57:52
|
2:42
|
0:54
|
1:16
|
71:28
|
(Full Speech) Supreme Leader on demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (ra) - 4 June 2014 - [ENGLISH]
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech on 25th Demise Anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) Print
06/06/2014
Hotuba ya Kiongozi Muadhamu katika Maadhimisho ya Mwaka wa 25 wa Kufariki Dunia Imam...
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech on 25th Demise Anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) Print
06/06/2014
Hotuba ya Kiongozi Muadhamu katika Maadhimisho ya Mwaka wa 25 wa Kufariki Dunia Imam KhomeiniThe following is the full text of the speech delivered on June 4, 2014 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, on the occasion of the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The speech was delivered at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\'s shrine.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings upon our Master and Prophet, Muhammad, and upon his immaculate household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth.
\\\\\\\"Our Lord, forgive us and those of our brethren who had precedence of us in faith, and do not allow any spite to remain in our hearts towards those who believe. Our Lord, surely You are Kind, Merciful\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 59: 10]. \\\\\\\"Our Lord, surely You have given to Pharaoh and his chiefs finery and riches in this world\\\\\\\'s life. To this end, our Lord, that they lead people astray from Your way. Our Lord, destroy their riches and harden their hearts so that they believe not until they see the painful punishment\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 10: 88].
Allah the Omniscient said in His book: \\\\\\\"Have you not considered how Allah sets forth a parable of a good word being like a good tree, whose root is firm and whose branches are in heaven, yielding its fruit in every season by the permission of its Lord?\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 14: 24-25]
On this unforgettable and important day, I would like to divide my statements to you dear brothers and sisters into three parts. In the first part, I will speak about an important reality which exists about the Islamic Republic. Today, paying attention to this reality is very important. In the second part, I will provide a brief explanation of our magnanimous Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) permanent and eternal school of thought. Although we have said and heard many things about Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought, it is necessary to provide a brief explanation at this point in time. I will provide a short portrayal of all the things that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) created as a unique phenomenon in the contemporary world. The third part is about two important challenges which lie ahead of the people of Iran and the Islamic Republic. It is important for us to pay attention to these two challenges in order to move forward in the right way and on the right path.
As for the first part, the reality that I referred to is that 25 years have passed from the demise of our great Imam (r.a.), but people\\\\\\\'s enthusiasm and excitement to hear and know about him has not diminished. And this is not particular to our country. Rather, this reality exists in the world of Islam and even beyond that.
Not only in our country - where the third generation of the Revolution is growing and blossoming - but also in the entire world of Islam, the youth of the age of communications and Internet are after gaining more information about the issues of the Revolution, about the Islamic Republic and about the architect of this great structure. And these youth can easily familiarize themselves with the issues which occur far away from their own environment. The phenomenon of religious democracy and the theory of Wilayat-e Faqih are issues which are significant and attractive for the intellectual environments of the world of Islam.
From the first days, our enemies began making a comprehensive effort and the more we moved forward, the more comprehensive this effort became. They used hundreds and thousands of television, radio stations and Internet sites to abuse the Islamic Republic, its great founder and its supporters. Of course, this issue has been helpful to us because it has aroused the curiosity of listeners and viewers throughout the world.
These listeners and viewers want to know the reason behind all these enmities, hostilities and mudslinging. They want to know the nature of the truth which has been the target of these enmities. So, our enemies mentioned our names and they spoke about our Imam (r.a.) and our system with the purpose of showing their enmity, but \\\\\\\"...surely they will scheme, and I too will scheme\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 86: 15-16].
This is what Allah the Exalted says. They started this widespread movement with such an intention, but it eventually created an opportunity for us because the sense of curiosity of the listeners to these stations was aroused throughout the world. Islamic Awakening - in which anti-arrogant feelings were dominant more than any other phenomenon - in Islamic countries and our region is the sign of this curiosity and search for the truth and it continues to exist.
It is possible that western and American intelligence services report to their seniors that they have managed to suppress Islamic Awakening in our region. If they have such a notion, then this will be another strategic mistake and another wrong interpretation on the part of our enemies. Islamic Awakening might be suppressed for a while in part of the world of Islam, but it will undoubtedly not be uprooted. On the contrary, it will develop.
This understanding, this perception and this awareness in all countries and among Muslim youth in the region is not something that can be destroyed easily. Of course, they will make certain efforts in order to destroy it and these efforts may seem to be successful in some areas in the short run, but in the end, they will prove to be fruitless.
The curiosity that exists in today\\\\\\\'s young generation all over the world - particularly in the world of Islam - about the phenomenon of religious democracy is rooted in the fact that the Islamic Republic is a phenomenon from whose birth 35 years have passed. And during all these 35 years, it has faced the violent and hostile reactions of the dominant powers in the world. They showed military reactions, they showed propaganda reactions, they showed economic reactions - which began from the beginning of the Revolution and which have been reinforced on a daily basis - and they showed political reactions.
It is 35 years now that this powerful western camp has been doing whatever it could against the Islamic Republic. It has made military efforts, it has helped the aggressors who attacked our country, it has supported the enemies of the Islamic Republic in any area, it has used widespread propaganda and it has made perfect and unprecedented efforts in the area of sanctions and economic siege. But in the face of all these invasions and all these violent and unscrupulous hostilities, the Islamic Republic was not destroyed, it did not adopt a conservative outlook, it was not blackmailed by the west and it made progress on a daily basis. This is what forms the essence of this curiosity.
Despite the fact that the primary military, political and economic powers of the world joined hands against a country and a government and despite the fact that they made efforts for 35 years, not only was this government not destroyed, but it also became stronger on a daily basis. This government was not blackmailed by them and it did not pay any attention to them at all. The Islamic Republic showed its power and capability to survive in different arenas.
Today, when they look at the Islamic Republic, they see that the second and third generations of the Revolution in the country are comprised of several million students, several thousand knowledgeable clergy, several thousand researchers, several thousand university and seminary professors, thousands of scientific and intellectual personalities - some of whom are well-known on an international level - and thousands of activists and producers and thousands of political, cultural and economic personalities. This is the reality about our today\\\\\\\'s society.
In the arena of science and technology, the Islamic Republic launches satellites into space despite all sanctions. It sends living creatures into space and it brings them back. It produces nuclear energy. It is ranked among the first ten countries in the world in many new sciences. The centers in charge of releasing statistics have announced that the rate of scientific progress in the Islamic Republic is 13 times faster than the global average. It gives scientific and technological services to different countries. Despite unprecedented sanctions, it manages a 75-million-strong country. It has the final word on regional policies. It shows resistance against the usurping Zionist regime, which is supported by global bullies, and it does this on its own. It does not compromise with oppressors and it defends the oppressed.
Any well-informed individual becomes curious to know what this organism and phenomenon is and how it benefits from all these innate capabilities and this potential to survive despite all the enmities. This is the nature of this curiosity. This was about the issues related to scientific, technological and other such areas.
As for political and social issues, the higher aspect of this religious democracy is that we have had 32 elections during the 35 years from the beginning of our Revolution. Thirty two public elections have been held in this country. Is this a minor achievement? This is an exceptional phenomenon. Elections in the Islamic Republic are held with a high turnout - higher than the global average and in some cases, it is much higher. Our elections witness a turnout of 70, 72 percent. Our elections are like this. These elections are the manifestation of democracy.
Another exceptional example is the two phenomena which we people have gotten used to, but which are extraordinarily exciting and important for global inspectors and witnesses. These two phenomena are the 22nd of Bahman rallies and Quds Day Rallies in the month of Ramadan. During the past 35 years, the people have held the Revolution celebration each year with a great, exciting and glorious rally on the cold days of late Bahman. We have gotten used to this and we do not truly see the significance and greatness of this issue, but global witnesses see these things and they are very astonishing to them.
These are the factors behind the element which arouses people\\\\\\\'s curiosity and which presents a new path to the minds of enthusiastic, inquisitive and research-oriented individuals. This is the important reality of our time which can be described as the general curiosity of youth, intellectuals, well-informed personalities and analysts throughout the world of Islam about the phenomenon which has emerged and grown on a daily basis in Islamic Iran. This is the first issue.
This reality has been built by the hands of our great architect. We have said many things about Imam (r.a.). Perhaps some people think that we have spoken about Imam in an exaggerated way. But this is not the case. What we have said about our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) is neither exaggeration nor magnification of the truth. Rather, it is the truth. Our magnanimous and dear Imam (r.a.) was more complex and meaningful than what we managed to say and reflect about him.
What is available to the people of Iran and what is in front of the eyes of people throughout the world has been built by those powerful hands. We should know about the architect\\\\\\\'s plan in order to take the path in the right way. If developers and builders do not have access to a plan in order to build an ordinary building and if it is not clear what the main plan is, then they may make a mistake no matter how skilled they are. We should know the main plan so that we can use our expertise in building on the basis of this plan.
Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) plan was not one that could be designed by a human being. It was definitely God\\\\\\\'s work. Our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) himself knew and acknowledged this. He himself used to say, \\\\\\\"What has occurred is a handicraft of divine power\\\\\\\". He had understood this correctly and his insightful and vigilant eyes had seen this correctly.
We should be careful. We should know the plan so that we can continue the path. If we do not know the plan, we will deviate from the right path. And when we deviate, we will drift away from the main and the straight path on a daily basis. When we drift away from the straight path, we will drift away from goals and we will fail to reach them.
In order to reach the goals, we should take care not to lose the path and in order to avoid losing the path, we should have the main plan in front of our eyes. We should know and identify this plan. Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) plan and main task was to create a civil-political system on the basis of Islamic reason. The prerequisite for carrying out this task was to uproot the monarchic regime which was corrupt, dependent and dictatorial.
The monarchic regime had these three characteristics: it was corrupt - different moral, financial and other such corruptions. It was dependent on powers. One day, it was dependent on England and another day, it was dependent on America. It was prepared to abandon its own interests and the interests of the people for the sake of the interests of foreigners. And it was dictatorial and oppressive. For the monarchic regime, the people\\\\\\\'s votes and requests counted for nothing. Each of these characteristics forms a long chapter. Each of them forms a long book.
The prerequisite for the great task that Imam (r.a.) wanted to carry out was to uproot this corrupt, dependent and dictatorial regime. He focused his efforts on doing this and consequently, the regime was uprooted. In our country, the issue was not replacing a monarchic regime with another monarchic or semi-monarchic regime. The issue was uprooting the characteristics that the monarchic regime had and this was done by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) statements, guidelines and behavior were oriented towards this goal.
There are two fundamental points in building this civil-political system and these two points are interconnected. In one sense, these two points are two sides of the coin of truth. One is entrusting the affairs of the country to the people through democracy and elections and another is launching this movement - which originated from Islam - and any movement which originates from democracy and entrusting tasks to people, within the framework of Islamic sharia. These are two parts. In other words, these are two sides of the same truth.
Some people should not think that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) derived elections from the western culture and then mixed it with Islamic thoughts and Islamic sharia. This was not the case. If elections, democracy and reliance on the votes of people had not been part of religion and Islamic sharia, then Imam (r.a.) would have told us. If this had been the case, he would have announced it in an outspoken and decisive way. Democracy is part of religion. Therefore, Islamic sharia is the framework.
When passing and implementing laws, when assigning individuals different tasks and discharging them from their service and during all tasks that follow this political-civil system, Islamic sharia should be observed. All tasks in this system revolve around democracy. All the people elect the members of the Majlis and the president, they elect ministers indirectly, they elect the members of the Assembly of Experts and they elect the Leader indirectly. All tasks are in the hands of the people. This was the main base of our magnanimous Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) movement. The great structure that this great personality built was founded on these two bases.
Commitment to Islamic sharia is the soul and truth of the Islamic government. Everyone should pay attention to this issue. If Islamic sharia is completely observed in society, this will ensure both civil and individual freedom - the freedom of individuals - and collective freedom which is called independence. Independence means freedom of a people. It means that a people are not dependent on anyone and any place.
\\\\\\\"A free people\\\\\\\" means a people who are not under the influence and domination of their opponents, their enemies and foreigners in any way. If Islamic sharia is observed, it will ensure both justice and spirituality in society. These are the four main elements: freedom, independence, justice and spirituality. If Islamic sharia dominates society, these main phenomena in the order of Islamic society will show themselves. Therefore, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) stressed the necessity of Islamic sharia which is the soul of the Islamic Republic. He also stressed the necessity of religious democracy which is a means and a tool and which is derived from sharia.
According to Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought, any power and force which has come into being through deception and oppression is unacceptable. In the Islamic government, oppression and subjugation are meaningless. Power and authority are meaningful, but only the one that originates from people\\\\\\\'s free will and choice. The kind of power which originates from bullying, subjugation and weapons is meaningless from the viewpoint of Islam, Islamic sharia and Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought.
The kind of power which emerges on the basis of people\\\\\\\'s choice is respectable. No one should confront this power. No one should try to suppress and subjugate this power. If they do so, this is called fitna. This is the new prescription that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) introduced to the world. He added this important chapter to the political literature of the world. As we pointed out, one of the main elements in this new version is rushing to help the oppressed and confronting the oppressor. We should help the oppressed and in the present time, the concrete manifestation of being oppressed is the people of Palestine.
As you witnessed, from the first day until the end of his life, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) stressed the issue of Palestine. He supported the issue of Palestine and stated in his testament that the people of Iran and the officials of the country should not forget about this issue. Helping the oppressed, showing resistance against the oppressor, condemning his transgressions, rejecting his power and grandeur in an outspoken way and shattering this grandeur are among the parts of this system and this new version presented by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.).
This is a short summary, portrayal and description of the political order and the foundation that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) introduced to society after overthrowing the monarchic regime in the country. This matter was completely accepted by the people and it was put into practice. Unlike many political slogans, this matter was not confined to books. Rather, it was realized, put into practice and reflected in reality. And the people of Iran showed their determination, loyalty and self-sacrifice by preserving this matter and strengthening it on a daily basis until today.
So, Imam (r.a.) succeeded. He achieved complete success in what he wanted to do. Will this great task continue? Will the empty boxes of this table - naturally, there are some empty boxes in social and historical tables - be filled in? This depends on how determined and aware you and I are and to what extent we observe and move in the direction of that clear line. It is completely possible to do this.
Considering the people that we see, considering the experience that they have gained and considering the successful and continuous movement that they have launched in the past 35 years - and in the past 25 years since Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) demise - it is possible to continue this path. The empty boxes will be filled in, great feats will be accomplished and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, our people will reach the peaks.
Like all the important paths which have been delineated for reaching great goals, this path involves certain challenges and obstacles. We should identify these obstacles so that we can pass through them. If we do not identify obstacles, overcoming them will be either difficult or impossible. I am saying these things to you honorable participants of this great and magnificent meeting and, in fact, to the people of Iran who will hear these statements. But it is our youth, our scholars and our intellectuals who should think about, work on and study each of these chapters and parts.
They should work on not only semi-intellectual and theoretical discussions but also on practical and functional discussions which reflect the truth. What we are saying is some chapters for carrying out intellectual tasks. By Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, these chapters will be followed up by our youth who are much better and prepared than we are.
I would like to refer to two challenges: one is an external challenge and another is an internal challenge. Our external challenge is the interferences of global arrogance. I would like to speak without any consideration. The external challenge is the interferences of America. They engage in mudslinging.
Although some of their thinkers say in their analyses that it is useless or impossible to confront this great movement, they engage in mudslinging.
We should know their plan. This is America\\\\\\\'s plan which has been revealed through their discussions, reports, statements and behavior: America divides all countries, orientations and people throughout the world into three groups: the first group is made up of the submissive including submissive countries, submissive political and social orientations and submissive individuals. The first group is comprised of these people. The second group is comprised of countries which are not submissive and which should be tolerated. From the viewpoint of America, a number of countries, personalities and orientations should be tolerated. They believe that they should define common interests with these countries and that they should get along with them somehow. Later on, I will explain this more. The third group is made up of disobedient countries, those which do not give in to America and which refuse to be blackmailed by it. The third group is comprised of these countries.
From the viewpoint of the Americans, no country, no political, social, civil and economic orientation and no individual in the world is out of these three groups. Everyone is either submissive and docile or independent - and you should get along with them - or disobedient, bold and courageous. One should behave in a different way towards the third group.
America\\\\\\\'s policy towards the first group is complete support. Of course, they do not provide this support for free. They support them, but they also milk them. In fact, they use their capabilities and resources to the advantage of their own interests and for safeguarding their own interests. The Americans ride roughshod over these people and they make them render all kinds of services to them. As I said, they milk them and they do not care at all.
Of course, if these people and countries behave in a way that is considered to be indecent according to global conventions, the Americans do not condemn it. On the contrary, they defend and justify it. For example, there are some dictatorial countries which are managed by biased, reactionary and completely dictatorial regimes, but they have friendly relations with the Americans. These countries give in to the Americans and they are prepared to serve and obey them. They are members of the first group.
When the Americans want to describe them, they do not refer to them as dictatorial countries. Rather, they say that they are patriarchal countries and thus they cover up their dictatorship. They say, \\\\\\\"They are not dictators. Rather, they are patriarchal countries\\\\\\\". What is the meaning of patriarchal in political systems? What does it mean? Is a patriarchal country a country in which there is no parliament, no elections, no power to speak freely, no freedom of speech and no freedom of expression? Is a patriarchal country a country in which the slightest disobedience to the wishes of the rulers is suppressed in a very serious and severe way?
In one part of his life, Saddam Hussein was one of these obedient and submissive individuals. In that stage of his life, they gave him all kinds of support and they rendered some services to him. They gave him chemical weapons and they provided him with the plans of our military movement which had been discovered via satellite. They gave him military plans because he was at their service and because he was against the disobedient Islamic Republic which was a member of the third group. So, these people represent the first group.
As I said, the second group is made up of the countries which America gets along with. The policy and plan of America is to get along with these countries. What does getting along mean? It means defining common interests and establishing friendly relations with someone. But when America has the opportunity, it will stab them in the back and tear their hearts open and it will not show any consideration for them.
Which countries represent the second group? European countries represent the second group. Today, European countries are in such conditions. America gets along with them, but this does not mean that it defends their interests. This is not the case. It will kick them as much as it can. For example, it spies - Internet espionage - on the number one in its allied country. It also spies on him by tapping his cell phone. The Americans even keep watch on his personal life and they have no scruples whatsoever. When it comes out, they say, \\\\\\\"Sorry, it happened because we had no choice\\\\\\\".
They are not even willing to apologize in a sincere way. My understanding of political issues tells me that the Europeans are making a great strategic mistake by serving America. They promote the interests of America, but America does not and will not do so and it will be the same until the end. This was about the second group.
The third group is made up of countries which do not give in to America. America\\\\\\\'s policy towards this group is to use each and every tool they find against these disobedient countries. They use any tool they find and they do not have any limits for that. If you see that there is a country which is disobedient to America and that America does not attack or impose sanctions on it, then you should know that there is a problem - that is to say, there is an obstacle in their way. To put it simply, they cannot do it. If they can, they will definitely do it.
The only crime that this disobedient country has committed is that it is not willing to give in to America, to be blackmailed by it and to let the interests of America have priority over its own interests. This is the definition of a disobedient country. In order to bring this country to its knees, the Americans do everything that they can. They do whatever is possible for them. If they do not do something, it is because they cannot.
Well, what are the things that the Americans do? Today, launching a military attack is not a priority from the viewpoint of the Americans. They have understood that they suffered a loss on the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan where they launched military attacks. They have understood that launching a military attack is as dangerous for the aggressor as it is for the defender and sometimes, it is even more dangerous for the aggressor. They have understood this correctly. Therefore, it can be said that they have changed their mind about launching a military attack.
They have other ways ahead of them. One of these ways is entrusting the task of furthering their goals in the target country - which is the target of their attacks - to the elements inside this country. The issue is not only about Islamic Iran and the Islamic Republic. They are doing these things all over the world and we are witnessing some instances of their effort in the present time.
Another way is launching a coup d\\\\\\\'état. They empower some people inside the target country so that they can launch a coup d\\\\\\\'état and overthrow those governments and political systems which do not give in to them. One of the ways that they use is this.
Another way is drawing part of the people to the streets. An example is the color revolutions which were carried out in each and every part of the region in recent years. Take the case of a government which comes to power in a country. After all, if the government that comes to power holds 60 percent of the votes, it means that 40 percent of the people did not vote for it. The Americans go to that 40 percent, choose certain elements and leaders among them and make them - either by bribing or by threatening them - draw that 40 percent or part of it to the streets. America\\\\\\\'s hands were behind the color revolutions - for example, such and such an orange revolution and other revolutions in different countries - that were carried out in recent years.
We do not make any judgment about the events which are taking place in an area in Europe. But when one takes a look, one sees what a role an American senator and official can play - by showing his presence - in the demonstrations of a minority against a country. They showed their presence in such areas. One of the measures that they adopt is that they draw part of the people to the streets and make them break the law, thereby overthrowing the government which they do not approve of and which is not blackmailed.
Another measure that they adopt is empowering and forming terrorist groups. They did this in Iraq, Afghanistan and some Arab countries in the region. They did it in our country as well. They form terrorist groups in order to kill well-known personalities. In our country, they struck and martyred scientists and experts on atomic energy. Before that too, they struck political, cultural, scientific and seminary personalities. These terrorists grew with the help of the Americans. Some of them were accepted into America by the Americans for the services that they rendered.
Today, munafeqeen are in America\\\\\\\'s arms. They take part in different meetings and commissions of the U.S. Congress. The same munafeqeen who killed people from different social backgrounds - including great personalities, ulama, scientists and political personalities - and who carried out explosions are with the Americans today. So, this is another way they use.
