was wrong.
The Leader stated that Iranian officials must work to set aside differences and resolve domestic problems.
The Leader further pointed to the Iranian nation\\\\\\\'s high turnout in the rallies held across the country to mark the 34th anniversary of the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and said economic problems did not lead to a separation between the people and the Islamic establishment.
3:26
|
2:36
|
3:21
|
[28 May 13] US-engineered sanctions against Iran illegal: Hassan Roahni - English
Presidential candidate Hassan Rohani says the US-engineered sanctions against Iran are illegal, because the West acknowledged the peaceful nature of Iran\\\'s nuclear energy program almost nine...
Presidential candidate Hassan Rohani says the US-engineered sanctions against Iran are illegal, because the West acknowledged the peaceful nature of Iran\\\'s nuclear energy program almost nine years ago.
In a televised speech on Monday, Rohani said \\\"the Board of Governors [of the International Atomic Energy Agency] unanimously confirmed the peaceful nature of Iran\\\'s nuclear energy program in November 2004.\\\"
\\\"We did not allow the nuclear dossier to be referred to the Security Council. In the course of one year, we proved the peaceful nature of our nuclear energy program,\\\" the presidential candidate stated.
Rohani said that from October 2003 to August 2005 -- his term as Iran\\\'s top nuclear negotiator -- the country\\\'s policy, under the supervision of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, was to repel threats and \\\"to convert them to opportunities\\\" in order to disprove Western allegations that Iran is pursuing military objectives in its nuclear energy program, and to foil Washington\\\'s plots against the Islamic Republic.
\\\"The US wanted to say that Iran is after a [nuclear] bomb. We wanted to prove that the US was lying. Iran was not pursuing a bomb, nor is it today or will it be tomorrow, because the Leader has said it is a grave sin,\\\" the director of the Strategic Research Center of the Expediency Council said.
The United States, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program and have used the unfounded accusation as a pretext to impose illegal sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Iran rejects the allegations, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran\\\'s nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence showing that Iran\\\'s civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.
In Iran\\\'s June 14 presidential election, Rohani will be competing against Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili, MP Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Expediency Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei, former First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Aref, Tehran Mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, former Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Velayati, and former Telecommunications Minister Mohammad Gharazi.
The president of Iran is elected for a four-year term in a national election, and the Guardian Council vets the candidates.
More...
Description:
Presidential candidate Hassan Rohani says the US-engineered sanctions against Iran are illegal, because the West acknowledged the peaceful nature of Iran\\\'s nuclear energy program almost nine years ago.
In a televised speech on Monday, Rohani said \\\"the Board of Governors [of the International Atomic Energy Agency] unanimously confirmed the peaceful nature of Iran\\\'s nuclear energy program in November 2004.\\\"
\\\"We did not allow the nuclear dossier to be referred to the Security Council. In the course of one year, we proved the peaceful nature of our nuclear energy program,\\\" the presidential candidate stated.
Rohani said that from October 2003 to August 2005 -- his term as Iran\\\'s top nuclear negotiator -- the country\\\'s policy, under the supervision of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, was to repel threats and \\\"to convert them to opportunities\\\" in order to disprove Western allegations that Iran is pursuing military objectives in its nuclear energy program, and to foil Washington\\\'s plots against the Islamic Republic.
\\\"The US wanted to say that Iran is after a [nuclear] bomb. We wanted to prove that the US was lying. Iran was not pursuing a bomb, nor is it today or will it be tomorrow, because the Leader has said it is a grave sin,\\\" the director of the Strategic Research Center of the Expediency Council said.
The United States, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program and have used the unfounded accusation as a pretext to impose illegal sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Iran rejects the allegations, arguing that as a committed signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran\\\'s nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence showing that Iran\\\'s civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.
In Iran\\\'s June 14 presidential election, Rohani will be competing against Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili, MP Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Expediency Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei, former First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Aref, Tehran Mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, former Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Velayati, and former Telecommunications Minister Mohammad Gharazi.