Another way is creating discord among decision-makers of countries. One of the measures that they adopt is this: they try to create a rift in the highest levels of the government and system that is not with them. They try to establish a dual government. Of course, they do not succeed in many countries. But unfortunately, they succeed in some areas. This is one of their ways.
Another way is that they discourage - with their propaganda - the hearts and minds of people from following their ideological and religious principles. They try such measures. The regime of the United States of America has done all these things to our dear and Islamic Iran and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, it has failed in all of them.
Launching military coups d\\\\\\\'état, supporting those who instigate fitna, drawing some people to the streets, confronting elections and creating rifts were some of the measures that they either adopted or tried to adopt and thankfully, they failed in all of them. Why did they fail? It was because the people were vigilant and religious. It is here that I want to speak about the second challenge which is the internal challenge.
Dear brothers and sisters, the internal challenge for our people is the risk of ignoring, forgetting about and losing the spirit and orientation of our magnanimous Imam (r.a). This is the greatest danger. The internal challenge is making a mistake in knowing our enemies and our friends and confusing the camp of our enemies and friends so much so that we do not know who our enemies and friends are.
Another mistake is failing to know our major and minor enemies. This is another danger. You dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Iran should pay attention that sometimes, someone shows enmity towards you. But if you pay careful attention, you will see that his enmity is not the main one. It is a function of another factor and another person. You should find the main enemy. Otherwise, if one confronts the lesser enemy, one\\\\\\\'s energy is sapped and the result will not be good.
Today, some people in different parts of the world of Islam - which go by the name of takfiri, Wahhabi and Salafi groups - are adopting bad and inappropriate measures against Iran, Shia Muslims and Shia Islam. But everyone should know that they are not the main enemies. They show enmity and they adopt foolish measures, but the main enemy is the person who provokes them, who gives them money and who motivates them with different means when their motivation is weakened to some extent.
The main enemy is the person who sows the seeds of rupture and discord between that foolish and ignorant group and the oppressed people of Iran. These measures are adopted by the hidden hands of intelligence and security services. That is why we have constantly said that we do not consider these foolish groups - who confront the Islamic Republic in the name of Salafism, takfiri and Islam - to be our main enemy.
We consider you to be the deceived. We have said to these people: \\\\\\\"If you stretch your hand against me to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against you to slay you: for I fear Allah, the Cherisher of the worlds\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 5: 28]. If you make a mistake and if you prepare yourself to kill your Muslim brothers, we do not consider you to be so important that we try to kill you.
Of course, we defend ourselves. Anyone who attacks us will face our firm fist. This is natural, but we believe that these people are not our main enemies. They have been deceived. The main enemy is the person who acts behind the scenes. The main enemy is the visible hand that comes out of the sleeve of intelligence services, that confronts Muslims and that pits them against one another.
This is our internal challenge: becoming busy with domestic differences - those which are trivial and unimportant. Such differences make us busy, pit us against one another, create tension and make us forget about the main issues and guidelines. This is one of the manifestations of the main challenge which was referred to. Losing national solidarity is one of our challenges. Suffering from laziness, lack of confidence, idleness, desperation and hopelessness and thinking that we cannot succeed and that we have not succeeded until today are among the internal challenges we should confront.
As Imam (r.a.) said, we can. We should show determination. National determination and jihadi management can untie all the knots. As we said, our dear youth, our outstanding personalities and our scholars should sit and study these issues. These are our main points. The auspicious name of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the remembrance of that great man and the plan of that great architect can help us in all these chapters. It can give us hope, enthusiasm and morale, as it has done this until today and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, it will continue to do this in the future.
Dear God, bestow your blessings on our dear people. Dear God, help our dear youth on the path of building an ideal Islamic structure. Dear God, protect us from deviations and digressions. Dear God, make the hands of the people of Iran stronger than the hands of their enemies. Help them achieve victory over their enemies. Make the holy heart of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake) kind to us. Help us benefit from the prayers of that great Imam (a.s.). Associate the pure souls of Imam (r.a.) and our dear martyrs with the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.).
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1921
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech on 25th Demise Anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) Print
06/06/2014
Hotuba ya Kiongozi Muadhamu katika Maadhimisho ya Mwaka wa 25 wa Kufariki Dunia Imam KhomeiniThe following is the full text of the speech delivered on June 4, 2014 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, on the occasion of the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The speech was delivered at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\'s shrine.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings upon our Master and Prophet, Muhammad, and upon his immaculate household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth.
\\\\\\\"Our Lord, forgive us and those of our brethren who had precedence of us in faith, and do not allow any spite to remain in our hearts towards those who believe. Our Lord, surely You are Kind, Merciful\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 59: 10]. \\\\\\\"Our Lord, surely You have given to Pharaoh and his chiefs finery and riches in this world\\\\\\\'s life. To this end, our Lord, that they lead people astray from Your way. Our Lord, destroy their riches and harden their hearts so that they believe not until they see the painful punishment\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 10: 88].
Allah the Omniscient said in His book: \\\\\\\"Have you not considered how Allah sets forth a parable of a good word being like a good tree, whose root is firm and whose branches are in heaven, yielding its fruit in every season by the permission of its Lord?\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 14: 24-25]
On this unforgettable and important day, I would like to divide my statements to you dear brothers and sisters into three parts. In the first part, I will speak about an important reality which exists about the Islamic Republic. Today, paying attention to this reality is very important. In the second part, I will provide a brief explanation of our magnanimous Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) permanent and eternal school of thought. Although we have said and heard many things about Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought, it is necessary to provide a brief explanation at this point in time. I will provide a short portrayal of all the things that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) created as a unique phenomenon in the contemporary world. The third part is about two important challenges which lie ahead of the people of Iran and the Islamic Republic. It is important for us to pay attention to these two challenges in order to move forward in the right way and on the right path.
As for the first part, the reality that I referred to is that 25 years have passed from the demise of our great Imam (r.a.), but people\\\\\\\'s enthusiasm and excitement to hear and know about him has not diminished. And this is not particular to our country. Rather, this reality exists in the world of Islam and even beyond that.
Not only in our country - where the third generation of the Revolution is growing and blossoming - but also in the entire world of Islam, the youth of the age of communications and Internet are after gaining more information about the issues of the Revolution, about the Islamic Republic and about the architect of this great structure. And these youth can easily familiarize themselves with the issues which occur far away from their own environment. The phenomenon of religious democracy and the theory of Wilayat-e Faqih are issues which are significant and attractive for the intellectual environments of the world of Islam.
From the first days, our enemies began making a comprehensive effort and the more we moved forward, the more comprehensive this effort became. They used hundreds and thousands of television, radio stations and Internet sites to abuse the Islamic Republic, its great founder and its supporters. Of course, this issue has been helpful to us because it has aroused the curiosity of listeners and viewers throughout the world.
These listeners and viewers want to know the reason behind all these enmities, hostilities and mudslinging. They want to know the nature of the truth which has been the target of these enmities. So, our enemies mentioned our names and they spoke about our Imam (r.a.) and our system with the purpose of showing their enmity, but \\\\\\\"...surely they will scheme, and I too will scheme\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 86: 15-16].
This is what Allah the Exalted says. They started this widespread movement with such an intention, but it eventually created an opportunity for us because the sense of curiosity of the listeners to these stations was aroused throughout the world. Islamic Awakening - in which anti-arrogant feelings were dominant more than any other phenomenon - in Islamic countries and our region is the sign of this curiosity and search for the truth and it continues to exist.
It is possible that western and American intelligence services report to their seniors that they have managed to suppress Islamic Awakening in our region. If they have such a notion, then this will be another strategic mistake and another wrong interpretation on the part of our enemies. Islamic Awakening might be suppressed for a while in part of the world of Islam, but it will undoubtedly not be uprooted. On the contrary, it will develop.
This understanding, this perception and this awareness in all countries and among Muslim youth in the region is not something that can be destroyed easily. Of course, they will make certain efforts in order to destroy it and these efforts may seem to be successful in some areas in the short run, but in the end, they will prove to be fruitless.
The curiosity that exists in today\\\\\\\'s young generation all over the world - particularly in the world of Islam - about the phenomenon of religious democracy is rooted in the fact that the Islamic Republic is a phenomenon from whose birth 35 years have passed. And during all these 35 years, it has faced the violent and hostile reactions of the dominant powers in the world. They showed military reactions, they showed propaganda reactions, they showed economic reactions - which began from the beginning of the Revolution and which have been reinforced on a daily basis - and they showed political reactions.
It is 35 years now that this powerful western camp has been doing whatever it could against the Islamic Republic. It has made military efforts, it has helped the aggressors who attacked our country, it has supported the enemies of the Islamic Republic in any area, it has used widespread propaganda and it has made perfect and unprecedented efforts in the area of sanctions and economic siege. But in the face of all these invasions and all these violent and unscrupulous hostilities, the Islamic Republic was not destroyed, it did not adopt a conservative outlook, it was not blackmailed by the west and it made progress on a daily basis. This is what forms the essence of this curiosity.
Despite the fact that the primary military, political and economic powers of the world joined hands against a country and a government and despite the fact that they made efforts for 35 years, not only was this government not destroyed, but it also became stronger on a daily basis. This government was not blackmailed by them and it did not pay any attention to them at all. The Islamic Republic showed its power and capability to survive in different arenas.
Today, when they look at the Islamic Republic, they see that the second and third generations of the Revolution in the country are comprised of several million students, several thousand knowledgeable clergy, several thousand researchers, several thousand university and seminary professors, thousands of scientific and intellectual personalities - some of whom are well-known on an international level - and thousands of activists and producers and thousands of political, cultural and economic personalities. This is the reality about our today\\\\\\\'s society.
In the arena of science and technology, the Islamic Republic launches satellites into space despite all sanctions. It sends living creatures into space and it brings them back. It produces nuclear energy. It is ranked among the first ten countries in the world in many new sciences. The centers in charge of releasing statistics have announced that the rate of scientific progress in the Islamic Republic is 13 times faster than the global average. It gives scientific and technological services to different countries. Despite unprecedented sanctions, it manages a 75-million-strong country. It has the final word on regional policies. It shows resistance against the usurping Zionist regime, which is supported by global bullies, and it does this on its own. It does not compromise with oppressors and it defends the oppressed.
Any well-informed individual becomes curious to know what this organism and phenomenon is and how it benefits from all these innate capabilities and this potential to survive despite all the enmities. This is the nature of this curiosity. This was about the issues related to scientific, technological and other such areas.
As for political and social issues, the higher aspect of this religious democracy is that we have had 32 elections during the 35 years from the beginning of our Revolution. Thirty two public elections have been held in this country. Is this a minor achievement? This is an exceptional phenomenon. Elections in the Islamic Republic are held with a high turnout - higher than the global average and in some cases, it is much higher. Our elections witness a turnout of 70, 72 percent. Our elections are like this. These elections are the manifestation of democracy.
Another exceptional example is the two phenomena which we people have gotten used to, but which are extraordinarily exciting and important for global inspectors and witnesses. These two phenomena are the 22nd of Bahman rallies and Quds Day Rallies in the month of Ramadan. During the past 35 years, the people have held the Revolution celebration each year with a great, exciting and glorious rally on the cold days of late Bahman. We have gotten used to this and we do not truly see the significance and greatness of this issue, but global witnesses see these things and they are very astonishing to them.
These are the factors behind the element which arouses people\\\\\\\'s curiosity and which presents a new path to the minds of enthusiastic, inquisitive and research-oriented individuals. This is the important reality of our time which can be described as the general curiosity of youth, intellectuals, well-informed personalities and analysts throughout the world of Islam about the phenomenon which has emerged and grown on a daily basis in Islamic Iran. This is the first issue.
This reality has been built by the hands of our great architect. We have said many things about Imam (r.a.). Perhaps some people think that we have spoken about Imam in an exaggerated way. But this is not the case. What we have said about our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) is neither exaggeration nor magnification of the truth. Rather, it is the truth. Our magnanimous and dear Imam (r.a.) was more complex and meaningful than what we managed to say and reflect about him.
What is available to the people of Iran and what is in front of the eyes of people throughout the world has been built by those powerful hands. We should know about the architect\\\\\\\'s plan in order to take the path in the right way. If developers and builders do not have access to a plan in order to build an ordinary building and if it is not clear what the main plan is, then they may make a mistake no matter how skilled they are. We should know the main plan so that we can use our expertise in building on the basis of this plan.
Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) plan was not one that could be designed by a human being. It was definitely God\\\\\\\'s work. Our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) himself knew and acknowledged this. He himself used to say, \\\\\\\"What has occurred is a handicraft of divine power\\\\\\\". He had understood this correctly and his insightful and vigilant eyes had seen this correctly.
We should be careful. We should know the plan so that we can continue the path. If we do not know the plan, we will deviate from the right path. And when we deviate, we will drift away from the main and the straight path on a daily basis. When we drift away from the straight path, we will drift away from goals and we will fail to reach them.
In order to reach the goals, we should take care not to lose the path and in order to avoid losing the path, we should have the main plan in front of our eyes. We should know and identify this plan. Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) plan and main task was to create a civil-political system on the basis of Islamic reason. The prerequisite for carrying out this task was to uproot the monarchic regime which was corrupt, dependent and dictatorial.
The monarchic regime had these three characteristics: it was corrupt - different moral, financial and other such corruptions. It was dependent on powers. One day, it was dependent on England and another day, it was dependent on America. It was prepared to abandon its own interests and the interests of the people for the sake of the interests of foreigners. And it was dictatorial and oppressive. For the monarchic regime, the people\\\\\\\'s votes and requests counted for nothing. Each of these characteristics forms a long chapter. Each of them forms a long book.
The prerequisite for the great task that Imam (r.a.) wanted to carry out was to uproot this corrupt, dependent and dictatorial regime. He focused his efforts on doing this and consequently, the regime was uprooted. In our country, the issue was not replacing a monarchic regime with another monarchic or semi-monarchic regime. The issue was uprooting the characteristics that the monarchic regime had and this was done by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) statements, guidelines and behavior were oriented towards this goal.
There are two fundamental points in building this civil-political system and these two points are interconnected. In one sense, these two points are two sides of the coin of truth. One is entrusting the affairs of the country to the people through democracy and elections and another is launching this movement - which originated from Islam - and any movement which originates from democracy and entrusting tasks to people, within the framework of Islamic sharia. These are two parts. In other words, these are two sides of the same truth.
Some people should not think that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) derived elections from the western culture and then mixed it with Islamic thoughts and Islamic sharia. This was not the case. If elections, democracy and reliance on the votes of people had not been part of religion and Islamic sharia, then Imam (r.a.) would have told us. If this had been the case, he would have announced it in an outspoken and decisive way. Democracy is part of religion. Therefore, Islamic sharia is the framework.
When passing and implementing laws, when assigning individuals different tasks and discharging them from their service and during all tasks that follow this political-civil system, Islamic sharia should be observed. All tasks in this system revolve around democracy. All the people elect the members of the Majlis and the president, they elect ministers indirectly, they elect the members of the Assembly of Experts and they elect the Leader indirectly. All tasks are in the hands of the people. This was the main base of our magnanimous Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) movement. The great structure that this great personality built was founded on these two bases.
Commitment to Islamic sharia is the soul and truth of the Islamic government. Everyone should pay attention to this issue. If Islamic sharia is completely observed in society, this will ensure both civil and individual freedom - the freedom of individuals - and collective freedom which is called independence. Independence means freedom of a people. It means that a people are not dependent on anyone and any place.
\\\\\\\"A free people\\\\\\\" means a people who are not under the influence and domination of their opponents, their enemies and foreigners in any way. If Islamic sharia is observed, it will ensure both justice and spirituality in society. These are the four main elements: freedom, independence, justice and spirituality. If Islamic sharia dominates society, these main phenomena in the order of Islamic society will show themselves. Therefore, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) stressed the necessity of Islamic sharia which is the soul of the Islamic Republic. He also stressed the necessity of religious democracy which is a means and a tool and which is derived from sharia.
According to Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought, any power and force which has come into being through deception and oppression is unacceptable. In the Islamic government, oppression and subjugation are meaningless. Power and authority are meaningful, but only the one that originates from people\\\\\\\'s free will and choice. The kind of power which originates from bullying, subjugation and weapons is meaningless from the viewpoint of Islam, Islamic sharia and Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought.
The kind of power which emerges on the basis of people\\\\\\\'s choice is respectable. No one should confront this power. No one should try to suppress and subjugate this power. If they do so, this is called fitna. This is the new prescription that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) introduced to the world. He added this important chapter to the political literature of the world. As we pointed out, one of the main elements in this new version is rushing to help the oppressed and confronting the oppressor. We should help the oppressed and in the present time, the concrete manifestation of being oppressed is the people of Palestine.
As you witnessed, from the first day until the end of his life, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) stressed the issue of Palestine. He supported the issue of Palestine and stated in his testament that the people of Iran and the officials of the country should not forget about this issue. Helping the oppressed, showing resistance against the oppressor, condemning his transgressions, rejecting his power and grandeur in an outspoken way and shattering this grandeur are among the parts of this system and this new version presented by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.).
This is a short summary, portrayal and description of the political order and the foundation that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) introduced to society after overthrowing the monarchic regime in the country. This matter was completely accepted by the people and it was put into practice. Unlike many political slogans, this matter was not confined to books. Rather, it was realized, put into practice and reflected in reality. And the people of Iran showed their determination, loyalty and self-sacrifice by preserving this matter and strengthening it on a daily basis until today.
So, Imam (r.a.) succeeded. He achieved complete success in what he wanted to do. Will this great task continue? Will the empty boxes of this table - naturally, there are some empty boxes in social and historical tables - be filled in? This depends on how determined and aware you and I are and to what extent we observe and move in the direction of that clear line. It is completely possible to do this.
Considering the people that we see, considering the experience that they have gained and considering the successful and continuous movement that they have launched in the past 35 years - and in the past 25 years since Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) demise - it is possible to continue this path. The empty boxes will be filled in, great feats will be accomplished and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, our people will reach the peaks.
Like all the important paths which have been delineated for reaching great goals, this path involves certain challenges and obstacles. We should identify these obstacles so that we can pass through them. If we do not identify obstacles, overcoming them will be either difficult or impossible. I am saying these things to you honorable participants of this great and magnificent meeting and, in fact, to the people of Iran who will hear these statements. But it is our youth, our scholars and our intellectuals who should think about, work on and study each of these chapters and parts.
They should work on not only semi-intellectual and theoretical discussions but also on practical and functional discussions which reflect the truth. What we are saying is some chapters for carrying out intellectual tasks. By Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, these chapters will be followed up by our youth who are much better and prepared than we are.
I would like to refer to two challenges: one is an external challenge and another is an internal challenge. Our external challenge is the interferences of global arrogance. I would like to speak without any consideration. The external challenge is the interferences of America. They engage in mudslinging.
Although some of their thinkers say in their analyses that it is useless or impossible to confront this great movement, they engage in mudslinging.
We should know their plan. This is America\\\\\\\'s plan which has been revealed through their discussions, reports, statements and behavior: America divides all countries, orientations and people throughout the world into three groups: the first group is made up of the submissive including submissive countries, submissive political and social orientations and submissive individuals. The first group is comprised of these people. The second group is comprised of countries which are not submissive and which should be tolerated. From the viewpoint of America, a number of countries, personalities and orientations should be tolerated. They believe that they should define common interests with these countries and that they should get along with them somehow. Later on, I will explain this more. The third group is made up of disobedient countries, those which do not give in to America and which refuse to be blackmailed by it. The third group is comprised of these countries.
From the viewpoint of the Americans, no country, no political, social, civil and economic orientation and no individual in the world is out of these three groups. Everyone is either submissive and docile or independent - and you should get along with them - or disobedient, bold and courageous. One should behave in a different way towards the third group.
America\\\\\\\'s policy towards the first group is complete support. Of course, they do not provide this support for free. They support them, but they also milk them. In fact, they use their capabilities and resources to the advantage of their own interests and for safeguarding their own interests. The Americans ride roughshod over these people and they make them render all kinds of services to them. As I said, they milk them and they do not care at all.
Of course, if these people and countries behave in a way that is considered to be indecent according to global conventions, the Americans do not condemn it. On the contrary, they defend and justify it. For example, there are some dictatorial countries which are managed by biased, reactionary and completely dictatorial regimes, but they have friendly relations with the Americans. These countries give in to the Americans and they are prepared to serve and obey them. They are members of the first group.
When the Americans want to describe them, they do not refer to them as dictatorial countries. Rather, they say that they are patriarchal countries and thus they cover up their dictatorship. They say, \\\\\\\"They are not dictators. Rather, they are patriarchal countries\\\\\\\". What is the meaning of patriarchal in political systems? What does it mean? Is a patriarchal country a country in which there is no parliament, no elections, no power to speak freely, no freedom of speech and no freedom of expression? Is a patriarchal country a country in which the slightest disobedience to the wishes of the rulers is suppressed in a very serious and severe way?
In one part of his life, Saddam Hussein was one of these obedient and submissive individuals. In that stage of his life, they gave him all kinds of support and they rendered some services to him. They gave him chemical weapons and they provided him with the plans of our military movement which had been discovered via satellite. They gave him military plans because he was at their service and because he was against the disobedient Islamic Republic which was a member of the third group. So, these people represent the first group.
As I said, the second group is made up of the countries which America gets along with. The policy and plan of America is to get along with these countries. What does getting along mean? It means defining common interests and establishing friendly relations with someone. But when America has the opportunity, it will stab them in the back and tear their hearts open and it will not show any consideration for them.
Which countries represent the second group? European countries represent the second group. Today, European countries are in such conditions. America gets along with them, but this does not mean that it defends their interests. This is not the case. It will kick them as much as it can. For example, it spies - Internet espionage - on the number one in its allied country. It also spies on him by tapping his cell phone. The Americans even keep watch on his personal life and they have no scruples whatsoever. When it comes out, they say, \\\\\\\"Sorry, it happened because we had no choice\\\\\\\".
They are not even willing to apologize in a sincere way. My understanding of political issues tells me that the Europeans are making a great strategic mistake by serving America. They promote the interests of America, but America does not and will not do so and it will be the same until the end. This was about the second group.
The third group is made up of countries which do not give in to America. America\\\\\\\'s policy towards this group is to use each and every tool they find against these disobedient countries. They use any tool they find and they do not have any limits for that. If you see that there is a country which is disobedient to America and that America does not attack or impose sanctions on it, then you should know that there is a problem - that is to say, there is an obstacle in their way. To put it simply, they cannot do it. If they can, they will definitely do it.
The only crime that this disobedient country has committed is that it is not willing to give in to America, to be blackmailed by it and to let the interests of America have priority over its own interests. This is the definition of a disobedient country. In order to bring this country to its knees, the Americans do everything that they can. They do whatever is possible for them. If they do not do something, it is because they cannot.
Well, what are the things that the Americans do? Today, launching a military attack is not a priority from the viewpoint of the Americans. They have understood that they suffered a loss on the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan where they launched military attacks. They have understood that launching a military attack is as dangerous for the aggressor as it is for the defender and sometimes, it is even more dangerous for the aggressor. They have understood this correctly. Therefore, it can be said that they have changed their mind about launching a military attack.
They have other ways ahead of them. One of these ways is entrusting the task of furthering their goals in the target country - which is the target of their attacks - to the elements inside this country. The issue is not only about Islamic Iran and the Islamic Republic. They are doing these things all over the world and we are witnessing some instances of their effort in the present time.
Another way is launching a coup d\\\\\\\'état. They empower some people inside the target country so that they can launch a coup d\\\\\\\'état and overthrow those governments and political systems which do not give in to them. One of the ways that they use is this.
Another way is drawing part of the people to the streets. An example is the color revolutions which were carried out in each and every part of the region in recent years. Take the case of a government which comes to power in a country. After all, if the government that comes to power holds 60 percent of the votes, it means that 40 percent of the people did not vote for it. The Americans go to that 40 percent, choose certain elements and leaders among them and make them - either by bribing or by threatening them - draw that 40 percent or part of it to the streets. America\\\\\\\'s hands were behind the color revolutions - for example, such and such an orange revolution and other revolutions in different countries - that were carried out in recent years.
We do not make any judgment about the events which are taking place in an area in Europe. But when one takes a look, one sees what a role an American senator and official can play - by showing his presence - in the demonstrations of a minority against a country. They showed their presence in such areas. One of the measures that they adopt is that they draw part of the people to the streets and make them break the law, thereby overthrowing the government which they do not approve of and which is not blackmailed.
Another measure that they adopt is empowering and forming terrorist groups. They did this in Iraq, Afghanistan and some Arab countries in the region. They did it in our country as well. They form terrorist groups in order to kill well-known personalities. In our country, they struck and martyred scientists and experts on atomic energy. Before that too, they struck political, cultural, scientific and seminary personalities. These terrorists grew with the help of the Americans. Some of them were accepted into America by the Americans for the services that they rendered.
Today, munafeqeen are in America\\\\\\\'s arms. They take part in different meetings and commissions of the U.S. Congress. The same munafeqeen who killed people from different social backgrounds - including great personalities, ulama, scientists and political personalities - and who carried out explosions are with the Americans today. So, this is another way they use.
Another way is creating discord among decision-makers of countries. One of the measures that they adopt is this: they try to create a rift in the highest levels of the government and system that is not with them. They try to establish a dual government. Of course, they do not succeed in many countries. But unfortunately, they succeed in some areas. This is one of their ways.
Another way is that they discourage - with their propaganda - the hearts and minds of people from following their ideological and religious principles. They try such measures. The regime of the United States of America has done all these things to our dear and Islamic Iran and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, it has failed in all of them.
Launching military coups d\\\\\\\'état, supporting those who instigate fitna, drawing some people to the streets, confronting elections and creating rifts were some of the measures that they either adopted or tried to adopt and thankfully, they failed in all of them. Why did they fail? It was because the people were vigilant and religious. It is here that I want to speak about the second challenge which is the internal challenge.
Dear brothers and sisters, the internal challenge for our people is the risk of ignoring, forgetting about and losing the spirit and orientation of our magnanimous Imam (r.a). This is the greatest danger. The internal challenge is making a mistake in knowing our enemies and our friends and confusing the camp of our enemies and friends so much so that we do not know who our enemies and friends are.
Another mistake is failing to know our major and minor enemies. This is another danger. You dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Iran should pay attention that sometimes, someone shows enmity towards you. But if you pay careful attention, you will see that his enmity is not the main one. It is a function of another factor and another person. You should find the main enemy. Otherwise, if one confronts the lesser enemy, one\\\\\\\'s energy is sapped and the result will not be good.
Today, some people in different parts of the world of Islam - which go by the name of takfiri, Wahhabi and Salafi groups - are adopting bad and inappropriate measures against Iran, Shia Muslims and Shia Islam. But everyone should know that they are not the main enemies. They show enmity and they adopt foolish measures, but the main enemy is the person who provokes them, who gives them money and who motivates them with different means when their motivation is weakened to some extent.
The main enemy is the person who sows the seeds of rupture and discord between that foolish and ignorant group and the oppressed people of Iran. These measures are adopted by the hidden hands of intelligence and security services. That is why we have constantly said that we do not consider these foolish groups - who confront the Islamic Republic in the name of Salafism, takfiri and Islam - to be our main enemy.
We consider you to be the deceived. We have said to these people: \\\\\\\"If you stretch your hand against me to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against you to slay you: for I fear Allah, the Cherisher of the worlds\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 5: 28]. If you make a mistake and if you prepare yourself to kill your Muslim brothers, we do not consider you to be so important that we try to kill you.
Of course, we defend ourselves. Anyone who attacks us will face our firm fist. This is natural, but we believe that these people are not our main enemies. They have been deceived. The main enemy is the person who acts behind the scenes. The main enemy is the visible hand that comes out of the sleeve of intelligence services, that confronts Muslims and that pits them against one another.
This is our internal challenge: becoming busy with domestic differences - those which are trivial and unimportant. Such differences make us busy, pit us against one another, create tension and make us forget about the main issues and guidelines. This is one of the manifestations of the main challenge which was referred to. Losing national solidarity is one of our challenges. Suffering from laziness, lack of confidence, idleness, desperation and hopelessness and thinking that we cannot succeed and that we have not succeeded until today are among the internal challenges we should confront.
As Imam (r.a.) said, we can. We should show determination. National determination and jihadi management can untie all the knots. As we said, our dear youth, our outstanding personalities and our scholars should sit and study these issues. These are our main points. The auspicious name of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the remembrance of that great man and the plan of that great architect can help us in all these chapters. It can give us hope, enthusiasm and morale, as it has done this until today and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, it will continue to do this in the future.
Dear God, bestow your blessings on our dear people. Dear God, help our dear youth on the path of building an ideal Islamic structure. Dear God, protect us from deviations and digressions. Dear God, make the hands of the people of Iran stronger than the hands of their enemies. Help them achieve victory over their enemies. Make the holy heart of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake) kind to us. Help us benefit from the prayers of that great Imam (a.s.). Associate the pure souls of Imam (r.a.) and our dear martyrs with the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.).
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1921
*Important* Full Speech by the Leader in Azerbaijan - 16 February 2013 - [ENGLISH]
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei...
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with the people of East Azerbaijan. The meeting was held on the anniversary of the uprising by the people of Tabriz on the 29th of Bahman of 1356.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I welcome all you dear brothers and sisters and the dear youth. In particular, I welcome the dear families of martyrs, religious scholars and government officials who have come here from distant places, brought a valuable gift of affection from the dear people of Azerbaijan on this occasion and delivered their message of resistance. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows great blessings and infinite mercy on all of you.
I would tell you dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz including religious men and women that the presence of the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz has truly played a determining role in the movement of the Iranian nation throughout all the eras in our history - from 100, 150 years ago until today. And today nothing has changed. It is you who have managed to protect the dignity of our country and our nation against the enemies with your firm determination, your pride and your faith. And Azerbaijan has played an increasingly significant role in different arenas.
Thirty-five years have passed since the 29th of Bahman of 1356. Today, in terms of faith, resistance and wisdom, Azerbaijan is even better than it was during those important and fateful times. There have been so many vicious plots to separate the people in different parts of the country. But these plots have backfired. It is you who have always managed to play a leading role. In fact, it is you who are the anchor of peace in this country. As you said in the poem you recited: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You are the peace in the heart of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Audience shout in the Azeri language, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are prepared to lay down our lives. We are Khamenei\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s soldiers.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"]
One can clearly see that the dear people of Azerbaijan have a specific characteristic. This characteristic exists in other parts of the country, but in Azerbaijan it is more visible. This characteristic is that the political activities and the proud movement of the people of Azerbaijan in different eras - in the case of the Constitutional Movement, the military occupation of Azerbaijan and different other issues - were based on religion and religious faith. And they played a leading role in many of these issues.
Despite the fact that the leftist intellectual movement and the movement which was dependent on the west were active in Azerbaijan since after the introduction of the unhealthy intellectual movement into our country and despite the fact that they were trying to separate the people from religion, the movement of the people was based on religion. If you take a look at the movements which were started in Azerbaijan - many of these movements were national movements, and the people of Azerbaijan were pioneers - you can see that despite the efforts of those leftist movements, the people and the leaders of these popular movements in Azerbaijan expressed their commitment to religious issues more openly than the people in other cities.
In Tabriz, Sattar Khan used to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The fatwa of the ulama of Najaf is in my pocket\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That is to say, this great and brave man used to coordinate with the marja taqlids of Najaf. What he did was exactly the opposite of what eastern and western intellectual movements wanted to achieve at that time in the country. Today nothing has changed and nothing will change in the future either.
The Iranian nation considers religious faith as the standard. I cited Azerbaijan as an example of this religious faith, but people throughout the country are, more or less, like this. The movement of the Iranian nation is one that is accompanied by pride, courage and a sense of responsibility. But it is based on religious teachings and religious faith. This is very valuable. That is why the dangers caused by global powers, which other nations are usually faced with and which make them waver, did not threaten the people of Iran and did not make them waver.
When the enemies wanted to impose sanctions and exert pressures they said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We want to impose crippling sanctions on the people of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And they did this. Two, three days before the 22nd of Bahman, they put a new round of sanctions into the equation. Besides, a few months ago, in Mordad of this year, they did the same thing. That is to say, they increased their so-called pressures on the people before the 22nd of Bahman of this year.
What do they hope to achieve? They do these things in the hope of weakening the people. What was the response of the people? The people of Iran responded by participating in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman more enthusiastically. All the people participated. People from different parts of the country participated. They participated with great spirit and with a smile on their faces. The people of Iran are such people. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the people of Iran deal a blow to the enemies. They strike the enemies and the opponents like an avalanche. This avalanche struck them this year too. I deem it necessary to express my gratitude again - even if one expresses his gratitude 100 times, one is not overdoing it - to the people of Iran for their glorious and impressive presence [in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman]. One should bow before such insight. The people of Iran are such people.
I would tell you that in these conditions, the enemies have taken a passive role. Despite the fact that they pretend to be active, they are not active. The enemy has taken a passive role in the face of the Iranian nation. Enjoying firm determination, wisdom and faith, our people know what they want and they know the way to achieve their goals. They endure the hardships with great courage. Different political, military and economic weapons do not work on our nation. Therefore, the enemy has taken a passive role and for this reason, they make irrational moves.
I would tell you that American politicians are irrational people. They make irrational statements. They act in an irrational and thuggish way. They expect other countries to give in to their unreasonable demands and their bullying. Well, some people give in to their demands. Some governments and some political personalities in certain countries give in to their bullying. But the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic will not give in. The Islamic Republic of Iran has many things to say. It has logical reasons. It has power and authority. For this reason, the Islamic Republic does not give in to irrational statements and actions.
In what ways are they irrational? The sign of their irrationality is the contradictions between their words and actions. Their words are not in line with their actions. No other piece of evidence can show their irrationality more clearly. A reasonable person makes a convincing comment and then he sticks by it. These men, American politicians and their western followers, are not such people. They say a certain thing and make a certain claim, but they do exactly the opposite of what they have claimed or said. I would like to give a number of examples:
They claim that they are committed to human rights. The Americans have raised the flag of human rights. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are committed to human rights not only in our country, America, but also in the entire world.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Well, this is a claim. What have they done in practice? In practice, they inflict the most serious harm on human rights and they hurl the biggest insult at human rights in different countries. Their secret prisons throughout the world, such as their prisons in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib and their attack on civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in different areas are examples of the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' claim to support human rights. Based on the news that is reported every day from Afghanistan and Pakistan, their drones both spy for them and pressure the people. Of course, as an American journal said a few days ago, these drones will be a source of trouble for them in the future.
They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their pretext for attacking Iraq 11 years ago was that the regime of Saddam wanted to build nuclear weapons in Iraq. Of course, they went there and they did not find anything. It became clear that it was a lie. They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is while they support an evil government - the Zionist government - which has nuclear weapons and which threatens to use them. That is what they say and this is how they act.
They say that they are committed to establishment of democracy in the world - I do not want to speak about the kind of democracy America itself has. Under this claim, they constantly confront the Islamic Republic which has the most genuine democracy in the region. This is while they shamelessly support countries in the region which do not know the first thing about democracy and in which the people have not seen ballot boxes even once. This is their commitment to democracy. Notice how different their words and actions are.
They say that they want to resolve their issues with Iran. They have said this many times. Recently, they are speaking about it even more than before. They say that they want to negotiate and resolve their issues with Iran. This is what they say. But in practice, they resort to imposing sanctions and broadcasting negative propaganda. They publish inappropriate and false things about the Islamic Republic and the people of Iran.
A few days ago the President of America delivered a speech about the nuclear issue of Iran. He spoke as if the conflict between Iran and America is over Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to build nuclear weapons. He said that they will do everything in their power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If we wanted to build nuclear weapons, how would you stop us? If Iran had decided to build nuclear weapons, America would not be able to stop it in any way.
We do not want to build nuclear weapons and this is not because this will upset America, rather it is because of our beliefs. We believe that building nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity and they should not be built. Besides, we believe that the existing nuclear weapons should be destroyed. This is our belief. It has nothing to do with you [Americans]. If we did not have this belief and if we decided to build nuclear weapons, no power could stop us, as they could not stop other countries. They could not do this in India, Pakistan and North Korea. The Americans were opposed to development of nuclear weapons in these countries, but they built nuclear weapons.
The Americans claim, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will not let Iran build nuclear weapons.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is deceptive talk. Is this an issue of nuclear weapons? Regarding Iran, the issue is not related to nuclear weapons. The issue is that you want to deny Iran its natural and inalienable right to enrich uranium and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes through using its domestic capacities. Of course, you cannot do this either and the Iranian nation will not renounce its right.
American politicians make irrational statements. One cannot use logic when he speaks to an irrational person - after all, he is irrational. Irrational means thuggish. It means somebody who speaks nonsense. This is a fact which we have become aware of through our involvement in different global issues. We understand who our opposing side is and how he should be confronted.
I have written down a few things to discuss with you dear brothers and sisters and the entire Iranian nation. Of course, these statements are addressed to the people of Iran. When they speak, when the American president speaks, when his companions and followers speak, they want to mislead public opinion -public opinion in the world, in the region or if they can, in our country. At the moment, I do not want to speak about public opinion in the world. The global media network, which is under the domination of the Zionists and the Americans, either does not reflect our statements or it reflects them in an incomplete or distorted way. Therefore, I speak to the people of Iran.
The power of the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with public opinion in the world. The Islamic Republic has not gained its power and it has not achieved dignity and glory with the help of public opinion in the world. It has achieved these things with the help of the people of Iran. The firm and solid foundation which the Iranian nation has built and the news of which is quickly spreading throughout the world is based on the Iranian nation itself. I speak to the people of Iran. I will not address other nations, but they can listen if they want to. They can reflect on my statements or not reflect on them. But the people of Iran should know about these things. Therefore, the first point is that they are unreasonable. They speak without believing in what they say and their words and actions are different.
The second point is that they have raised the issue of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Iranian officials should come to us so that we can sit and negotiate.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The same unreasonable behavior can be seen in their offer of negotiations. Their purpose is not to solve the problems and resolves the issues - I will explain this later. Their purpose is creating hype. They want to say to Muslim nations, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This was the Islamic Republic with all that intense determination and resistance. But finally, it had to negotiate with us. Even the Iranian nation ended up like this. What can you do?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
They need negotiations in order to suppress countries which have just gained power, in which the breeze of Islamic Awakening has blown, countries which feel they have dignity because of Islam. They want to make these countries hopeless. Since the beginning of the Revolution, this was one of their goals. Since the beginning of the Revolution, one of their goals was to drag Iran to the negotiating table and make it deal with it. One of their goals was to gain the opportunity to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Did you see that finally Iran - which claimed to be independent and courageous and which claimed that it has stood up against us - was forced to come and sit at the negotiating table?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Today, they pursue the same goal. This is an important issue. When the purpose of negotiations is not resolving the main issues and when the purpose of negotiations is creating hype, it is clear that the opposing side, the Islamic Republic, is not naïve and it has not closed its eyes. It understands what your goal is. Therefore, it responds on the basis of your intentions.
The third point is that in the eyes of the Americans and powers which seek domination, the true meaning of negotiations is accepting what they say at the negotiating table. This is their goal of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and talk so that you come to the conclusion that you should accept what you would not accept before.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They say in their propaganda about negotiations - you may have heard about it - that they should directly negotiate with Iran and they cause a stir and create hype about it. Even the statements they made today clearly conveyed the message that they want to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium and producing nuclear energy. This is their goal. They do not say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and negotiate so that Iran can give its own reasons and so that we stop pressuring them, imposing sanctions on them and interfering in political and security issues.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Rather, they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We should negotiate so that Iran accepts what we say.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
This kind of negotiation does not serve any purpose. It will not reach any results. Even if Iran accepts to negotiate and even if our officials sit and negotiate with the Americans, what kind of negotiations is it when their goal is this [making Iran surrender]? It is obvious that Iran will not give up its rights. During negotiations, whenever they see that the opposing side speaks reasonably and they have nothing to say against Iran, they break off negotiations. Then, they say that Iran does not want to negotiate. Political networks as well as news networks are under their control and they broadcast propaganda. We have experienced this.
During the past 15 years, two or three times the Americans sent a message about a specific issue. They insisted that there is a very important and a very critical issue and that we should sit and talk with them. Well, executive officials - usually one or two people - went to a certain place and spoke to them. As soon as these officials made their rational statements and the Americans found out that they have no response, the negotiations were broken off unilaterally. Of course, they achieved their propaganda purposes. This is our experience. Well, it is wrong to test something which has been already tested.
The fourth point is that they pretend in their propaganda that if Iran sits at the negotiating table and negotiates with America, sanctions will be lifted. This is a lie too. Their goal is to make the people of Iran become eager to negotiate with America by promising to lift sanctions. They think that the people of Iran are exhausted by the sanctions and are frustrated. They think that everything is in a mess and that they can tell us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Well, come and negotiate with us so that we lift the sanctions.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They think this will cause the entire Iranian nation to ask them to negotiate.
This is also one of their irrational and deceptive statements and it is a tool for bullying. First, as I said, when they ask us to negotiate with them, they do not really mean fair and rational negotiations. Negotiations mean that we should accept what they say and surrender so that they lift the sanctions. If the Iranian nation wanted to surrender, they would not have carried out a revolution. America was dominant over the issues of Iran and it did what it liked. The Iranian people carried out a revolution in order to free themselves from the yoke of America. Now should they surrender to you again? This is the first problem with their offer of negotiations.
Another problem is that the sanctions will not be lifted with negotiations. I would tell you that the purpose of sanctions is something else. The purpose of sanctions is exhausting the people of Iran and separating them from the Islamic Republic. Even if negotiations are conducted but our people stay present on the scene and stand up for their rights, sanctions will continue. What will the Iranian nation do to counter this wrong idea that the enemies have?
There is an idea in the minds of the opposing sides. Let us elaborate and analyze this idea. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic relies on the people. If we manage to separate the people from the Islamic Republic, the power to resist will be taken away from the Islamic Republic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is how the opposing side thinks. Well, this idea has two parts. The first part, that the Islamic Republic relies on the people, is accurate. There is no source of support for the Islamic Republic except the people. The people are the fortifications that protect the country and the Islamic Revolution. The second part, that they thought they can bring the people to their knees by imposing sanctions and bullying them on international, commercial and other such issues, is false. If they think that they can take away this source of support from the Islamic Republic, they are wrong.
The Iranian nation will think of some ways to counter what the enemy wants to do. The Iranian nation is looking for economic blossoming, economic progress and complete prosperity. But it does not want to achieve this goal by being humiliated before the enemy. It wants to achieve this goal with its own capabilities, courage, advancements and with the capabilities of the youth. It does not want to achieve this with anything else. There is no doubt that sanctions exert pressures on the people and bother them. But there are two ways to approach these pressures. Weak nations surrender to the enemy when he exerts pressures and they bow and show regret before him. But a brave nation, like the Iranian nation, tries to use its own capabilities as soon as it sees that the enemy is exerting pressures and it tries to pass through the danger zone. And our nation will definitely do this. We have 30 years of experience in this regard.