The president of Iran is elected for a four-year term in a national election, and the Guardian Council vets the candidates.
2:45
|
[29 May 13] Tunisians support Syria, denounce foreign interference - English
Tunisia\'s Popular Committee to Support Syria has demonstrated in the capital city Tunis and called on the government to reconsider its position concerning the Syrian crisis
Politicians and...
Tunisia\'s Popular Committee to Support Syria has demonstrated in the capital city Tunis and called on the government to reconsider its position concerning the Syrian crisis
Politicians and students as well as human rights activists gathered in front of the foreign affairs Ministry. They demanded the resumption of diplomatic ties between Syria and Tunisia and the return of the Syria\'s ambassador to their country/
Families of young men who have joined the War on Syria denounced the recruitment of their sons by International armed groups
The demonstrators accused foreign countries of interfering in Syria\'s internal affairs
More...
Description:
Tunisia\'s Popular Committee to Support Syria has demonstrated in the capital city Tunis and called on the government to reconsider its position concerning the Syrian crisis
Politicians and students as well as human rights activists gathered in front of the foreign affairs Ministry. They demanded the resumption of diplomatic ties between Syria and Tunisia and the return of the Syria\'s ambassador to their country/
Families of young men who have joined the War on Syria denounced the recruitment of their sons by International armed groups
The demonstrators accused foreign countries of interfering in Syria\'s internal affairs
24:42
|
Vali Amr Muslimeen attends Graduation Ceremony at Imam Hossein (a.s.) University - Farsi
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei says American officials will once again fail in their attempts to discourage public participation in Iran\\\\\\\'s upcoming elections....
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei says American officials will once again fail in their attempts to discourage public participation in Iran\\\\\\\'s upcoming elections.
The Leader made the remarks in a meeting with the students of Imam Hussein University on Monday 27th May 2013.
Ayatollah Khamenei advised Iranians to carefully consider the words of the candidates in order to choose the most competent one.
\\\\\\\"The people should choose a candidate who can pave the way for the glory of the future of the Revolution and the country and [who] can solve the problems [of the country] and resist against enemies and can turn the Islamic Republic into a role model for the oppressed of the world.\\\\\\\"
The Leader made the remark after US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday called into question the credibility of Iran\\\\\\\'s presidential election, criticizing the disapproving of candidates by the Guardian Council- Iran\\\\\\\'s top constitutional supervisory body.
Kerry also accused the Guardian Council of choosing candidates that represent the interests of the Iranian establishment.
Those who express opinions about Iran\\\\\\\'s election are the same people whose Guantanamo Prison, drones over the impoverished villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan, warmongering policies in the region and unconditional support for the criminal Zionist regime are a source of shame and a mark of stain, Ayatollah Khamenei said.
\\\\\\\"We do not know who will become president and to whom God will incline the hearts of people,\\\\\\\" the Leader stated.
Ayatollah Khamenei said electing the highest-ranking executive official of the country is a sensitive and important task for which there are legal procedures to be followed accordingly.
The Leader said the election atmosphere must be lively and that debates must be free from hatemongering.
Iranians will go to the polls in the nation\\\\\\\'s 11th presidential election on June 14.
More...
Description:
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei says American officials will once again fail in their attempts to discourage public participation in Iran\\\\\\\'s upcoming elections.
The Leader made the remarks in a meeting with the students of Imam Hussein University on Monday 27th May 2013.
Ayatollah Khamenei advised Iranians to carefully consider the words of the candidates in order to choose the most competent one.
\\\\\\\"The people should choose a candidate who can pave the way for the glory of the future of the Revolution and the country and [who] can solve the problems [of the country] and resist against enemies and can turn the Islamic Republic into a role model for the oppressed of the world.\\\\\\\"
The Leader made the remark after US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday called into question the credibility of Iran\\\\\\\'s presidential election, criticizing the disapproving of candidates by the Guardian Council- Iran\\\\\\\'s top constitutional supervisory body.