There are certain countries in the region which have been under the domination of America for more than 30 years. The governments in these countries have been servants of America. They have been obedient to America and they have been taking orders from it. What is their position? The Iranian nation has been putting up a resistance against America for more than 30 years. What is the position of the Iranian nation? In the face of 30 years of pressures by America, the Iranian nation has reached such a position - in terms of scientific, economic and cultural progress and in terms of international dignity, political influence and political power - that the people and government officials during the time of Pahlavi and Qajar regimes could not even dream of.
We have experienced this. We have tested this. We have stood up against the pressures of America for 30 years. We have such a position. But there are nations which have been under the domination of America for 30 years and they are behind other countries to a great extent. We did not suffer a loss as a result of resisting. Resistance revives the inner strength of a nation. It makes it active. The sanctions which they impose will be helpful to the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, sanctions will help the Iranian nation achieve growth and blossoming. This is an important point.
Well, you saw what the people did in the rallies. We cannot say that the people have no complaints about the high prices and the existing problems. Prices are high and there are certain economic problems and the people, particularly underprivileged people, feel them. But this did not make the people separate themselves from the Islamic Republic. The people know that the Islamic Republic, dear and powerful Islam and the officials who are committed to Islam, are the powerful hands which can solve the problems. They can solve the problems. Surrendering to the enemies will not solve any problems.
The last point is that unlike American politicians, we are reasonable. Our officials are reasonable. Our people are reasonable. We accept rational statements and rational actions. If the Americans show that they will not bully us any more, if they show that they will not commit evil deeds, if they show that they will not say and do irrational things, if they show that they will respect the rights of the Iranian nation, if they show that they will not fuel the fire of discord in the country, if they show that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran - like the interference by supporting those who started the fitna in 1388 - then they will see that the Islamic Republic is benevolent and the people are reasonable.
In the fitna of the year 1388, they supported those who started the fitna and they put social networks at the service of these people. In those days, a social network wanted to close down in order to fix some technical problems. They asked the network not to close down so that they could exert influence over the fitna. If they stop doing these things, then they will see that the Islamic Republic is well-wishing. The only way to establish relations with the Islamic Republic is this and there is no other way. They can establish relations with the Islamic Republic in such a way. The Americans should prove that they have good will. They should prove that they are not after bullying. If they prove this, then they will see that the Iranian nation will make an appropriate response. If they do not commit evil deeds, if they do not interfere, if they do not bully and if they acknowledge the rights of the Iranian nation, then an appropriate response will be given by the Iranian nation.
I would like to say a few things about the internal issues of our country. This is an important issue. An event took place in the Majlis. It was a bad and inappropriate event. It made both the people and our elites unhappy. I became upset for two reasons. The first is the fact that the event itself happened and the second is the fact that the people are unhappy about this issue. In this event, the head of a certain branch made an accusation against the other two branches on the basis of an unproven allegation which had not even been considered by a court of law. This course of action was bad and inappropriate. These acts are against sharia and the law and they are immoral. They violate the basic rights of the people. One of the basic rights of the people is living in peace and in psychological and moral security.
If a person is accused of corruption, one cannot accuse other people on the basis of this accusation. Even if he is found guilty - let alone the current case in which the accused has not been found guilty, he has not been summoned by the court and he has not come to trial - one should not accuse others. Accusing other people, the Majlis and the judiciary branch on the basis of an accusation that has been leveled against another person is an appropriate course of action. It is a wrong course of action. For the time being, I offer a piece of advice. This behavior is not appropriate for the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, the questioning [of the minister] in the Majlis was a wrong course of action. Questioning should serve a certain purpose. What is the purpose of questioning a minister - a few months before the end of this administration\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s term - over an issue which is not related to the minister? Why did they do this?
I have heard that inside the Majlis, a number of people said inappropriate things. This course of action was also wrong. All these events are inappropriate for the Islamic Republic. Neither that accusation, nor that behavior, nor that questioning was appropriate. The things which the honorable Speaker of the Majlis said in his own defense were excessive. It was not necessary to do that.
We are all brothers. When there is a common enemy in front of us and when we see plots, what should we do? Until today, the officials have always stayed by one another\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s side. Now, too, they should act like this. They should always act like this.
I have always supported the officials of the three branches and the officials of the country. I will continue to support each person who has a responsibility. I will help him. But I do not like these acts. This kind of behavior is not in line with the oaths they take and with the promises they make. Take a look at the greatness of the people. These people deserve to be treated in a different way. Today, the officials should focus all their efforts on solving economic problems. Three or four years ago, during a speech which I delivered in the beginning of the year, I explicitly said to the people and the officials that the plot of the enemies of the Iranian nation would be to focus - more than everything else - on our economic issues.
Well, you see that the enemies did this. Both the executive branch and the Majlis should focus all their efforts and all their attention on pursuing accurate economic policies. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the heads of the three branches of government about combating economic corruption. You should combat economic corruption. This problem is not solved by speaking about it. You should combat economic corruption in practice. You repeatedly speak about economic corruption. When did you combat economic corruption? What was done in practice? What did you do in practice? These issues make one distressed.
Now that the enemies have increased their hostility, I expect the officials to strengthen their friendship. Piety, piety, piety! We expect the officials to focus all their efforts on solving the problems of the people by exercising patience, by suppressing unrestrained emotions and by taking the issues of the country into consideration. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this benevolent piece of advice will draw the attention of the officials, particularly high-ranking officials. They should be committed to this issue.
I should add another point. The things that I said today and the complaints I made against a number of officials should not make some people shout slogans against such and such people. I am against this course of action. Some people label a certain person as anti-wilayat, anti-insight and anti-whatever. Then they shout slogans against him and create disruption in the Majlis. I am against these moves. I would like to speak openly about these issues. I am against the kind of events which happened in Qom. I am against the kind of events which happened at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) holy shrine. I asked the officials many times to prevent these things. Those who do such things - if they are really hezbollahi and religious - should stop doing them. You can see that we consider these moves as harmful to the country. We do not benefit from them.
It is not helpful to set out to shout slogans against such and such people by releasing emotions. These slogans will not solve any problems. Keep this anger and these emotions for the time when it is necessary to express them. During the Sacred Defense Era, if basijis had decided to act at will, then the country would have been destroyed. Discipline and social order are necessary and it is necessary to take certain things into consideration. If these people do not pay any attention to these principles, then they should be treated in a different way. But those who pay attention to these principles and who believe they should not move against sharia, should take care not to make such moves.
Thankfully the people of Iran have insight. I would tell you dear youth that the day when we are gone and you are in charge, the situation of the Iranian nation will be much better in terms of material and spiritual prosperity. The Iranian nation is moving towards light. There are bright prospects for us. We should watch our behavior.
We should ask Allah the Exalted to help us. We should ask the immaculate souls of our martyrs and the immaculate soul of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) to help us. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you and I will benefit from the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake).
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1744&Itemid=4
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with the people of East Azerbaijan. The meeting was held on the anniversary of the uprising by the people of Tabriz on the 29th of Bahman of 1356.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I welcome all you dear brothers and sisters and the dear youth. In particular, I welcome the dear families of martyrs, religious scholars and government officials who have come here from distant places, brought a valuable gift of affection from the dear people of Azerbaijan on this occasion and delivered their message of resistance. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows great blessings and infinite mercy on all of you.
I would tell you dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz including religious men and women that the presence of the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz has truly played a determining role in the movement of the Iranian nation throughout all the eras in our history - from 100, 150 years ago until today. And today nothing has changed. It is you who have managed to protect the dignity of our country and our nation against the enemies with your firm determination, your pride and your faith. And Azerbaijan has played an increasingly significant role in different arenas.
Thirty-five years have passed since the 29th of Bahman of 1356. Today, in terms of faith, resistance and wisdom, Azerbaijan is even better than it was during those important and fateful times. There have been so many vicious plots to separate the people in different parts of the country. But these plots have backfired. It is you who have always managed to play a leading role. In fact, it is you who are the anchor of peace in this country. As you said in the poem you recited: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You are the peace in the heart of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Audience shout in the Azeri language, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are prepared to lay down our lives. We are Khamenei\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s soldiers.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"]
One can clearly see that the dear people of Azerbaijan have a specific characteristic. This characteristic exists in other parts of the country, but in Azerbaijan it is more visible. This characteristic is that the political activities and the proud movement of the people of Azerbaijan in different eras - in the case of the Constitutional Movement, the military occupation of Azerbaijan and different other issues - were based on religion and religious faith. And they played a leading role in many of these issues.
Despite the fact that the leftist intellectual movement and the movement which was dependent on the west were active in Azerbaijan since after the introduction of the unhealthy intellectual movement into our country and despite the fact that they were trying to separate the people from religion, the movement of the people was based on religion. If you take a look at the movements which were started in Azerbaijan - many of these movements were national movements, and the people of Azerbaijan were pioneers - you can see that despite the efforts of those leftist movements, the people and the leaders of these popular movements in Azerbaijan expressed their commitment to religious issues more openly than the people in other cities.
In Tabriz, Sattar Khan used to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The fatwa of the ulama of Najaf is in my pocket\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That is to say, this great and brave man used to coordinate with the marja taqlids of Najaf. What he did was exactly the opposite of what eastern and western intellectual movements wanted to achieve at that time in the country. Today nothing has changed and nothing will change in the future either.
The Iranian nation considers religious faith as the standard. I cited Azerbaijan as an example of this religious faith, but people throughout the country are, more or less, like this. The movement of the Iranian nation is one that is accompanied by pride, courage and a sense of responsibility. But it is based on religious teachings and religious faith. This is very valuable. That is why the dangers caused by global powers, which other nations are usually faced with and which make them waver, did not threaten the people of Iran and did not make them waver.
When the enemies wanted to impose sanctions and exert pressures they said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We want to impose crippling sanctions on the people of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And they did this. Two, three days before the 22nd of Bahman, they put a new round of sanctions into the equation. Besides, a few months ago, in Mordad of this year, they did the same thing. That is to say, they increased their so-called pressures on the people before the 22nd of Bahman of this year.
What do they hope to achieve? They do these things in the hope of weakening the people. What was the response of the people? The people of Iran responded by participating in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman more enthusiastically. All the people participated. People from different parts of the country participated. They participated with great spirit and with a smile on their faces. The people of Iran are such people. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the people of Iran deal a blow to the enemies. They strike the enemies and the opponents like an avalanche. This avalanche struck them this year too. I deem it necessary to express my gratitude again - even if one expresses his gratitude 100 times, one is not overdoing it - to the people of Iran for their glorious and impressive presence [in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman]. One should bow before such insight. The people of Iran are such people.
I would tell you that in these conditions, the enemies have taken a passive role. Despite the fact that they pretend to be active, they are not active. The enemy has taken a passive role in the face of the Iranian nation. Enjoying firm determination, wisdom and faith, our people know what they want and they know the way to achieve their goals. They endure the hardships with great courage. Different political, military and economic weapons do not work on our nation. Therefore, the enemy has taken a passive role and for this reason, they make irrational moves.
I would tell you that American politicians are irrational people. They make irrational statements. They act in an irrational and thuggish way. They expect other countries to give in to their unreasonable demands and their bullying. Well, some people give in to their demands. Some governments and some political personalities in certain countries give in to their bullying. But the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic will not give in. The Islamic Republic of Iran has many things to say. It has logical reasons. It has power and authority. For this reason, the Islamic Republic does not give in to irrational statements and actions.
In what ways are they irrational? The sign of their irrationality is the contradictions between their words and actions. Their words are not in line with their actions. No other piece of evidence can show their irrationality more clearly. A reasonable person makes a convincing comment and then he sticks by it. These men, American politicians and their western followers, are not such people. They say a certain thing and make a certain claim, but they do exactly the opposite of what they have claimed or said. I would like to give a number of examples:
They claim that they are committed to human rights. The Americans have raised the flag of human rights. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are committed to human rights not only in our country, America, but also in the entire world.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Well, this is a claim. What have they done in practice? In practice, they inflict the most serious harm on human rights and they hurl the biggest insult at human rights in different countries. Their secret prisons throughout the world, such as their prisons in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib and their attack on civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in different areas are examples of the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' claim to support human rights. Based on the news that is reported every day from Afghanistan and Pakistan, their drones both spy for them and pressure the people. Of course, as an American journal said a few days ago, these drones will be a source of trouble for them in the future.
They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their pretext for attacking Iraq 11 years ago was that the regime of Saddam wanted to build nuclear weapons in Iraq. Of course, they went there and they did not find anything. It became clear that it was a lie. They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is while they support an evil government - the Zionist government - which has nuclear weapons and which threatens to use them. That is what they say and this is how they act.
They say that they are committed to establishment of democracy in the world - I do not want to speak about the kind of democracy America itself has. Under this claim, they constantly confront the Islamic Republic which has the most genuine democracy in the region. This is while they shamelessly support countries in the region which do not know the first thing about democracy and in which the people have not seen ballot boxes even once. This is their commitment to democracy. Notice how different their words and actions are.
They say that they want to resolve their issues with Iran. They have said this many times. Recently, they are speaking about it even more than before. They say that they want to negotiate and resolve their issues with Iran. This is what they say. But in practice, they resort to imposing sanctions and broadcasting negative propaganda. They publish inappropriate and false things about the Islamic Republic and the people of Iran.
A few days ago the President of America delivered a speech about the nuclear issue of Iran. He spoke as if the conflict between Iran and America is over Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to build nuclear weapons. He said that they will do everything in their power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If we wanted to build nuclear weapons, how would you stop us? If Iran had decided to build nuclear weapons, America would not be able to stop it in any way.
We do not want to build nuclear weapons and this is not because this will upset America, rather it is because of our beliefs. We believe that building nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity and they should not be built. Besides, we believe that the existing nuclear weapons should be destroyed. This is our belief. It has nothing to do with you [Americans]. If we did not have this belief and if we decided to build nuclear weapons, no power could stop us, as they could not stop other countries. They could not do this in India, Pakistan and North Korea. The Americans were opposed to development of nuclear weapons in these countries, but they built nuclear weapons.
The Americans claim, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will not let Iran build nuclear weapons.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is deceptive talk. Is this an issue of nuclear weapons? Regarding Iran, the issue is not related to nuclear weapons. The issue is that you want to deny Iran its natural and inalienable right to enrich uranium and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes through using its domestic capacities. Of course, you cannot do this either and the Iranian nation will not renounce its right.
American politicians make irrational statements. One cannot use logic when he speaks to an irrational person - after all, he is irrational. Irrational means thuggish. It means somebody who speaks nonsense. This is a fact which we have become aware of through our involvement in different global issues. We understand who our opposing side is and how he should be confronted.
I have written down a few things to discuss with you dear brothers and sisters and the entire Iranian nation. Of course, these statements are addressed to the people of Iran. When they speak, when the American president speaks, when his companions and followers speak, they want to mislead public opinion -public opinion in the world, in the region or if they can, in our country. At the moment, I do not want to speak about public opinion in the world. The global media network, which is under the domination of the Zionists and the Americans, either does not reflect our statements or it reflects them in an incomplete or distorted way. Therefore, I speak to the people of Iran.
The power of the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with public opinion in the world. The Islamic Republic has not gained its power and it has not achieved dignity and glory with the help of public opinion in the world. It has achieved these things with the help of the people of Iran. The firm and solid foundation which the Iranian nation has built and the news of which is quickly spreading throughout the world is based on the Iranian nation itself. I speak to the people of Iran. I will not address other nations, but they can listen if they want to. They can reflect on my statements or not reflect on them. But the people of Iran should know about these things. Therefore, the first point is that they are unreasonable. They speak without believing in what they say and their words and actions are different.
The second point is that they have raised the issue of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Iranian officials should come to us so that we can sit and negotiate.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The same unreasonable behavior can be seen in their offer of negotiations. Their purpose is not to solve the problems and resolves the issues - I will explain this later. Their purpose is creating hype. They want to say to Muslim nations, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This was the Islamic Republic with all that intense determination and resistance. But finally, it had to negotiate with us. Even the Iranian nation ended up like this. What can you do?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
They need negotiations in order to suppress countries which have just gained power, in which the breeze of Islamic Awakening has blown, countries which feel they have dignity because of Islam. They want to make these countries hopeless. Since the beginning of the Revolution, this was one of their goals. Since the beginning of the Revolution, one of their goals was to drag Iran to the negotiating table and make it deal with it. One of their goals was to gain the opportunity to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Did you see that finally Iran - which claimed to be independent and courageous and which claimed that it has stood up against us - was forced to come and sit at the negotiating table?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Today, they pursue the same goal. This is an important issue. When the purpose of negotiations is not resolving the main issues and when the purpose of negotiations is creating hype, it is clear that the opposing side, the Islamic Republic, is not naïve and it has not closed its eyes. It understands what your goal is. Therefore, it responds on the basis of your intentions.
The third point is that in the eyes of the Americans and powers which seek domination, the true meaning of negotiations is accepting what they say at the negotiating table. This is their goal of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and talk so that you come to the conclusion that you should accept what you would not accept before.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They say in their propaganda about negotiations - you may have heard about it - that they should directly negotiate with Iran and they cause a stir and create hype about it. Even the statements they made today clearly conveyed the message that they want to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium and producing nuclear energy. This is their goal. They do not say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and negotiate so that Iran can give its own reasons and so that we stop pressuring them, imposing sanctions on them and interfering in political and security issues.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Rather, they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We should negotiate so that Iran accepts what we say.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
This kind of negotiation does not serve any purpose. It will not reach any results. Even if Iran accepts to negotiate and even if our officials sit and negotiate with the Americans, what kind of negotiations is it when their goal is this [making Iran surrender]? It is obvious that Iran will not give up its rights. During negotiations, whenever they see that the opposing side speaks reasonably and they have nothing to say against Iran, they break off negotiations. Then, they say that Iran does not want to negotiate. Political networks as well as news networks are under their control and they broadcast propaganda. We have experienced this.
During the past 15 years, two or three times the Americans sent a message about a specific issue. They insisted that there is a very important and a very critical issue and that we should sit and talk with them. Well, executive officials - usually one or two people - went to a certain place and spoke to them. As soon as these officials made their rational statements and the Americans found out that they have no response, the negotiations were broken off unilaterally. Of course, they achieved their propaganda purposes. This is our experience. Well, it is wrong to test something which has been already tested.
The fourth point is that they pretend in their propaganda that if Iran sits at the negotiating table and negotiates with America, sanctions will be lifted. This is a lie too. Their goal is to make the people of Iran become eager to negotiate with America by promising to lift sanctions. They think that the people of Iran are exhausted by the sanctions and are frustrated. They think that everything is in a mess and that they can tell us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Well, come and negotiate with us so that we lift the sanctions.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They think this will cause the entire Iranian nation to ask them to negotiate.
This is also one of their irrational and deceptive statements and it is a tool for bullying. First, as I said, when they ask us to negotiate with them, they do not really mean fair and rational negotiations. Negotiations mean that we should accept what they say and surrender so that they lift the sanctions. If the Iranian nation wanted to surrender, they would not have carried out a revolution. America was dominant over the issues of Iran and it did what it liked. The Iranian people carried out a revolution in order to free themselves from the yoke of America. Now should they surrender to you again? This is the first problem with their offer of negotiations.
Another problem is that the sanctions will not be lifted with negotiations. I would tell you that the purpose of sanctions is something else. The purpose of sanctions is exhausting the people of Iran and separating them from the Islamic Republic. Even if negotiations are conducted but our people stay present on the scene and stand up for their rights, sanctions will continue. What will the Iranian nation do to counter this wrong idea that the enemies have?
There is an idea in the minds of the opposing sides. Let us elaborate and analyze this idea. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic relies on the people. If we manage to separate the people from the Islamic Republic, the power to resist will be taken away from the Islamic Republic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is how the opposing side thinks. Well, this idea has two parts. The first part, that the Islamic Republic relies on the people, is accurate. There is no source of support for the Islamic Republic except the people. The people are the fortifications that protect the country and the Islamic Revolution. The second part, that they thought they can bring the people to their knees by imposing sanctions and bullying them on international, commercial and other such issues, is false. If they think that they can take away this source of support from the Islamic Republic, they are wrong.
The Iranian nation will think of some ways to counter what the enemy wants to do. The Iranian nation is looking for economic blossoming, economic progress and complete prosperity. But it does not want to achieve this goal by being humiliated before the enemy. It wants to achieve this goal with its own capabilities, courage, advancements and with the capabilities of the youth. It does not want to achieve this with anything else. There is no doubt that sanctions exert pressures on the people and bother them. But there are two ways to approach these pressures. Weak nations surrender to the enemy when he exerts pressures and they bow and show regret before him. But a brave nation, like the Iranian nation, tries to use its own capabilities as soon as it sees that the enemy is exerting pressures and it tries to pass through the danger zone. And our nation will definitely do this. We have 30 years of experience in this regard.
There are certain countries in the region which have been under the domination of America for more than 30 years. The governments in these countries have been servants of America. They have been obedient to America and they have been taking orders from it. What is their position? The Iranian nation has been putting up a resistance against America for more than 30 years. What is the position of the Iranian nation? In the face of 30 years of pressures by America, the Iranian nation has reached such a position - in terms of scientific, economic and cultural progress and in terms of international dignity, political influence and political power - that the people and government officials during the time of Pahlavi and Qajar regimes could not even dream of.
We have experienced this. We have tested this. We have stood up against the pressures of America for 30 years. We have such a position. But there are nations which have been under the domination of America for 30 years and they are behind other countries to a great extent. We did not suffer a loss as a result of resisting. Resistance revives the inner strength of a nation. It makes it active. The sanctions which they impose will be helpful to the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, sanctions will help the Iranian nation achieve growth and blossoming. This is an important point.
Well, you saw what the people did in the rallies. We cannot say that the people have no complaints about the high prices and the existing problems. Prices are high and there are certain economic problems and the people, particularly underprivileged people, feel them. But this did not make the people separate themselves from the Islamic Republic. The people know that the Islamic Republic, dear and powerful Islam and the officials who are committed to Islam, are the powerful hands which can solve the problems. They can solve the problems. Surrendering to the enemies will not solve any problems.
The last point is that unlike American politicians, we are reasonable. Our officials are reasonable. Our people are reasonable. We accept rational statements and rational actions. If the Americans show that they will not bully us any more, if they show that they will not commit evil deeds, if they show that they will not say and do irrational things, if they show that they will respect the rights of the Iranian nation, if they show that they will not fuel the fire of discord in the country, if they show that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran - like the interference by supporting those who started the fitna in 1388 - then they will see that the Islamic Republic is benevolent and the people are reasonable.
In the fitna of the year 1388, they supported those who started the fitna and they put social networks at the service of these people. In those days, a social network wanted to close down in order to fix some technical problems. They asked the network not to close down so that they could exert influence over the fitna. If they stop doing these things, then they will see that the Islamic Republic is well-wishing. The only way to establish relations with the Islamic Republic is this and there is no other way. They can establish relations with the Islamic Republic in such a way. The Americans should prove that they have good will. They should prove that they are not after bullying. If they prove this, then they will see that the Iranian nation will make an appropriate response. If they do not commit evil deeds, if they do not interfere, if they do not bully and if they acknowledge the rights of the Iranian nation, then an appropriate response will be given by the Iranian nation.
I would like to say a few things about the internal issues of our country. This is an important issue. An event took place in the Majlis. It was a bad and inappropriate event. It made both the people and our elites unhappy. I became upset for two reasons. The first is the fact that the event itself happened and the second is the fact that the people are unhappy about this issue. In this event, the head of a certain branch made an accusation against the other two branches on the basis of an unproven allegation which had not even been considered by a court of law. This course of action was bad and inappropriate. These acts are against sharia and the law and they are immoral. They violate the basic rights of the people. One of the basic rights of the people is living in peace and in psychological and moral security.
If a person is accused of corruption, one cannot accuse other people on the basis of this accusation. Even if he is found guilty - let alone the current case in which the accused has not been found guilty, he has not been summoned by the court and he has not come to trial - one should not accuse others. Accusing other people, the Majlis and the judiciary branch on the basis of an accusation that has been leveled against another person is an appropriate course of action. It is a wrong course of action. For the time being, I offer a piece of advice. This behavior is not appropriate for the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, the questioning [of the minister] in the Majlis was a wrong course of action. Questioning should serve a certain purpose. What is the purpose of questioning a minister - a few months before the end of this administration\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s term - over an issue which is not related to the minister? Why did they do this?
I have heard that inside the Majlis, a number of people said inappropriate things. This course of action was also wrong. All these events are inappropriate for the Islamic Republic. Neither that accusation, nor that behavior, nor that questioning was appropriate. The things which the honorable Speaker of the Majlis said in his own defense were excessive. It was not necessary to do that.
We are all brothers. When there is a common enemy in front of us and when we see plots, what should we do? Until today, the officials have always stayed by one another\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s side. Now, too, they should act like this. They should always act like this.
I have always supported the officials of the three branches and the officials of the country. I will continue to support each person who has a responsibility. I will help him. But I do not like these acts. This kind of behavior is not in line with the oaths they take and with the promises they make. Take a look at the greatness of the people. These people deserve to be treated in a different way. Today, the officials should focus all their efforts on solving economic problems. Three or four years ago, during a speech which I delivered in the beginning of the year, I explicitly said to the people and the officials that the plot of the enemies of the Iranian nation would be to focus - more than everything else - on our economic issues.
Well, you see that the enemies did this. Both the executive branch and the Majlis should focus all their efforts and all their attention on pursuing accurate economic policies. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the heads of the three branches of government about combating economic corruption. You should combat economic corruption. This problem is not solved by speaking about it. You should combat economic corruption in practice. You repeatedly speak about economic corruption. When did you combat economic corruption? What was done in practice? What did you do in practice? These issues make one distressed.
Now that the enemies have increased their hostility, I expect the officials to strengthen their friendship. Piety, piety, piety! We expect the officials to focus all their efforts on solving the problems of the people by exercising patience, by suppressing unrestrained emotions and by taking the issues of the country into consideration. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this benevolent piece of advice will draw the attention of the officials, particularly high-ranking officials. They should be committed to this issue.
I should add another point. The things that I said today and the complaints I made against a number of officials should not make some people shout slogans against such and such people. I am against this course of action. Some people label a certain person as anti-wilayat, anti-insight and anti-whatever. Then they shout slogans against him and create disruption in the Majlis. I am against these moves. I would like to speak openly about these issues. I am against the kind of events which happened in Qom. I am against the kind of events which happened at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) holy shrine. I asked the officials many times to prevent these things. Those who do such things - if they are really hezbollahi and religious - should stop doing them. You can see that we consider these moves as harmful to the country. We do not benefit from them.
It is not helpful to set out to shout slogans against such and such people by releasing emotions. These slogans will not solve any problems. Keep this anger and these emotions for the time when it is necessary to express them. During the Sacred Defense Era, if basijis had decided to act at will, then the country would have been destroyed. Discipline and social order are necessary and it is necessary to take certain things into consideration. If these people do not pay any attention to these principles, then they should be treated in a different way. But those who pay attention to these principles and who believe they should not move against sharia, should take care not to make such moves.
Thankfully the people of Iran have insight. I would tell you dear youth that the day when we are gone and you are in charge, the situation of the Iranian nation will be much better in terms of material and spiritual prosperity. The Iranian nation is moving towards light. There are bright prospects for us. We should watch our behavior.
We should ask Allah the Exalted to help us. We should ask the immaculate souls of our martyrs and the immaculate soul of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) to help us. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you and I will benefit from the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake).
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1744&Itemid=4
*FULL SPEECH* Leader Ayatollah Khamenei addressing to commanders of the Basij volunteer force - 20Nov13 - English
The Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran will not back down an iota from its rights and will never give in to pressure. Ayatollah Khamenei said the rights of the...
The Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran will not back down an iota from its rights and will never give in to pressure. Ayatollah Khamenei said the rights of the nation including its nuclear rights must be recognized. The leader expressed his support for the Iranian government and officials including the nuclear negotiating team. Ayatollah Khamenei also said he will not get involved with the details of the negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. But he said there are red lines and limitations that the Iranian negotiators will have to heed. Ayatollah Khamenei made the remarks in an address to commanders and members of the Basij volunteer force in Tehran.
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech in Meeting with Basij Commanders Print
20/11/2013
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech in Meeting with Basij CommandersThe following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 20, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with fifty thousand Basij commanders. The meeting was held at the Musalah in Tehran.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad and upon his immaculate, pure and chosen household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth.
Greetings be upon you Abi Abdullah and upon those who laid down their lives for you. I will send you God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s eternal greetings as long as I live and as long as night and day prevail. May God not make this prayer my last covenant with you. Greetings be upon Hussein, upon Ali ibn al-Hussein, upon the children of Hussein and upon the companions of Hussein - those who laid down their lives for Hussein (a.s.).
This meeting is a very important meeting. Basij is the manifestation of the greatness of our nation and the domestic capability of our country. This meeting is the meeting of commanders. You tens of thousands of commanders of Basij have gathered in this place and one can guess from this large gathering how glorious Basij is. You are a source of satisfaction, hope and trust for the supporters of the Islamic Republic, the Revolution and the country and you are a source of intimidation and fear for the ill-wishers, enemies and those who bear a grudge [against the Revolution and the Islamic Republic].
The coincidence of Basij Week with these days, which are the days of the great epic of the history of Islam, is a good and valuable occasion. What I mean by this great epic is the epic created by Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) which complements the epic of Ashura. The epic that Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) created revived and preserved the epic of Ashura. The greatness of what Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) did, cannot be compared to other great events in history. It should only be compared to the event of Ashura itself and truly, these two events complete one another.
This great personality and this great lady of Islam and all of humanity managed to stand firm in the face of the great mountain of hardships and there was not even a tremble in her voice because of all these events. She stood firm like a glorious mountain peak both in the face of enemies and in the face of hardships and bitter events. She became a lesson, a role model, a leader and a pioneer.
At the bazaar of Kufa, while she was held captive, she made this astonishing speech: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Oh people of Kufa, who are treacherous and disloyal, do you cry for us? May your tears not dry and may your moans not stop. You are like a woman who loosens her threads after she pulls them together\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [al-Ihtijaj, Volume 2, page 303]. The words are as firm as steel and the meaning flows like a river and it influences hearts and souls. In such conditions, Zaynab al-Kubra delivered a speech, which was like the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.), and she shook hearts and souls and she shook history with these words. This speech became eternal in history. It was delivered in front of the people while she was held captive.
After that, she delivered a speech in front of Ibn Ziad in Kufa and a few weeks later, she spoke in front of Yazid with such strength that it both humiliated the enemy and the hardships which the enemy had imposed. She said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Do you foolishly think that you can defeat, suppress and humiliate the household of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.)?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Honor belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the believers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 63: 8]. Zaynab al-Kubra is the manifestation of dignity, as Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) was the manifestation of dignity in Karbala on the day of Ashura.
The way she looks at events is different from the way other people look at those events. Despite all those hardships, when the enemy wants to taunt her, she says, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I did not see anything except for beauty\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Lohuf, page 160]. She said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"What I saw was beautiful. It was martyrdom. Although it was difficult, it was in the way of God and it was done for preserving Islam. It was the creation of an epic in history so that Islamic Ummah knows what it should do and how it should move forward and stand firm\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". This is a great achievement made by the epic of Zaynab (s.a.). This is the dignity of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s saint. Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) is one of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s saints. Her dignity is the dignity of Islam and she made Islam and the Holy Quran valuable.
Of course, we are not as aspirational and determined as Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) and therefore we cannot say that the behavior of this great lady is our model. We are too inferior to say such things, but anyway, our movement should be in line with the movement of Zaynab (s.a.). Our efforts should be focused on bringing dignity for Islam, the Islamic community and the entire humanity. This is the same responsibility that Allah the Exalted has entrusted to prophets through Islamic obligations and rules.
In the first part of my speech, what I want to briefly discuss with you dear basijis and dear youth is that one of the factors which brought about this spirit and this patience in Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) and other divine saints - who moved forward with such spirit and patience - is sincerity and honesty. It is very important to honor our promises to Allah the Exalted and to devote our hearts to the path of God in a sincere way.
In the Holy Quran, this sincerity is necessary for divine prophets as well: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And remember We took from the prophets their covenant, as We did from you, from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant, that (Allah) may question the custodians of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 7-8]. God says that this covenant is very firm and serious. In the phrase \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Leyasala\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" lam signifies results and consequences. The result of this covenant is that these great prophets will be questioned about their sincerity in this covenant. That is to say, our Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and other great prophets should prove before God the level of their sincerity concerning the conditions of this covenant. This part is related to prophets.
God also says to ordinary people and believers: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah: of them some have completed their vow (fully), and some (still) wait: but they have never changed (their determination) in the least, that Allah may reward the men of Truth for their Truth, and punish the Hypocrites if that be His Will\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 23-24]. When addressing great prophets, God referred to unbelievers as the opposite of honest individuals: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And He has prepared for the unbelievers a grievous Penalty\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 8]. And when addressing these believers, He referred to hypocrites as the opposite of honest individuals and there are important points in this comparison. You and I will be questioned about our promise to God. We have a covenant with God. In the holy ayah \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", the pledge that believers made to God and that was honored by them is the same as another ayah in this holy sura: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And yet they had already covenanted with Allah not to turn their backs\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 15].
All of us should pay attention to such points. Believers promised Allah the Exalted not to escape in the face of the enemy and not to turn their backs. The Holy Quran stresses that abandoning one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s positions and retreating in the face of the enemy are among the things which should not be done. One should stand up against the enemy in any military, political and economic war and in any arena which is a test of strength. Your determination should overcome the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s determination. Your willpower should overcome the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s willpower. This can be done and this is possible. From the viewpoint of the Holy Quran and Islam, running away and retreating from the enemy are forbidden in any arena of jihad and confrontation.
When we used the phrase \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"heroic flexibility\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", some people defined it as abandoning the ideals and the goals of the Islamic Republic. Some of the enemies too used it to accuse the Islamic Republic of betraying its principles. These interpretations were wrong and they misunderstood this phrase. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Heroic flexibility\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" means an artful maneuver for reaching one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s goal. It means that the followers of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s path - any divine path - should utilize different methods, in any way possible, in order to reach their goal and this should be done whenever they move towards the different ideals of Islam. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 8: 16].
Like the arena of war, any movement - whether forward or backward - should be launched in order to reach one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s predetermined goals. There are certain goals and at each stage, the Islamic government pursues one of these goals in order to make progress, achieve transcendence and create the great Islamic civilization. The Islamic government should try to achieve this goal at this stage. Of course, there are certain stages and phases to reach these goals. Experts, intellectuals and officials in charge of this are identifying these phases and goals and, as a result, our collective movement will begin. Everyone should try to make any movement, at any stage, reach its goal. This is a proper system which is based on logical and rational measures. All activists in the arena of politics and macromanagement of the country should always keep this in mind. All the people and you dear basijis too - who are activists in the arena of Basij - should always keep this in mind.
Well, when we say that we want to move forward, does this mean that the Islamic government is warmongering? Does this mean that the Islamic government wants to confront all nations and all countries in the world? Sometimes one hears that the enemies of the Iranian nation - specifically the najis-mouthed dirty dog of the region, the Zionist regime - move their jaws to say that Iran is a threat for the entire world. This is the claim of the enemy, but this is exactly the opposite of Islamic principles. On the contrary, those evil and malevolent forces - including the fake Zionist regime and some of its supporters - that show nothing except for malevolence, are a threat for the entire world.
The lesson that the Islamic government learned from the Holy Quran, the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.w.a.) and the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) is a different lesson: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allah commands justice and the doing of good\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 16: 90]. Allah the Exalted invites us to administer justice and do good. The commander of the Faithful (a.s.) said that we should be kind to everyone because \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those who have the same religion as you have, they are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than that of yours, they are human beings like you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 53]. People are either your Islamic brothers or human beings like you. This is the logic of Islam. We want to render services and show kindness to everyone. We want to establish a friendly and kind relationship with all human beings and all nations. We even have no enmity with the American people despite the fact that the government of America is an arrogant, hostile and evil government which bears a grudge against the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic. The American people are like other peoples.
What the Islamic Republic is opposed to is arrogance. The hostility of the Islamic Republic is oriented towards global arrogance. We are opposed to and fight against arrogance. Arrogance is a Quranic word and it has been used in the Holy Quran to refer to people like Pharaoh and the groups of people who are ill-wishers and who are opposed to truth. Arrogance existed in the past as well and it has continued to prevail until the present time. In all eras, arrogance has had the same structure. Of course, it has used different methods and tactics in different eras. There is arrogance today as well and it is led by the United States of America.
We should know arrogance and its characteristics. We should know the methods and the orientation of arrogance so that we can organize our behavior in the face of arrogance. We are opposed to unreasonable behavior in all arenas. We believe that we should move forward with wisdom and acumen in all arenas, in all collective and individual orientations and in all plans. If we do not know the scene, if we do not know our friends and our enemies, if we do not know imperialism and arrogance in the present time, then how can we move forward with wisdom and acumen? How can we make accurate plans? Therefore, we should know these things.
What I am saying about arrogance is a few examples regarding the behavior of today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s global arrogance in the world. In many of these examples and cases, today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s arrogance shares the characteristics of arrogance in previous centuries and previous eras. One of the characteristics of arrogance is egotism. When arrogant groups - those people who have taken everything in their hands as the highest-ranking individuals in a country, in a group of countries or in a global system - consider themselves to be superior to other people, when they regard themselves as the pivot, when they place everyone, except for themselves, on the periphery, then a wrong and dangerous equation will be formed in global interactions.
When arrogance views itself as superior and as the pivot and core [of everything], then the result will be that it grants itself the right to interfere in the affairs of other people and other nations. If arrogance considers something to be a value and if other people do not, this will grant it the right to interfere in their affairs and bully and pressure them. This egotism makes them claim to be the guardian of nations and to be responsible for global management. It also makes them consider themselves to be the boss of all the people in the world.
As you can hear, American officials and politicians speak about the government of America as if it were the leader of all countries. They say that they cannot let this be done. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We cannot allow this person to be or not to be in charge\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". They speak about our region in a way that it seems they are the owners of this region. They speak about the Zionist regime in a way that it seems regional nations have to accept this imposed and fake regime. They behave towards independent nations and governments as if they did not have the right to live. This egotism and this attitude of considering oneself to have a special position among all people, all nations and all human beings is the main foundation on which arrogance has been built and this is its biggest problem.
This egotism will lead to another characteristic and another criterion for arrogance which is the tendency to ignore other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s rights. They neither accept truth nor the rights of other nations. They do not at all acknowledge other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s rights. In international negotiations, someone says something which is right, but America does not accept it. It tries to deny such rights with different methods and it does not accept truth. This has happened many times. In the present time, one of the examples of this behavior is our current issues related to nuclear activities and industries. Imagine that someone says something which is true. If one is fair, reasonable and rational, he should give up when he faces the truth. But arrogance does not give up. It hears the truth, but it does not accept it. This is one of its characteristics. It does not acknowledge the rights of other nations either. It does not acknowledge the right of a people to choose, to do what they want and to adopt those economic and political measures which they want. They believe in imposing things on other nations.
Another characteristic of colonialism and arrogance is that it condones crimes against nations and the entire humanity and that it is indifferent towards such crimes. This is one of the greatest disasters of arrogance in modern times. Modern times means the era of scientific progress and the era of the emergence of dangerous weapons. When these weapons became available to arrogant powers, they created a disaster for all nations. They do not attach any value on the lives of individuals - those individuals who do not follow, obey and surrender to them.
There are many examples in this regard. One example is the behavior of arrogant powers towards Native Americans - those people whose financial and natural resources, whose geography and whose entire properties are in the hands of non-natives now. Well, there were native people in America. Their behavior towards these Native Americans was so violent and so disgusting that it is one of the darkest points in the history of modern America. The Americans themselves have written many things about the massacres that took place and the pressures that they exerted. The same thing was done by the English in Australia. The English hunted people, for pleasure, like animals and like kangaroos. They did not attach any value on the lives of human beings. This is only one example. There are hundreds of examples which have been recorded in their own history books.
Another example is the nuclear bombardment that was launched in the year 1945 of the Christian calendar - that it to say, the year 1324 of the Hijri calendar - when the Americans destroyed two Japanese cities and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Over the course of time, the number of people who suffered from deformities and different diseases because of nuclear radiations was several times larger than this and these problems have persisted until the present time. They did not have any cogent reason for this - I will refer to this later on. They easily dropped these bombs. Until now, atomic bombs have been used twice and both times, they were used by the Americans who consider themselves to be the main responsible party for the nuclear issues of other countries.
They like to forget these events, but it is not forgettable. All these lives were destroyed, but it was not at all important to them. For arrogance, the lives of human beings have no value and it is easy for arrogant regimes to commit crimes. They massacred the people in Vietnam. In Iraq, their security services and their mercenary security agencies - such as Blackwater which I referred to in the year 1390 - committed certain crimes. They are still committing crimes in Pakistan with their drones. In Afghanistan, they conduct a number of bombardments and they commit crimes. They are not afraid of committing crimes in each area they can get their hands on and in each area their interests dictate. These crimes include murder and torture. The Guantanamo prison - which belongs to the Americans - still has prisoners. It is 10, 11 years now that they have been arresting a number of people from different countries and putting them in this prison on different charges. They have been keeping them in this prison without any trial and with extremely difficult conditions and they have been torturing them. In Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prison was one of the American prisons. In this prison, they used to torture and set dogs on prisoners.
Looting the vital resources of other nations is easy for them. Capturing and enslaving Africans is one of the tragic events in history which American imperialism and other such regimes do not like to be reviewed. They do not like the issue of enslaving the people of Africa to be reflected on. They used to sail ships from the Atlantic Ocean and anchor them on the coast of West African countries such as Gambia and other countries in this continent. Then, they used to go and capture hundreds of thousands of men and women and old and young people with guns and other weapons which were not available to people at that time. While these people were in difficult conditions, they were taken to America on such ships for slavery. They captivated free people who were living in their houses and in their own cities. In the present time, the black people who live in America are the descendents of those slaves. For several centuries, the Americans exerted such an eccentric pressure and there are many books in this regard such as the book \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Roots\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" written by Alexander Haley. This book is a very valuable book for showing part of these crimes. How can today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s modern man forget such events? Despite all these crimes, the white people continue to discriminate against blacks in America.
Another characteristic of arrogance is deception and hypocritical behavior. You should pay attention to this issue. They try to justify the crimes which were referred to and they try to show that they were rendering services by committing these crimes. Global arrogance, which intends to dominate all nations, is frequently using this method in its entire life: the method of justifying crimes and taking on the appearance of rendering services. When the Americans want to apologize for their attack on Japan - that is to say, the two bombs which exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Although tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the two bombs that we dropped on these two cities, this was the cost of ending World War II. If we the Americans had not dropped these bombs, the war would have continued. If we had not done this, then two million people - instead of the 200 thousand people who were killed as a result of these bombs - would have been killed. Therefore, we rendered a service by dropping these bombs\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\".