Kerry also accused the Guardian Council of choosing candidates that represent the interests of the Iranian establishment.
Those who express opinions about Iran\\\\\\\'s election are the same people whose Guantanamo Prison, drones over the impoverished villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan, warmongering policies in the region and unconditional support for the criminal Zionist regime are a source of shame and a mark of stain, Ayatollah Khamenei said.
\\\\\\\"We do not know who will become president and to whom God will incline the hearts of people,\\\\\\\" the Leader stated.
Ayatollah Khamenei said electing the highest-ranking executive official of the country is a sensitive and important task for which there are legal procedures to be followed accordingly.
The Leader said the election atmosphere must be lively and that debates must be free from hatemongering.
Iranians will go to the polls in the nation\\\\\\\'s 11th presidential election on June 14.
33:34
|
[English Translation] Interview Bashar Al-Asad - President Syria on current situation - 30 May 2013
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
More...
Description:
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
34:40
|
[Arabic] لقاء خاص مع الرئيس بشار الأسد - Bashar Asad Interview - 30 May 2013
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
More...
Description:
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
3:13
|
[03 June 13] CIA spy attacks targeting Iran elections - English
Press TV has conducted an interview with Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veterans Today, Ohio, about Iran uncovering a US espionage network, arresting 24 people accused of spying and identifying 42...
Press TV has conducted an interview with Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veterans Today, Ohio, about Iran uncovering a US espionage network, arresting 24 people accused of spying and identifying 42 CIA operatives linked to the operation.
More...
Description:
Press TV has conducted an interview with Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veterans Today, Ohio, about Iran uncovering a US espionage network, arresting 24 people accused of spying and identifying 42 CIA operatives linked to the operation.
3:22
|
[02 July 13] Hezbollah accuses Future Movement of inciting violence - English
Hezbollah\'s Deputy Chief, Sheikh Na\'eem Qassem, has accused the U.S.-backed Future Bloc of providing political support for perpetrators behind the unrest in Lebanon\'s Southern city of Sidon last...
Hezbollah\'s Deputy Chief, Sheikh Na\'eem Qassem, has accused the U.S.-backed Future Bloc of providing political support for perpetrators behind the unrest in Lebanon\'s Southern city of Sidon last week.
The skirmishes provoked by hard-line militants loyal to controversial Salafist cleric - Ahmad Al-Asir - last Monday, led to the death of several Lebanese soldiers and the injury of scores others.
The premature attempt to ignite a sectarian strife by salafists and their cleric Ahmad Al-Asir in Lebanon is believed to have been the result of the Syrian government\'s gaining ground on the battlefield against militants.
Altaf Ahmad, Press TV, Sidon
More...
Description:
Hezbollah\'s Deputy Chief, Sheikh Na\'eem Qassem, has accused the U.S.-backed Future Bloc of providing political support for perpetrators behind the unrest in Lebanon\'s Southern city of Sidon last week.
The skirmishes provoked by hard-line militants loyal to controversial Salafist cleric - Ahmad Al-Asir - last Monday, led to the death of several Lebanese soldiers and the injury of scores others.
The premature attempt to ignite a sectarian strife by salafists and their cleric Ahmad Al-Asir in Lebanon is believed to have been the result of the Syrian government\'s gaining ground on the battlefield against militants.
Altaf Ahmad, Press TV, Sidon
2:52
|
[11 July 13] crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood continues in Egypt - English
Egypt\'s General Prosecutor has ordered the arrest of the Muslim Brotherhood\'s Supreme Guide, Mohamed Badie alongside with 12 senior officials from the movement.
Badie alongside with his...
Egypt\'s General Prosecutor has ordered the arrest of the Muslim Brotherhood\'s Supreme Guide, Mohamed Badie alongside with 12 senior officials from the movement.