Notice that this is a statement which the Americans make in their official propaganda. Now, around 65 years have passed from that day, but they have repeatedly said this. This is one of the deceptive and hypocritical statements and one of the elaborate lies that is not made and told by anyone except arrogant regimes. These bombs were dropped on and exploded in these two cities in the summer of the year 1945 of the Christian calendar and this crime was committed in that year. This was while four months before that - that is to say, in the early spring of 1945 - Hitler, who was the primary warmonger, had committed suicide. Moreover, Mussolini - the president of Italy at that time, who was the second important element in the war - had been arrested and the war was practically over. Japan too, which was the third important element in the war, had announced that it was ready to surrender. Therefore, there was practically no war, but these bombs were dropped anyway. Why? It is because these bombs had been built and they must have been tested somewhere. Certain weapons had been built and they must have been tested somewhere. Where should they test them now? The best option was to drop these bombs on the innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the excuse of war so that it becomes clear whether these bombs work properly or not. Such is their deceit.
They claim to be the supporters of human rights, but they target the Iranian passenger plane in the air and they kill about three hundred passengers who are unaware of this. Moreover, they do not apologize and they award a medal to the person who commits this crime. You have heard that in recent weeks, the Americans - from the President to lower-ranking politicians - have created uproar about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. They accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons. I do not want to judge who has used these weapons. Of course, evidence shows that terrorist groups have used them, but anyway, they said that the Syrian government has used such weapons. They created uproar about this and they said that the use of chemical weapons is our red line. American officials said this 10 times or more. But not only did the government and the regime of the United States of America not express any opposition to Saddam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s use of chemical weapons during its criminal attacks on Iran, but it also provided him with 500 tons of hazardous and lethal chemicals which could be turned into mustard gas.
Many of our dear youth of those times are still suffering from the effects of those chemicals and it is several years that they have been suffering from various diseases. The Americans helped Saddam to be equipped with such chemicals. Of course, he had bought such chemicals from other countries as well, but it was America that provided Saddam with 500 tons of lethal chemicals - which could turn into mustard gas - and that helped him to use it. After that, when the United Nations Security Council decided to issue a resolution against Saddam, it was America that prevented this. This is the meaning of hypocritical behavior. On the issue of Syria, the use of chemical weapons is a red line, but on the issue of Iran, it can be allowed and supported. This is because on this issue, chemical weapons are used against an independent Islamic government and against a nation which does not want to give in to America.
These are some of the characteristics of arrogance. Of course, the characteristics of arrogance are more than these. Arrogant powers wage wars, create discord and confront independent governments. They even confront their own people when the interests of specific groups dictate so. During the war that Saddam waged against Iran, they offered all kinds of help - which was possible for them - to Saddam. I referred to the case of chemicals, but they also gave him secret information about Iran. After the war, when the head of intelligence services of Saddam was interviewed, he said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I used to go to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad three times a week and they gave me a sealed package in which all satellite information about the movements of the Iranian Armed Forces existed and therefore, we knew where they were\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". They offered such kinds of help to Saddam.
The Islamic government is opposed to such arrogance. The Islamic government is not opposed to people and nations. It is not opposed to human beings. Rather, it is opposed to arrogance. This opposition has existed since the time of Abraham - God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Friend - Noah, the Holy Prophet of Islam and other great prophets and it has continued until today. Since that time, the camp of right has confronted arrogance. Why is that? Why does today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Islamic government confront arrogance? It is because arrogance with the characteristics that I described cannot tolerate an Islamic government such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is because the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed on the basis of opposition to arrogance. The Revolution was carried out in Iran in opposition to arrogance and the agents of arrogance. It was formed on the basis of this opposition. It grew, it became strong and it challenged the logic of arrogance on the basis of this opposition. Arrogance cannot tolerate this unless it is frustrated.
The Iranian people, the Iranian youth, the Iranian activists and those Iranians who believe in their homeland and their country for any reason - even if it may be a non-Islamic reason - should do something to make the enemy hopeless. The enemy should become hopeless. It is very difficult for global arrogance and for the government of the United States of America in the present time to see that in this sensitive region - in West Asia, which is the one of the most sensitive regions in the world in terms of politics and economy and which influences the entire world - a country, a government and a people have emerged who do not consider themselves to be dependent on and to be the followers of this self-proclaimed superpower. This Islamic government is independent and despite the strong opposition that it is faced with, it overcomes all problems and hardships. As the Americans themselves admit, this government is challenging the influence of America in the region and it is extending its own influence.
This Islamic government is becoming a role model for regional nations and this is very difficult for the Americans to tolerate. The Americans want to say that the lives of all nations depend on America. Now a people have emerged who not only are not dependent on America, but who also have not been influenced by all these hostilities. From the first day, the Americans did whatever they could, but it was not effective. These people have achieved growth and they have become stronger on a daily basis.
The hostilities that the government of the United States of America has shown against the Islamic Republic happened during the time of different presidents, but all of these hostilities are of the same nature. All of these hostilities are the same. Therefore, no one should say that such and such a plot was hatched during the time of such and such a president and this plot has not been hatched during the time of the current President of America. This is not the case. All of these presidents behave in the same way. First, they provoked ethnicities in Iran, then they launched a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état and after that, they made Iraq attack us. The next thing that they did was to help our enemy - which was the regime of Saddam - in his war against us and after the war, they imposed sanctions on us. Then, they provoked all media networks in the world and they made them align themselves against the Islamic Republic. All of these things have been done during the time of different presidents of America and now too, these things are being done.
In the fitna of the year 1388 - during the term of the current President of America - one of the social networks, which could be used to further the goals of fitna and those who provoked the fitna, needed to fix some technical problems. The government of America asked this network to delay fixing these technical problems because they hoped to overthrow the Islamic Republic with the help of media activities and networks such as Facebook, Twitter and other such networks. They had these foolish delusions. Therefore, they did not let this network fix its technical problems and they said that it should delay it and attend to this task which is more important.
They used all kinds of tools against the Islamic Republic and sanctions are one of these tools. From their viewpoint, this tool is enough for defeating the Islamic Republic. Their mistake is that they do not know the Iranian nation. Their mistake is that they do not know the element of faith and unity among our people. Their mistake is that they did not learn a lesson from their past mistakes. Therefore, they hope that they can bring the people of Iran to their knees by imposing sanctions, exerting pressures and other such measures. Of course, they are making a mistake. The permanent experience of the Islamic Republic during the past 35 years shows that the only way to get rid of the interference of the enemy is national power and national resistance. This is the only factor which can make the enemy retreat. Of course, the enemy is the enemy. He uses all kinds of tools. As I said, he has used and is using sanctions. We should know what it is that can help us achieve our goal.
I would like to say a few things about Basij and after that, I would like to briefly speak about the current issues regarding our foreign policies. As I said, Basij is a source of dignity for the country and the Islamic Republic. Why? It is because the meaning of Basij is the presence of all the people in arenas of fundamental activities for the sake of the people and the country. Any government that has people by its side and any country in which the people show their presence and move towards a specific direction, will definitely achieve victory. This is completely clear. Countries receive a blow and they are defeated whenever the people are not present on the scene or whenever they do not have unity of action. Whenever the people are present on the scene and whenever there is unity among them, victory and progress will be certain. Basij is the example of such presence. Basij is the manifestation of the presence of the people on the scene and the unity of the people. We should adopt such an outlook towards Basij.
On the issue of sincerity, which I referred to in the beginning of my speech, Basij has emerged victorious out of the test of sincerity. Basij was put to this test during the imposed war and the Sacred Defense Era which was a time when the country was in difficult conditions. Also, during the different events that took place after the Sacred Defense Era until the present time, Basij has emerged victorious out of the test of sincerity. The Basij organization has shown that it enjoys sincerity. Of course, in my opinion, Basij is not confined to this number of people who are active in the Basij organization. There are many people whose hearts are with you. They praise and respect you and they appreciate your value. These people are not active in the Basij organization, but they are basijis as well. In my opinion, those people who believe in and respect your values and who respect your efforts, your services and your jihad are basijis as well. Being present on the scene is one of the most important tasks.
Moreover, the capabilities of Basij help us solve problems. Fortunately, today inside the organization of Basij, there are many scientific, artistic, social and political personalities and there are many social activists and people who can influence the people. Until today, Basij has represented a group of people who have been achieving growth and transcendence on a daily basis and it should act in the same way from now on too.
What I recommend is that we should increase the capabilities of Basij. There are certain prerequisites for this: moral, behavioral and practical prerequisites. Moral prerequisites means that we should build and develop Islamic virtues in our hearts and souls. A number of these virtues are patience, forgiveness, fortitude, self-control and humility. We should strengthen these characteristics in ourselves. Behavioral prerequisites means that we should utilize these virtues when we interact with the people, the environment, society and human beings in general. Imam Sadiq (peace and greetings be upon him) used to say to his companions, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You should act in a way that whenever people see you, they say, ‘These people are the companions of Imam Sadiq. God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy be upon Imam Sadiq. You should make us be proud of you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [al-Kafi, Volume 2, page 233]. Each and every one of you dear basijis, you dear youth with your pure and enlightened hearts and souls should behave towards all the people - as I said, many of the people are basijis in the real sense of the word - in a way that they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"These people are students of the Islamic government. They are a source of respect for the Islamic government and the Islamic Republic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\".
And practical, jihadi and social prerequisites are the tasks that should be carried out. That is to say, we should strengthen these virtues in ourselves. It means that we should behave in a kind, diligent and praiseworthy way towards the [social] environment. It means that we should act in a serious way in all arenas including the arena of science, the arena of social services, the arena of work, the arena of politics and the arena of production. Wherever you are, you should work in a serious way without any feeling of tiredness and any laziness. We should work. This great group of basijis - tens of thousands of people from this great group are present in this meeting - can move the country towards positive paths in the real sense of word. This group of people can be a source of solidity and stability. It can be a source of grandeur for the Islamic Republic and thankfully it is playing such a role today. Today, Basij is a source of grandeur and honor for the Islamic Republic.
I would like to raise a point about the recent contentions over the arena of foreign policies, our nuclear issues, the current negotiations and other such things. First of all, I insist on supporting the officials who are in charge of this. I support all administrations and all officials - whether officials in charge of domestic affairs or officials in charge of foreign affairs - and this is our responsibility. I myself have been an executive official. I have been in the middle of the arena and I felt with all my heart the difficulty of the work. I know that the responsibility of managing the country is difficult. Therefore, these officials need help and I help and support them. This is one part of the issue which is clear. On the other hand, I also insist on establishing the rights of the Iranian nation including the issue of our nuclear rights. We insist that these officials should not even take one step back on the rights of the Iranian nation. Of course, we do not interfere in the details of these negotiations. There are certain red lines and limits in this regard. These limits should be observed. We have said this to officials in charge and it is their responsibility to observe these limits. They should not be afraid of the fuss that the enemies and opponents make. They should show no fear in the face of such fuss and uproar.
Everyone should know that primarily, the sanctions which have been imposed on the Iranian nation result from the arrogant grudge of America. The grudge that the Americans bear against us is like the grudge of a camel. They want to exert pressures on the Iranian nation in the hope that they can perhaps make the Iranian nation surrender. They are making a mistake because the Iranian nation will not surrender to anyone under pressure. You Americans have failed to know the people of Iran. They are a people who can, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, endure these pressures and who will turn these threats and pressures into an opportunity. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the Iranian nation will do this.
We have had certain weak points in the area of economic decisions and plans. These weak points have made the enemy feel that he can create a rift. This is an opportunity for us to know and eliminate these weak points and, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, we will eliminate them. The Americans should know and I think they know that sanctions do not work. The reason why we say they themselves know that sanctions do not work is the military threats they issue. Well, if sanctions can serve the purpose, then why do they issue military threats? This shows that sanctions have not served the purpose and that they do not work. They have to issue military sanctions. Of course, the act of issuing military threats is a very disgusting and despicable act. Instead of issuing military threats against different countries, you Americans should go and improve your own devastated economy. You should do something so that your government will not be shut down for 15, 16 days. You should go and pay your debts. You should think of improving your own economy.
As I said, the Americans should know that the Iranian nation behaves in a brotherly way towards all nations: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those who have the same religion as you have, they are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than that of yours, they are human beings like you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". The people of Iran respect other nations, but they behave towards transgressors in a way that they become regretful. They slap transgressots across the face in a way that they will never forget. The Americans consider themselves responsible for saying something in support of the Zionist regime and the capitalist Zionists and this is a source of weakness and humiliation for them. In fact, the Zionist regime is a regime whose foundations are extremely shaky. The Zionist regime is doomed to destruction. It is a regime which is imposed [on regional nations] and it has been formed on the basis of bullying. Any phenomenon and any organism which has come into being by use of force cannot survive and this regime cannot survive either. The support of the Americans - who are indebted to Zionist capitalists - for the wretched Zionist regime is a source of disgrace for them. Unfortunately, a number of European countries flatter this regime. These Europeans go and flatter these creatures who do not deserve to be called human beings and they humiliate themselves and their people in front of these creatures. The leaders of the Zionist regime are really like wild animals and one cannot call them human beings.
One day in Europe, the French nation gained a good political reputation because the president of France in those days did not allow England to enter the European Community due to the fact that England was dependent on America. This became a source of dignity for France. On that day, the dignity of the French government increased because it stood up against America and because it did not let England - which was dependent on America - enter the European Community. A people achieve dignity in such a way. Today, the politicians of this country [France] go and humble themselves not only before America, but also before these damned and dirty Zionists. This is a source of humiliation for the French nation. Of course, the people of France themselves should find a cure for this problem.
I would like to speak to you dear youth about a few things. You youth should know that without a doubt, the bright and promising future of this country and the Islamic Republic belongs to you. You will manage to help your country and your people reach the peak of glory. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you will be able to build a perfect model of the modern Islamic civilization in this country. In order to carry out these great tasks, you should promote and strengthen - as much as you can - religion, piety, morality and purity of soul among yourselves. Today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s youth need religion, piety, science, enthusiasm, trustworthiness, morality, social services and physical exercise. These are the things which today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s youth need and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you dear basijis will succeed in doing this.
Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), bestow Your blessings on these people and on all the basijis of our country. Dear God, make the Iranian nation conquer the peaks of honor on a daily basis. Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), make the immaculate soul of Imam satisfied with us and with these people. Dear God, make the pure souls of martyrs satisfied and pleased with us. Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), make the holy heart of the Imam of the Age satisfied and pleased with us and hasten the re-appearance of this great Imam. Make us be among his companions and his accompanying mujahids and make us be martyrs by his side.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1839&Itemid=4
More...
Description:
The Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran will not back down an iota from its rights and will never give in to pressure. Ayatollah Khamenei said the rights of the nation including its nuclear rights must be recognized. The leader expressed his support for the Iranian government and officials including the nuclear negotiating team. Ayatollah Khamenei also said he will not get involved with the details of the negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. But he said there are red lines and limitations that the Iranian negotiators will have to heed. Ayatollah Khamenei made the remarks in an address to commanders and members of the Basij volunteer force in Tehran.
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech in Meeting with Basij Commanders Print
20/11/2013
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech in Meeting with Basij CommandersThe following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 20, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with fifty thousand Basij commanders. The meeting was held at the Musalah in Tehran.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad and upon his immaculate, pure and chosen household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth.
Greetings be upon you Abi Abdullah and upon those who laid down their lives for you. I will send you God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s eternal greetings as long as I live and as long as night and day prevail. May God not make this prayer my last covenant with you. Greetings be upon Hussein, upon Ali ibn al-Hussein, upon the children of Hussein and upon the companions of Hussein - those who laid down their lives for Hussein (a.s.).
This meeting is a very important meeting. Basij is the manifestation of the greatness of our nation and the domestic capability of our country. This meeting is the meeting of commanders. You tens of thousands of commanders of Basij have gathered in this place and one can guess from this large gathering how glorious Basij is. You are a source of satisfaction, hope and trust for the supporters of the Islamic Republic, the Revolution and the country and you are a source of intimidation and fear for the ill-wishers, enemies and those who bear a grudge [against the Revolution and the Islamic Republic].
The coincidence of Basij Week with these days, which are the days of the great epic of the history of Islam, is a good and valuable occasion. What I mean by this great epic is the epic created by Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) which complements the epic of Ashura. The epic that Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) created revived and preserved the epic of Ashura. The greatness of what Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) did, cannot be compared to other great events in history. It should only be compared to the event of Ashura itself and truly, these two events complete one another.
This great personality and this great lady of Islam and all of humanity managed to stand firm in the face of the great mountain of hardships and there was not even a tremble in her voice because of all these events. She stood firm like a glorious mountain peak both in the face of enemies and in the face of hardships and bitter events. She became a lesson, a role model, a leader and a pioneer.
At the bazaar of Kufa, while she was held captive, she made this astonishing speech: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Oh people of Kufa, who are treacherous and disloyal, do you cry for us? May your tears not dry and may your moans not stop. You are like a woman who loosens her threads after she pulls them together\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [al-Ihtijaj, Volume 2, page 303]. The words are as firm as steel and the meaning flows like a river and it influences hearts and souls. In such conditions, Zaynab al-Kubra delivered a speech, which was like the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.), and she shook hearts and souls and she shook history with these words. This speech became eternal in history. It was delivered in front of the people while she was held captive.
After that, she delivered a speech in front of Ibn Ziad in Kufa and a few weeks later, she spoke in front of Yazid with such strength that it both humiliated the enemy and the hardships which the enemy had imposed. She said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Do you foolishly think that you can defeat, suppress and humiliate the household of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.)?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Honor belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the believers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 63: 8]. Zaynab al-Kubra is the manifestation of dignity, as Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) was the manifestation of dignity in Karbala on the day of Ashura.
The way she looks at events is different from the way other people look at those events. Despite all those hardships, when the enemy wants to taunt her, she says, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I did not see anything except for beauty\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Lohuf, page 160]. She said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"What I saw was beautiful. It was martyrdom. Although it was difficult, it was in the way of God and it was done for preserving Islam. It was the creation of an epic in history so that Islamic Ummah knows what it should do and how it should move forward and stand firm\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". This is a great achievement made by the epic of Zaynab (s.a.). This is the dignity of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s saint. Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) is one of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s saints. Her dignity is the dignity of Islam and she made Islam and the Holy Quran valuable.
Of course, we are not as aspirational and determined as Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) and therefore we cannot say that the behavior of this great lady is our model. We are too inferior to say such things, but anyway, our movement should be in line with the movement of Zaynab (s.a.). Our efforts should be focused on bringing dignity for Islam, the Islamic community and the entire humanity. This is the same responsibility that Allah the Exalted has entrusted to prophets through Islamic obligations and rules.
In the first part of my speech, what I want to briefly discuss with you dear basijis and dear youth is that one of the factors which brought about this spirit and this patience in Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) and other divine saints - who moved forward with such spirit and patience - is sincerity and honesty. It is very important to honor our promises to Allah the Exalted and to devote our hearts to the path of God in a sincere way.
In the Holy Quran, this sincerity is necessary for divine prophets as well: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And remember We took from the prophets their covenant, as We did from you, from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant, that (Allah) may question the custodians of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 7-8]. God says that this covenant is very firm and serious. In the phrase \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Leyasala\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" lam signifies results and consequences. The result of this covenant is that these great prophets will be questioned about their sincerity in this covenant. That is to say, our Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and other great prophets should prove before God the level of their sincerity concerning the conditions of this covenant. This part is related to prophets.
God also says to ordinary people and believers: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah: of them some have completed their vow (fully), and some (still) wait: but they have never changed (their determination) in the least, that Allah may reward the men of Truth for their Truth, and punish the Hypocrites if that be His Will\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 23-24]. When addressing great prophets, God referred to unbelievers as the opposite of honest individuals: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And He has prepared for the unbelievers a grievous Penalty\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 8]. And when addressing these believers, He referred to hypocrites as the opposite of honest individuals and there are important points in this comparison. You and I will be questioned about our promise to God. We have a covenant with God. In the holy ayah \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", the pledge that believers made to God and that was honored by them is the same as another ayah in this holy sura: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And yet they had already covenanted with Allah not to turn their backs\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 15].
All of us should pay attention to such points. Believers promised Allah the Exalted not to escape in the face of the enemy and not to turn their backs. The Holy Quran stresses that abandoning one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s positions and retreating in the face of the enemy are among the things which should not be done. One should stand up against the enemy in any military, political and economic war and in any arena which is a test of strength. Your determination should overcome the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s determination. Your willpower should overcome the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s willpower. This can be done and this is possible. From the viewpoint of the Holy Quran and Islam, running away and retreating from the enemy are forbidden in any arena of jihad and confrontation.
When we used the phrase \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"heroic flexibility\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", some people defined it as abandoning the ideals and the goals of the Islamic Republic. Some of the enemies too used it to accuse the Islamic Republic of betraying its principles. These interpretations were wrong and they misunderstood this phrase. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Heroic flexibility\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" means an artful maneuver for reaching one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s goal. It means that the followers of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s path - any divine path - should utilize different methods, in any way possible, in order to reach their goal and this should be done whenever they move towards the different ideals of Islam. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 8: 16].