Badie alongside with his deputy Mahmoud Ezzat and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders are accused of instigating violence among their followers in the lead-up to Monday\'s deadly events in Cairo where over 80 supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi were killed during clashes with the army.
Interim Prime Minister Hazem El-Beblawi has said that he is currently in engaged in consultations with other officials to form a consensus government. Beblawi added that positions will be offered to the Muslim Brotherhood, in what could be seen as a reconciliation attempt.
More...
Description:
Egypt\'s General Prosecutor has ordered the arrest of the Muslim Brotherhood\'s Supreme Guide, Mohamed Badie alongside with 12 senior officials from the movement.
Badie alongside with his deputy Mahmoud Ezzat and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders are accused of instigating violence among their followers in the lead-up to Monday\'s deadly events in Cairo where over 80 supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi were killed during clashes with the army.
Interim Prime Minister Hazem El-Beblawi has said that he is currently in engaged in consultations with other officials to form a consensus government. Beblawi added that positions will be offered to the Muslim Brotherhood, in what could be seen as a reconciliation attempt.
2:37
|
2:31
|
2:39
|
7:39
|
50:00
|
3:26
|
[22 Oct 2013] Qatari court upholds jail sentence for poet Mohammed al Ajami - English
In Qatar, a top court upholds a 15-year jail term for a poet who criticized Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf for crushing pro-democracy protests. Qatar\'s Court of Cassation confirmed the sentence...
In Qatar, a top court upholds a 15-year jail term for a poet who criticized Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf for crushing pro-democracy protests. Qatar\'s Court of Cassation confirmed the sentence given to Muhammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami by an appeals court in February. The ruling is the final verdict from the highest court in the country. His lawyer has described the sentence as a political decision. Ajami was arrested in November 2011 and is accused of insulting the Emir of Qatar. Ajami\'s poem criticizes the ruling families for being dependent on US forces for the glory of their country instead of relying on their own people. Qatar is home to a major US military base.
More...
Description:
In Qatar, a top court upholds a 15-year jail term for a poet who criticized Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf for crushing pro-democracy protests. Qatar\'s Court of Cassation confirmed the sentence given to Muhammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami by an appeals court in February. The ruling is the final verdict from the highest court in the country. His lawyer has described the sentence as a political decision. Ajami was arrested in November 2011 and is accused of insulting the Emir of Qatar. Ajami\'s poem criticizes the ruling families for being dependent on US forces for the glory of their country instead of relying on their own people. Qatar is home to a major US military base.
3:14
|
[23 Oct 2013] Bahraini regime forces kill 17 year old activist - English
Another Bahraini activist has fallen victim to the Al Khalifah regime\'s crackdown on dissent. This time, regime forces have shot and killed a 17-year-old. Viewer discretion is advised as the...
Another Bahraini activist has fallen victim to the Al Khalifah regime\'s crackdown on dissent. This time, regime forces have shot and killed a 17-year-old. Viewer discretion is advised as the footage you\'re about to see contains graphic images. Reports from the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom say Ali Khalil al-Sabbagh was shot in the head in Bani Jamrah today. He had previously been arrested by the regime. On its Twitter account, Bahrain\'s Interior Ministry accused Sabbagh of being a terrorist and claimed he was trying to plant a bomb. The Bahraini security forces have also arrested Sabbagh\'s father. After news of the teenager\'s death broke, Bahrainis took to the streets across the island and held demonstrations.
More...
Description:
Another Bahraini activist has fallen victim to the Al Khalifah regime\'s crackdown on dissent. This time, regime forces have shot and killed a 17-year-old. Viewer discretion is advised as the footage you\'re about to see contains graphic images. Reports from the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom say Ali Khalil al-Sabbagh was shot in the head in Bani Jamrah today. He had previously been arrested by the regime. On its Twitter account, Bahrain\'s Interior Ministry accused Sabbagh of being a terrorist and claimed he was trying to plant a bomb. The Bahraini security forces have also arrested Sabbagh\'s father. After news of the teenager\'s death broke, Bahrainis took to the streets across the island and held demonstrations.
0:43
|
[24 Oct 2013] Tehran slams UN rights rapporteur report as politicized, biased - English
Iran\'s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman has condemned a report by the UN special Human Rights Rapporteur on the country\'s rights situation as politicized and biased.
Marzieh Afkham said such...
Iran\'s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman has condemned a report by the UN special Human Rights Rapporteur on the country\'s rights situation as politicized and biased.
Marzieh Afkham said such reports should not be used as a criterion to judge the human rights situation in Iran. Afkham was reacting to the latest report by the UN Rapporteur Ahmad Shahid which accused Tehran of failing to make significant improvements on the human rights front. The Iranian foreign ministry spokeswoman said the report lacks legitimacy, as it is based on information provided by terrorist groups. Afkham also described Iran as the anchor of stability and religious democracy in a region which suffers from extremism and terrorism.
More...
Description:
Iran\'s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman has condemned a report by the UN special Human Rights Rapporteur on the country\'s rights situation as politicized and biased.
Marzieh Afkham said such reports should not be used as a criterion to judge the human rights situation in Iran. Afkham was reacting to the latest report by the UN Rapporteur Ahmad Shahid which accused Tehran of failing to make significant improvements on the human rights front. The Iranian foreign ministry spokeswoman said the report lacks legitimacy, as it is based on information provided by terrorist groups. Afkham also described Iran as the anchor of stability and religious democracy in a region which suffers from extremism and terrorism.
0:52
|
[28 Oct 2013] Beijing sent 4 coastguard vessels to the disputed islands in the East China Sea - English
A territorial dispute between China and Japan seems to be far from over. In the latest development, Beijing has sent four coastguard vessels to the disputed islands in the East China Sea.
The...
A territorial dispute between China and Japan seems to be far from over. In the latest development, Beijing has sent four coastguard vessels to the disputed islands in the East China Sea.
The move follows Beijing\'s mention of war after Tokyo approved a plan to shoot down Chinese drones if they fly over Japan\'s airspace. China has threatened to take firm countermeasures, if Japan fires on its drones. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has accused China of trying to change the status quo in the region by force, adding that\'s why Tokyo is expected to take a leadership role over regional security issues. The relations between the two Asian powerhouses have been strained particularly over a group of disputed islands-- known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Both countries claim sovereignty rights over the uninhabited resource-rich islands that are currently under Tokyo\'s control.
More...
Description:
A territorial dispute between China and Japan seems to be far from over. In the latest development, Beijing has sent four coastguard vessels to the disputed islands in the East China Sea.
The move follows Beijing\'s mention of war after Tokyo approved a plan to shoot down Chinese drones if they fly over Japan\'s airspace. China has threatened to take firm countermeasures, if Japan fires on its drones. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has accused China of trying to change the status quo in the region by force, adding that\'s why Tokyo is expected to take a leadership role over regional security issues. The relations between the two Asian powerhouses have been strained particularly over a group of disputed islands-- known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Both countries claim sovereignty rights over the uninhabited resource-rich islands that are currently under Tokyo\'s control.
4:47
|
[28 Oct 2013] Nasrallah: Saudi Arabia trying to prevent national dialogue in Syria - English
The Secretary General of Lebanon\\\\\\\'s Resistance Movement, Hezbollah has accused Saudi Arabia of sabotaging a political solution to the situation in Syria. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has...
The Secretary General of Lebanon\\\\\\\'s Resistance Movement, Hezbollah has accused Saudi Arabia of sabotaging a political solution to the situation in Syria. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has reiterated that there is no military solution in Syria.
More...
Description:
The Secretary General of Lebanon\\\\\\\'s Resistance Movement, Hezbollah has accused Saudi Arabia of sabotaging a political solution to the situation in Syria. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has reiterated that there is no military solution in Syria.