Like the arena of war, any movement - whether forward or backward - should be launched in order to reach one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s predetermined goals. There are certain goals and at each stage, the Islamic government pursues one of these goals in order to make progress, achieve transcendence and create the great Islamic civilization. The Islamic government should try to achieve this goal at this stage. Of course, there are certain stages and phases to reach these goals. Experts, intellectuals and officials in charge of this are identifying these phases and goals and, as a result, our collective movement will begin. Everyone should try to make any movement, at any stage, reach its goal. This is a proper system which is based on logical and rational measures. All activists in the arena of politics and macromanagement of the country should always keep this in mind. All the people and you dear basijis too - who are activists in the arena of Basij - should always keep this in mind.
Well, when we say that we want to move forward, does this mean that the Islamic government is warmongering? Does this mean that the Islamic government wants to confront all nations and all countries in the world? Sometimes one hears that the enemies of the Iranian nation - specifically the najis-mouthed dirty dog of the region, the Zionist regime - move their jaws to say that Iran is a threat for the entire world. This is the claim of the enemy, but this is exactly the opposite of Islamic principles. On the contrary, those evil and malevolent forces - including the fake Zionist regime and some of its supporters - that show nothing except for malevolence, are a threat for the entire world.
The lesson that the Islamic government learned from the Holy Quran, the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.w.a.) and the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) is a different lesson: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allah commands justice and the doing of good\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 16: 90]. Allah the Exalted invites us to administer justice and do good. The commander of the Faithful (a.s.) said that we should be kind to everyone because \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those who have the same religion as you have, they are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than that of yours, they are human beings like you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 53]. People are either your Islamic brothers or human beings like you. This is the logic of Islam. We want to render services and show kindness to everyone. We want to establish a friendly and kind relationship with all human beings and all nations. We even have no enmity with the American people despite the fact that the government of America is an arrogant, hostile and evil government which bears a grudge against the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic. The American people are like other peoples.
What the Islamic Republic is opposed to is arrogance. The hostility of the Islamic Republic is oriented towards global arrogance. We are opposed to and fight against arrogance. Arrogance is a Quranic word and it has been used in the Holy Quran to refer to people like Pharaoh and the groups of people who are ill-wishers and who are opposed to truth. Arrogance existed in the past as well and it has continued to prevail until the present time. In all eras, arrogance has had the same structure. Of course, it has used different methods and tactics in different eras. There is arrogance today as well and it is led by the United States of America.
We should know arrogance and its characteristics. We should know the methods and the orientation of arrogance so that we can organize our behavior in the face of arrogance. We are opposed to unreasonable behavior in all arenas. We believe that we should move forward with wisdom and acumen in all arenas, in all collective and individual orientations and in all plans. If we do not know the scene, if we do not know our friends and our enemies, if we do not know imperialism and arrogance in the present time, then how can we move forward with wisdom and acumen? How can we make accurate plans? Therefore, we should know these things.
What I am saying about arrogance is a few examples regarding the behavior of today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s global arrogance in the world. In many of these examples and cases, today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s arrogance shares the characteristics of arrogance in previous centuries and previous eras. One of the characteristics of arrogance is egotism. When arrogant groups - those people who have taken everything in their hands as the highest-ranking individuals in a country, in a group of countries or in a global system - consider themselves to be superior to other people, when they regard themselves as the pivot, when they place everyone, except for themselves, on the periphery, then a wrong and dangerous equation will be formed in global interactions.
When arrogance views itself as superior and as the pivot and core [of everything], then the result will be that it grants itself the right to interfere in the affairs of other people and other nations. If arrogance considers something to be a value and if other people do not, this will grant it the right to interfere in their affairs and bully and pressure them. This egotism makes them claim to be the guardian of nations and to be responsible for global management. It also makes them consider themselves to be the boss of all the people in the world.
As you can hear, American officials and politicians speak about the government of America as if it were the leader of all countries. They say that they cannot let this be done. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We cannot allow this person to be or not to be in charge\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". They speak about our region in a way that it seems they are the owners of this region. They speak about the Zionist regime in a way that it seems regional nations have to accept this imposed and fake regime. They behave towards independent nations and governments as if they did not have the right to live. This egotism and this attitude of considering oneself to have a special position among all people, all nations and all human beings is the main foundation on which arrogance has been built and this is its biggest problem.
This egotism will lead to another characteristic and another criterion for arrogance which is the tendency to ignore other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s rights. They neither accept truth nor the rights of other nations. They do not at all acknowledge other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s rights. In international negotiations, someone says something which is right, but America does not accept it. It tries to deny such rights with different methods and it does not accept truth. This has happened many times. In the present time, one of the examples of this behavior is our current issues related to nuclear activities and industries. Imagine that someone says something which is true. If one is fair, reasonable and rational, he should give up when he faces the truth. But arrogance does not give up. It hears the truth, but it does not accept it. This is one of its characteristics. It does not acknowledge the rights of other nations either. It does not acknowledge the right of a people to choose, to do what they want and to adopt those economic and political measures which they want. They believe in imposing things on other nations.
Another characteristic of colonialism and arrogance is that it condones crimes against nations and the entire humanity and that it is indifferent towards such crimes. This is one of the greatest disasters of arrogance in modern times. Modern times means the era of scientific progress and the era of the emergence of dangerous weapons. When these weapons became available to arrogant powers, they created a disaster for all nations. They do not attach any value on the lives of individuals - those individuals who do not follow, obey and surrender to them.
There are many examples in this regard. One example is the behavior of arrogant powers towards Native Americans - those people whose financial and natural resources, whose geography and whose entire properties are in the hands of non-natives now. Well, there were native people in America. Their behavior towards these Native Americans was so violent and so disgusting that it is one of the darkest points in the history of modern America. The Americans themselves have written many things about the massacres that took place and the pressures that they exerted. The same thing was done by the English in Australia. The English hunted people, for pleasure, like animals and like kangaroos. They did not attach any value on the lives of human beings. This is only one example. There are hundreds of examples which have been recorded in their own history books.
Another example is the nuclear bombardment that was launched in the year 1945 of the Christian calendar - that it to say, the year 1324 of the Hijri calendar - when the Americans destroyed two Japanese cities and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Over the course of time, the number of people who suffered from deformities and different diseases because of nuclear radiations was several times larger than this and these problems have persisted until the present time. They did not have any cogent reason for this - I will refer to this later on. They easily dropped these bombs. Until now, atomic bombs have been used twice and both times, they were used by the Americans who consider themselves to be the main responsible party for the nuclear issues of other countries.
They like to forget these events, but it is not forgettable. All these lives were destroyed, but it was not at all important to them. For arrogance, the lives of human beings have no value and it is easy for arrogant regimes to commit crimes. They massacred the people in Vietnam. In Iraq, their security services and their mercenary security agencies - such as Blackwater which I referred to in the year 1390 - committed certain crimes. They are still committing crimes in Pakistan with their drones. In Afghanistan, they conduct a number of bombardments and they commit crimes. They are not afraid of committing crimes in each area they can get their hands on and in each area their interests dictate. These crimes include murder and torture. The Guantanamo prison - which belongs to the Americans - still has prisoners. It is 10, 11 years now that they have been arresting a number of people from different countries and putting them in this prison on different charges. They have been keeping them in this prison without any trial and with extremely difficult conditions and they have been torturing them. In Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prison was one of the American prisons. In this prison, they used to torture and set dogs on prisoners.
Looting the vital resources of other nations is easy for them. Capturing and enslaving Africans is one of the tragic events in history which American imperialism and other such regimes do not like to be reviewed. They do not like the issue of enslaving the people of Africa to be reflected on. They used to sail ships from the Atlantic Ocean and anchor them on the coast of West African countries such as Gambia and other countries in this continent. Then, they used to go and capture hundreds of thousands of men and women and old and young people with guns and other weapons which were not available to people at that time. While these people were in difficult conditions, they were taken to America on such ships for slavery. They captivated free people who were living in their houses and in their own cities. In the present time, the black people who live in America are the descendents of those slaves. For several centuries, the Americans exerted such an eccentric pressure and there are many books in this regard such as the book \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Roots\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" written by Alexander Haley. This book is a very valuable book for showing part of these crimes. How can today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s modern man forget such events? Despite all these crimes, the white people continue to discriminate against blacks in America.
Another characteristic of arrogance is deception and hypocritical behavior. You should pay attention to this issue. They try to justify the crimes which were referred to and they try to show that they were rendering services by committing these crimes. Global arrogance, which intends to dominate all nations, is frequently using this method in its entire life: the method of justifying crimes and taking on the appearance of rendering services. When the Americans want to apologize for their attack on Japan - that is to say, the two bombs which exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Although tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the two bombs that we dropped on these two cities, this was the cost of ending World War II. If we the Americans had not dropped these bombs, the war would have continued. If we had not done this, then two million people - instead of the 200 thousand people who were killed as a result of these bombs - would have been killed. Therefore, we rendered a service by dropping these bombs\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\".
Notice that this is a statement which the Americans make in their official propaganda. Now, around 65 years have passed from that day, but they have repeatedly said this. This is one of the deceptive and hypocritical statements and one of the elaborate lies that is not made and told by anyone except arrogant regimes. These bombs were dropped on and exploded in these two cities in the summer of the year 1945 of the Christian calendar and this crime was committed in that year. This was while four months before that - that is to say, in the early spring of 1945 - Hitler, who was the primary warmonger, had committed suicide. Moreover, Mussolini - the president of Italy at that time, who was the second important element in the war - had been arrested and the war was practically over. Japan too, which was the third important element in the war, had announced that it was ready to surrender. Therefore, there was practically no war, but these bombs were dropped anyway. Why? It is because these bombs had been built and they must have been tested somewhere. Certain weapons had been built and they must have been tested somewhere. Where should they test them now? The best option was to drop these bombs on the innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the excuse of war so that it becomes clear whether these bombs work properly or not. Such is their deceit.
They claim to be the supporters of human rights, but they target the Iranian passenger plane in the air and they kill about three hundred passengers who are unaware of this. Moreover, they do not apologize and they award a medal to the person who commits this crime. You have heard that in recent weeks, the Americans - from the President to lower-ranking politicians - have created uproar about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. They accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons. I do not want to judge who has used these weapons. Of course, evidence shows that terrorist groups have used them, but anyway, they said that the Syrian government has used such weapons. They created uproar about this and they said that the use of chemical weapons is our red line. American officials said this 10 times or more. But not only did the government and the regime of the United States of America not express any opposition to Saddam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s use of chemical weapons during its criminal attacks on Iran, but it also provided him with 500 tons of hazardous and lethal chemicals which could be turned into mustard gas.
Many of our dear youth of those times are still suffering from the effects of those chemicals and it is several years that they have been suffering from various diseases. The Americans helped Saddam to be equipped with such chemicals. Of course, he had bought such chemicals from other countries as well, but it was America that provided Saddam with 500 tons of lethal chemicals - which could turn into mustard gas - and that helped him to use it. After that, when the United Nations Security Council decided to issue a resolution against Saddam, it was America that prevented this. This is the meaning of hypocritical behavior. On the issue of Syria, the use of chemical weapons is a red line, but on the issue of Iran, it can be allowed and supported. This is because on this issue, chemical weapons are used against an independent Islamic government and against a nation which does not want to give in to America.
These are some of the characteristics of arrogance. Of course, the characteristics of arrogance are more than these. Arrogant powers wage wars, create discord and confront independent governments. They even confront their own people when the interests of specific groups dictate so. During the war that Saddam waged against Iran, they offered all kinds of help - which was possible for them - to Saddam. I referred to the case of chemicals, but they also gave him secret information about Iran. After the war, when the head of intelligence services of Saddam was interviewed, he said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I used to go to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad three times a week and they gave me a sealed package in which all satellite information about the movements of the Iranian Armed Forces existed and therefore, we knew where they were\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". They offered such kinds of help to Saddam.
The Islamic government is opposed to such arrogance. The Islamic government is not opposed to people and nations. It is not opposed to human beings. Rather, it is opposed to arrogance. This opposition has existed since the time of Abraham - God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Friend - Noah, the Holy Prophet of Islam and other great prophets and it has continued until today. Since that time, the camp of right has confronted arrogance. Why is that? Why does today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Islamic government confront arrogance? It is because arrogance with the characteristics that I described cannot tolerate an Islamic government such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is because the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed on the basis of opposition to arrogance. The Revolution was carried out in Iran in opposition to arrogance and the agents of arrogance. It was formed on the basis of this opposition. It grew, it became strong and it challenged the logic of arrogance on the basis of this opposition. Arrogance cannot tolerate this unless it is frustrated.
The Iranian people, the Iranian youth, the Iranian activists and those Iranians who believe in their homeland and their country for any reason - even if it may be a non-Islamic reason - should do something to make the enemy hopeless. The enemy should become hopeless. It is very difficult for global arrogance and for the government of the United States of America in the present time to see that in this sensitive region - in West Asia, which is the one of the most sensitive regions in the world in terms of politics and economy and which influences the entire world - a country, a government and a people have emerged who do not consider themselves to be dependent on and to be the followers of this self-proclaimed superpower. This Islamic government is independent and despite the strong opposition that it is faced with, it overcomes all problems and hardships. As the Americans themselves admit, this government is challenging the influence of America in the region and it is extending its own influence.
This Islamic government is becoming a role model for regional nations and this is very difficult for the Americans to tolerate. The Americans want to say that the lives of all nations depend on America. Now a people have emerged who not only are not dependent on America, but who also have not been influenced by all these hostilities. From the first day, the Americans did whatever they could, but it was not effective. These people have achieved growth and they have become stronger on a daily basis.
The hostilities that the government of the United States of America has shown against the Islamic Republic happened during the time of different presidents, but all of these hostilities are of the same nature. All of these hostilities are the same. Therefore, no one should say that such and such a plot was hatched during the time of such and such a president and this plot has not been hatched during the time of the current President of America. This is not the case. All of these presidents behave in the same way. First, they provoked ethnicities in Iran, then they launched a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état and after that, they made Iraq attack us. The next thing that they did was to help our enemy - which was the regime of Saddam - in his war against us and after the war, they imposed sanctions on us. Then, they provoked all media networks in the world and they made them align themselves against the Islamic Republic. All of these things have been done during the time of different presidents of America and now too, these things are being done.
In the fitna of the year 1388 - during the term of the current President of America - one of the social networks, which could be used to further the goals of fitna and those who provoked the fitna, needed to fix some technical problems. The government of America asked this network to delay fixing these technical problems because they hoped to overthrow the Islamic Republic with the help of media activities and networks such as Facebook, Twitter and other such networks. They had these foolish delusions. Therefore, they did not let this network fix its technical problems and they said that it should delay it and attend to this task which is more important.
They used all kinds of tools against the Islamic Republic and sanctions are one of these tools. From their viewpoint, this tool is enough for defeating the Islamic Republic. Their mistake is that they do not know the Iranian nation. Their mistake is that they do not know the element of faith and unity among our people. Their mistake is that they did not learn a lesson from their past mistakes. Therefore, they hope that they can bring the people of Iran to their knees by imposing sanctions, exerting pressures and other such measures. Of course, they are making a mistake. The permanent experience of the Islamic Republic during the past 35 years shows that the only way to get rid of the interference of the enemy is national power and national resistance. This is the only factor which can make the enemy retreat. Of course, the enemy is the enemy. He uses all kinds of tools. As I said, he has used and is using sanctions. We should know what it is that can help us achieve our goal.
I would like to say a few things about Basij and after that, I would like to briefly speak about the current issues regarding our foreign policies. As I said, Basij is a source of dignity for the country and the Islamic Republic. Why? It is because the meaning of Basij is the presence of all the people in arenas of fundamental activities for the sake of the people and the country. Any government that has people by its side and any country in which the people show their presence and move towards a specific direction, will definitely achieve victory. This is completely clear. Countries receive a blow and they are defeated whenever the people are not present on the scene or whenever they do not have unity of action. Whenever the people are present on the scene and whenever there is unity among them, victory and progress will be certain. Basij is the example of such presence. Basij is the manifestation of the presence of the people on the scene and the unity of the people. We should adopt such an outlook towards Basij.
On the issue of sincerity, which I referred to in the beginning of my speech, Basij has emerged victorious out of the test of sincerity. Basij was put to this test during the imposed war and the Sacred Defense Era which was a time when the country was in difficult conditions. Also, during the different events that took place after the Sacred Defense Era until the present time, Basij has emerged victorious out of the test of sincerity. The Basij organization has shown that it enjoys sincerity. Of course, in my opinion, Basij is not confined to this number of people who are active in the Basij organization. There are many people whose hearts are with you. They praise and respect you and they appreciate your value. These people are not active in the Basij organization, but they are basijis as well. In my opinion, those people who believe in and respect your values and who respect your efforts, your services and your jihad are basijis as well. Being present on the scene is one of the most important tasks.
Moreover, the capabilities of Basij help us solve problems. Fortunately, today inside the organization of Basij, there are many scientific, artistic, social and political personalities and there are many social activists and people who can influence the people. Until today, Basij has represented a group of people who have been achieving growth and transcendence on a daily basis and it should act in the same way from now on too.
What I recommend is that we should increase the capabilities of Basij. There are certain prerequisites for this: moral, behavioral and practical prerequisites. Moral prerequisites means that we should build and develop Islamic virtues in our hearts and souls. A number of these virtues are patience, forgiveness, fortitude, self-control and humility. We should strengthen these characteristics in ourselves. Behavioral prerequisites means that we should utilize these virtues when we interact with the people, the environment, society and human beings in general. Imam Sadiq (peace and greetings be upon him) used to say to his companions, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You should act in a way that whenever people see you, they say, ‘These people are the companions of Imam Sadiq. God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy be upon Imam Sadiq. You should make us be proud of you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [al-Kafi, Volume 2, page 233]. Each and every one of you dear basijis, you dear youth with your pure and enlightened hearts and souls should behave towards all the people - as I said, many of the people are basijis in the real sense of the word - in a way that they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"These people are students of the Islamic government. They are a source of respect for the Islamic government and the Islamic Republic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\".
And practical, jihadi and social prerequisites are the tasks that should be carried out. That is to say, we should strengthen these virtues in ourselves. It means that we should behave in a kind, diligent and praiseworthy way towards the [social] environment. It means that we should act in a serious way in all arenas including the arena of science, the arena of social services, the arena of work, the arena of politics and the arena of production. Wherever you are, you should work in a serious way without any feeling of tiredness and any laziness. We should work. This great group of basijis - tens of thousands of people from this great group are present in this meeting - can move the country towards positive paths in the real sense of word. This group of people can be a source of solidity and stability. It can be a source of grandeur for the Islamic Republic and thankfully it is playing such a role today. Today, Basij is a source of grandeur and honor for the Islamic Republic.
I would like to raise a point about the recent contentions over the arena of foreign policies, our nuclear issues, the current negotiations and other such things. First of all, I insist on supporting the officials who are in charge of this. I support all administrations and all officials - whether officials in charge of domestic affairs or officials in charge of foreign affairs - and this is our responsibility. I myself have been an executive official. I have been in the middle of the arena and I felt with all my heart the difficulty of the work. I know that the responsibility of managing the country is difficult. Therefore, these officials need help and I help and support them. This is one part of the issue which is clear. On the other hand, I also insist on establishing the rights of the Iranian nation including the issue of our nuclear rights. We insist that these officials should not even take one step back on the rights of the Iranian nation. Of course, we do not interfere in the details of these negotiations. There are certain red lines and limits in this regard. These limits should be observed. We have said this to officials in charge and it is their responsibility to observe these limits. They should not be afraid of the fuss that the enemies and opponents make. They should show no fear in the face of such fuss and uproar.
Everyone should know that primarily, the sanctions which have been imposed on the Iranian nation result from the arrogant grudge of America. The grudge that the Americans bear against us is like the grudge of a camel. They want to exert pressures on the Iranian nation in the hope that they can perhaps make the Iranian nation surrender. They are making a mistake because the Iranian nation will not surrender to anyone under pressure. You Americans have failed to know the people of Iran. They are a people who can, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, endure these pressures and who will turn these threats and pressures into an opportunity. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the Iranian nation will do this.
We have had certain weak points in the area of economic decisions and plans. These weak points have made the enemy feel that he can create a rift. This is an opportunity for us to know and eliminate these weak points and, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, we will eliminate them. The Americans should know and I think they know that sanctions do not work. The reason why we say they themselves know that sanctions do not work is the military threats they issue. Well, if sanctions can serve the purpose, then why do they issue military threats? This shows that sanctions have not served the purpose and that they do not work. They have to issue military sanctions. Of course, the act of issuing military threats is a very disgusting and despicable act. Instead of issuing military threats against different countries, you Americans should go and improve your own devastated economy. You should do something so that your government will not be shut down for 15, 16 days. You should go and pay your debts. You should think of improving your own economy.
As I said, the Americans should know that the Iranian nation behaves in a brotherly way towards all nations: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those who have the same religion as you have, they are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than that of yours, they are human beings like you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". The people of Iran respect other nations, but they behave towards transgressors in a way that they become regretful. They slap transgressots across the face in a way that they will never forget. The Americans consider themselves responsible for saying something in support of the Zionist regime and the capitalist Zionists and this is a source of weakness and humiliation for them. In fact, the Zionist regime is a regime whose foundations are extremely shaky. The Zionist regime is doomed to destruction. It is a regime which is imposed [on regional nations] and it has been formed on the basis of bullying. Any phenomenon and any organism which has come into being by use of force cannot survive and this regime cannot survive either. The support of the Americans - who are indebted to Zionist capitalists - for the wretched Zionist regime is a source of disgrace for them. Unfortunately, a number of European countries flatter this regime. These Europeans go and flatter these creatures who do not deserve to be called human beings and they humiliate themselves and their people in front of these creatures. The leaders of the Zionist regime are really like wild animals and one cannot call them human beings.
One day in Europe, the French nation gained a good political reputation because the president of France in those days did not allow England to enter the European Community due to the fact that England was dependent on America. This became a source of dignity for France. On that day, the dignity of the French government increased because it stood up against America and because it did not let England - which was dependent on America - enter the European Community. A people achieve dignity in such a way. Today, the politicians of this country [France] go and humble themselves not only before America, but also before these damned and dirty Zionists. This is a source of humiliation for the French nation. Of course, the people of France themselves should find a cure for this problem.
I would like to speak to you dear youth about a few things. You youth should know that without a doubt, the bright and promising future of this country and the Islamic Republic belongs to you. You will manage to help your country and your people reach the peak of glory. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you will be able to build a perfect model of the modern Islamic civilization in this country. In order to carry out these great tasks, you should promote and strengthen - as much as you can - religion, piety, morality and purity of soul among yourselves. Today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s youth need religion, piety, science, enthusiasm, trustworthiness, morality, social services and physical exercise. These are the things which today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s youth need and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you dear basijis will succeed in doing this.
Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), bestow Your blessings on these people and on all the basijis of our country. Dear God, make the Iranian nation conquer the peaks of honor on a daily basis. Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), make the immaculate soul of Imam satisfied with us and with these people. Dear God, make the pure souls of martyrs satisfied and pleased with us. Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), make the holy heart of the Imam of the Age satisfied and pleased with us and hasten the re-appearance of this great Imam. Make us be among his companions and his accompanying mujahids and make us be martyrs by his side.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1839&Itemid=4
The Unwritten Will and The Calamity of Thursday - English
On a Thursday, just three days before the demise of Prophet (PBUH&HF), the Messenger of Allah asked for pen and paper in order to state his last will and repeat the...
On a Thursday, just three days before the demise of Prophet (PBUH&HF), the Messenger of Allah asked for pen and paper in order to state his last will and repeat the declaration/assignment of his successor for his Ummah. Major Sunni sources including Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mentioned that an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar, accused prophet of talking non sense (May Allah protect us) in order to prevent this writing. They questioned the rationality of Prophet to discredit his will. Below is some of the traditions concerning this tragic episode:
It is narrated in Sahih Muslim that:
Ibn Abbas said:\"Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was!\" Then Ibn Abbas cried severely so that his tears flowed to his cheeks. Then he added Prophet said:\"Bring me a flat bone or a sheet and an ink so that I could write (order to write) a statement that will prevent you people to go astray after me.\" They said: \"Verily the messenger of Allah is talking no sense.\" (Reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul-Wasiyyah \" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, P1259, Tradition (#1637/21).)
The other version is given by al-Bukhari and Muslim which indicates the role of Umar in that catastrophe: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573
Narrated Ibn \'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was \'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said: \"Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.\" \'Umar said: \"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah\'s Book is sufficient for us.\" The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, \"Come near so that Allah\'s Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray,\" while the others said what \'Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them,\"Go away and leave me.\" Ibn \'Abbas used to say,\" It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah ‘s Apostle from writing a statement for them.
The above tradition can also be found in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul- Wasiyyah\" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1259, Tradition (#1637/22).
As you see in the above traditions, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was accused of talking no sense by an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar. In the above tradition, Ibn Abbas mentioned Umar and his company PREVENTED Prophet from writing his will which could prevent people from going astray after him. So the conclusion from the above tradition is that the writing it did NOT take place. In the following tradition, however, Sa\'id Ibn Jubair alleged that the Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.393
Narrated Said bin Jubair:
I heard Ibn \'Abbas saying, \"Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn \'Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn \'Abbas, \"What is (about) Thursday?\" He said, \"When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah\'s Apostle deteriorated, he said,\'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.\' The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They said,\'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). The Prophet replied,\'Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you are asking me.\'
Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying: \'Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.\' The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn \'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!
Sa\'id Ibn Jubair claims that Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims. It is interesting to see that the narrators who used to memorize thousands of traditions, simply forgot the last will of Prophet (PBUH&HF). Now if you look at the two things that the sub-narrator allegedly attributed to the Prophet, i.e.,
1. Expelling pagans from Arabian Peninsula 2. respecting foreign delegates
One can see that these are not the things that if Muslim do, they will NEVER go astray after Prophet. The matter should be much more important that would Guarantee the salvation of Muslims, and it could be no less important than the subject of leadership. Moreover such claim contradicts the saying of Ibn Abbas (in the early mentioned traditions) who claimed that the quarrel of the companions prevented the prophet from stating his will. Here is the last tradition I would like to mention in this regard.
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.716
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah\'s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said \"Bring me something so that I (order) to write for you something after which you will never go astray.\" The people (present there) quarreled in this matter, and it was not right to quarrel in front of prophet. They said, \"What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is talking no sense (delirious)?\"
The above tradition is also in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul-Wasiyyah\" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version, (Saudi Arabia), v3, pp 1257-58, Tradition (#1637/20).
More addresses for similar traditions:
Sahih al-Bukhari, in the chapter named \"The Book of Knowledge \"
(Kitabul-Ilm), also in the chapter named \"The Book of Medicine \"
(Kitabut-Tib), also in the chapter named \"Kitabul Itisam bil Kitab was-Sunnah\".
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1,pp 232,239,324f,336,355.
And much more...
Also as indicated above (Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573), Umar said: \"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah\'s Book is sufficient for us.\" Umar and those who supported him prevented prophet from writing (ordering to write) that statement, by accusing him of talking no sense. As I have mentioned in the discussion about \"Quran and Ahlul-Bayt\", prophet clearly indicated that we should follow both Quran AND Ahlul-Bayt in order not to go astray. So Quran alone is not sufficient as opposed to what Umar said above.
There is a bizarre commentary in the footnote of above traditions in Sahih Muslim (1980 Edition, Arabic version). It says: The above incident shows the high virtue of Umar, since he knew that people might not follow what prophet would write, and as a result, people would go to hell because of their disobedience of the order of prophet. So Umar prevented Prophet from writing, in order to save people from going to hell !
Also in the footnote of the same section of Sahih Muslim it is mentioned that Prophet possibly wanted to assign a Caliph on that Thursday, and the matter might have been the matter of successorship which caused such dispute.
In fact, most of the people who where present there, understood the intention of prophet, the same as what Umar did. Because prophet had previously indicated the issue when he said several times that:
\"I shall leave for you two precious Symbols: The book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my family (Itrat & Ahlul-bayt). If you follow them, you will never go astray after me.\" (Sahih al-Tirmidhi; a close version is also given in Sahih Muslim),
And also they were present in GHADIR KHUM where prophet said: \"Whoever I am his master, Ali is his master.\" (see Sahih al-Tirmidhi; Sunan Ibn Maja; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa\'is, by al-Nisa\'i).
So when prophet during his illness said that \"Let me write something that you never go astray after me\", those people who were present, including Umar, quickly understood that prophet wants to repeat what he had already mentioned, but this time in writing.
A few Quranic verses should also be mentioned here. Allah said in Quran:
* \"O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of prophet ... lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive.\" (Quran 49:2).
* Allah also said: \"Nor does he (prophet) speak out of his desire. (What he says) is nothing but revelation that is revealed.\" (Quran 53:3-4).
* He, Exalted, also said: \"Whatever apostle tells you accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back.\" (Quran 59:7).
* He, Exalted He is, also said: But no by thy Lord! They can have no Faith until they make thee judge in ALL disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction. (Quran 4:65)
So when such a prophet, three days before his death, wished to write a document of his will to save the Muslims from going astray, he was accused of talking no sense (paranoid)!
The reason that prophet did not repeat his request (if it is true) was that he already was discredited by his companions and was accused of talking no sense. So even if he would say something, those people would not believe in him and would say such instruction has been given while he was talking no sense (paranoid). So Umar made it easy, and by saying that prophet is talking nonsense, ended it up.
There are few Sunni traditions which allege that prophet was confused to assign which person as his successor and finally failed to assign any body as his successor and left it to people to decide. Some even claim that prophet was willing to assign Abu Bakr, but he left it to people.
If Umar have ever heard of such sayings (that prophet was willing to assign Abu Bakr as his successor), he would never stop prophet from stating his will, and would never accuse him of talking no sense. Rather he would let prophet tell his will and assign Abu Bakr as his successor. We all know, the main support in \"Saqifah Bani Sa\'idah\" for the secret nomination of Abu Bakr for Caliphate, was Umar.
So if Umar have not heard of such traditions (the tendency of Prophet to assign Abu Bakr), there is a great possibility that those traditions were fabricated later.
Also it contradicts several authentic Sunni traditions regarding the assignment of Ali-Ibn-Abi-Talib as prophet\'s successor. As you know there are a huge number of fabricated traditions which was created by several pay-rolled scholars in support of some rulers, and mainly to justify what happened.
Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the importance and seriousness of the tragedy:
1- Notice that any person utters his most important wishes when he wants to write the statement of his will at the end of his life.
2- Notice the importance of the person who wants to write the will, who is the last Prophet of God, the best mankind ever. No human in the world was more enthusiastic than him about his community. The person who Allah has ordered us in Quran to follow him unconditionally.
3- Notice that prophet said this statement would be the key element in the destiny of Muslims according to the above traditions. They will never go astray if they abide it.
In such critical moment, people who claimed to be his sincere companions, stopped/insulted him. Those companions are responsible for misleading the Muslims throughout history and the generations to come.
=============
Side Comments
=============
Reading the article, a Sunni brother commented that: How could Umar prevent the manifestation of a Divine Commandment? If writing the will was the order of Allah to his Prophet, then how could be possible that Allah fails to manifest His own wish?
This brother has confused two different issues. Umar was able to prevent the manifestation of divine commandment since he was a human and was gifted some free will. Yet, Umar or any other human can NEVER prevent what Allah foreordained (Taqdir) and what Allah wills (Mashiyyah). Please take a note of this: There is a difference between the commandment of Allah (which people can disobey) and the will of Allah (which people have no ability to go against). It was the commandment of Allah to write that statement, yet the Will of Allah was what happened.
=========
Another brother mentioned that Prophet Muhammad never wrote a single commandment or teaching of his during his 23 years of ministry. Then how could he order people to bring pen and paper to write somthing for them?
Yes, the messenger of Allah did not write in public, because he used to dictate writing. However, this does not mean that he did not know how to write. It is also true that the Prophet was \"Ummi\", but this does not necessarily mean he did not know how to read and write. It rather means that Prophet did not have any human teacher to teach him how to read and write since the time he was born to his mother (\"Ummi\" derived from \"Umm\" meaning mother). His only teacher was Allah. And this is why Quran is a true miracle from a person who did not have a teacher and he who did not go to school. I would say, clearing doubt about the Quran as God\'s revelation was the only reason that the Messenger of Allah was not ordered attempt to write in public or claim as such.
Reading and writing not only in Arabic but also in all other languages, as well as the knowledge of language of all other creatures are not a lot to claim for the master of all messengers when we see in Quran that Prophet Sulayman and David knew the language of the animals. Again, all such knowledge could be released to the Prophet when he really needed, by the permission of Allah. But to the time it is not necessary, he would act as if he does not have such knowledge. It is like having access to the database rather than having all the knowledge within oneself.
About the Tragedy of Thursday, however, what the Prophet (PBUH&HF) meant by \"writing\" was the common sense of \"ordering to write\", and people were aware of it and was not the first time they have heard of it. Based on the traditions no body even said at that time that how he wants to write. Moreover, even we suppose that Prophet wanted to write by himself and people did not know about his ability to write, they could have given him the benefit of doubt (!!) to see if he can do such miracle (!?) beside all the miracles he has had already shown. Were they suspicious to his miracles?
This is the same Prophet that God said about him \"laa yantqu anil Hawaa\" (he does not talk of his own desires)? Never mind verses 33:36, 59:7, 4:80, 4:59, etc., and yet to justify a disobedience by some companions can we accuse him of rave? Did God know that there would be a time that His prophet could not stand to the above standard, and still going ahead and revealing such verses in his honor?
=========
Another brother mentioned that if the Prophet inteneded to appoint Ali as the Imam, why did he not do so in the presence of the whole people and not in his house few days before his demise?
The Prophet had already declared the appointment Imam Ali as Imam in many occasions from his first open preach in Mecca (see al-Tabari English, v6, pp 88-92; Ibn al-Athir, v2, p62; Ibn Asakir, v1, p85; al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p97) to his last open sermon in Ghadir Khum (see Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298; Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa\'is, by al-Nisa\'i). Note that it was not Prophet who appointed him on his own, but it was rather Allah who appointed him.
What the messenger of Allah wanted to do in his last will was to write (or order to write) what he has already said. But, as quoted earlier, some people around him shamelessly reduced him to the level of insanity. What happened on that thursday is a proof by itself that the Prophet ALREADY assigned a successor, otherwise, there was no point of disobedience!
=========
Another person mentioned the verse \"Today I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion (Quran 5:3)\" which was revealed 2 months before the death of the Prophet shows that there was no new religious command is going to come thereafter. Otherwise, if that important statement the prophet was going to dictate to his followers would have been somthing which was forgotten, would make the verse untrue.
Perhaps the above brother would be surprized to know that many Sunni commentators of Quran have confirmed that the above verse (5:3) was revealed in Ghadir Khum AFTER the Messenger of Allah said: \"Whoever I am his leader, Ali is his leader. O\' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.\" (See the ariticled titled \"Ghadir Khum\" for extensive references). This means the perfection of the religion was due announcing the successor of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).
In fact what prophet wanted to do on that Thursday (three days before his death) was just to repeat, to remind, and to emphasize the things that has been revealed before. He didn\'t want to add any thing new.
No Muslim ever claimed that the position of prophethood has been taken from Muhammad sometime before his death. We do not have such case about other prophets either. Even let\'s suppose he was not prophet any more, or he wanted to say something new. Do you think you can find any man better or more enthusiastic than him about the destiny of his community?! Do you think his last wish was against the prosperity of his people?! How much should they have been rude that even they didn\'t let him talk!!!
[Reference : Shia Encycloedia]- http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia
More...
Description:
On a Thursday, just three days before the demise of Prophet (PBUH&HF), the Messenger of Allah asked for pen and paper in order to state his last will and repeat the declaration/assignment of his successor for his Ummah. Major Sunni sources including Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mentioned that an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar, accused prophet of talking non sense (May Allah protect us) in order to prevent this writing. They questioned the rationality of Prophet to discredit his will. Below is some of the traditions concerning this tragic episode:
It is narrated in Sahih Muslim that:
Ibn Abbas said:\"Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was!\" Then Ibn Abbas cried severely so that his tears flowed to his cheeks. Then he added Prophet said:\"Bring me a flat bone or a sheet and an ink so that I could write (order to write) a statement that will prevent you people to go astray after me.\" They said: \"Verily the messenger of Allah is talking no sense.\" (Reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul-Wasiyyah \" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, P1259, Tradition (#1637/21).)
The other version is given by al-Bukhari and Muslim which indicates the role of Umar in that catastrophe: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573
Narrated Ibn \'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was \'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said: \"Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.\" \'Umar said: \"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah\'s Book is sufficient for us.\" The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, \"Come near so that Allah\'s Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray,\" while the others said what \'Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them,\"Go away and leave me.\" Ibn \'Abbas used to say,\" It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah ‘s Apostle from writing a statement for them.
The above tradition can also be found in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul- Wasiyyah\" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1259, Tradition (#1637/22).
As you see in the above traditions, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was accused of talking no sense by an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar. In the above tradition, Ibn Abbas mentioned Umar and his company PREVENTED Prophet from writing his will which could prevent people from going astray after him. So the conclusion from the above tradition is that the writing it did NOT take place. In the following tradition, however, Sa\'id Ibn Jubair alleged that the Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.393
Narrated Said bin Jubair:
I heard Ibn \'Abbas saying, \"Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn \'Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn \'Abbas, \"What is (about) Thursday?\" He said, \"When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah\'s Apostle deteriorated, he said,\'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.\' The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They said,\'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). The Prophet replied,\'Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you are asking me.\'
Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying: \'Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.\' The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn \'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!
Sa\'id Ibn Jubair claims that Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims. It is interesting to see that the narrators who used to memorize thousands of traditions, simply forgot the last will of Prophet (PBUH&HF). Now if you look at the two things that the sub-narrator allegedly attributed to the Prophet, i.e.,
1. Expelling pagans from Arabian Peninsula 2. respecting foreign delegates
One can see that these are not the things that if Muslim do, they will NEVER go astray after Prophet. The matter should be much more important that would Guarantee the salvation of Muslims, and it could be no less important than the subject of leadership. Moreover such claim contradicts the saying of Ibn Abbas (in the early mentioned traditions) who claimed that the quarrel of the companions prevented the prophet from stating his will. Here is the last tradition I would like to mention in this regard.
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.716
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah\'s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said \"Bring me something so that I (order) to write for you something after which you will never go astray.\" The people (present there) quarreled in this matter, and it was not right to quarrel in front of prophet. They said, \"What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is talking no sense (delirious)?\"
The above tradition is also in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul-Wasiyyah\" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version, (Saudi Arabia), v3, pp 1257-58, Tradition (#1637/20).
More addresses for similar traditions:
Sahih al-Bukhari, in the chapter named \"The Book of Knowledge \"
(Kitabul-Ilm), also in the chapter named \"The Book of Medicine \"
(Kitabut-Tib), also in the chapter named \"Kitabul Itisam bil Kitab was-Sunnah\".
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1,pp 232,239,324f,336,355.
And much more...
Also as indicated above (Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573), Umar said: \"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah\'s Book is sufficient for us.\" Umar and those who supported him prevented prophet from writing (ordering to write) that statement, by accusing him of talking no sense. As I have mentioned in the discussion about \"Quran and Ahlul-Bayt\", prophet clearly indicated that we should follow both Quran AND Ahlul-Bayt in order not to go astray. So Quran alone is not sufficient as opposed to what Umar said above.
There is a bizarre commentary in the footnote of above traditions in Sahih Muslim (1980 Edition, Arabic version). It says: The above incident shows the high virtue of Umar, since he knew that people might not follow what prophet would write, and as a result, people would go to hell because of their disobedience of the order of prophet. So Umar prevented Prophet from writing, in order to save people from going to hell !
Also in the footnote of the same section of Sahih Muslim it is mentioned that Prophet possibly wanted to assign a Caliph on that Thursday, and the matter might have been the matter of successorship which caused such dispute.
In fact, most of the people who where present there, understood the intention of prophet, the same as what Umar did. Because prophet had previously indicated the issue when he said several times that:
\"I shall leave for you two precious Symbols: The book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my family (Itrat & Ahlul-bayt). If you follow them, you will never go astray after me.\" (Sahih al-Tirmidhi; a close version is also given in Sahih Muslim),
And also they were present in GHADIR KHUM where prophet said: \"Whoever I am his master, Ali is his master.\" (see Sahih al-Tirmidhi; Sunan Ibn Maja; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa\'is, by al-Nisa\'i).
So when prophet during his illness said that \"Let me write something that you never go astray after me\", those people who were present, including Umar, quickly understood that prophet wants to repeat what he had already mentioned, but this time in writing.
A few Quranic verses should also be mentioned here. Allah said in Quran:
* \"O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of prophet ... lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive.\" (Quran 49:2).
* Allah also said: \"Nor does he (prophet) speak out of his desire. (What he says) is nothing but revelation that is revealed.\" (Quran 53:3-4).
* He, Exalted, also said: \"Whatever apostle tells you accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back.\" (Quran 59:7).
* He, Exalted He is, also said: But no by thy Lord! They can have no Faith until they make thee judge in ALL disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction. (Quran 4:65)
So when such a prophet, three days before his death, wished to write a document of his will to save the Muslims from going astray, he was accused of talking no sense (paranoid)!
The reason that prophet did not repeat his request (if it is true) was that he already was discredited by his companions and was accused of talking no sense. So even if he would say something, those people would not believe in him and would say such instruction has been given while he was talking no sense (paranoid). So Umar made it easy, and by saying that prophet is talking nonsense, ended it up.
There are few Sunni traditions which allege that prophet was confused to assign which person as his successor and finally failed to assign any body as his successor and left it to people to decide. Some even claim that prophet was willing to assign Abu Bakr, but he left it to people.
If Umar have ever heard of such sayings (that prophet was willing to assign Abu Bakr as his successor), he would never stop prophet from stating his will, and would never accuse him of talking no sense. Rather he would let prophet tell his will and assign Abu Bakr as his successor. We all know, the main support in \"Saqifah Bani Sa\'idah\" for the secret nomination of Abu Bakr for Caliphate, was Umar.
So if Umar have not heard of such traditions (the tendency of Prophet to assign Abu Bakr), there is a great possibility that those traditions were fabricated later.
Also it contradicts several authentic Sunni traditions regarding the assignment of Ali-Ibn-Abi-Talib as prophet\'s successor. As you know there are a huge number of fabricated traditions which was created by several pay-rolled scholars in support of some rulers, and mainly to justify what happened.
Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the importance and seriousness of the tragedy:
1- Notice that any person utters his most important wishes when he wants to write the statement of his will at the end of his life.
2- Notice the importance of the person who wants to write the will, who is the last Prophet of God, the best mankind ever. No human in the world was more enthusiastic than him about his community. The person who Allah has ordered us in Quran to follow him unconditionally.
3- Notice that prophet said this statement would be the key element in the destiny of Muslims according to the above traditions. They will never go astray if they abide it.
In such critical moment, people who claimed to be his sincere companions, stopped/insulted him. Those companions are responsible for misleading the Muslims throughout history and the generations to come.
=============
Side Comments
=============
Reading the article, a Sunni brother commented that: How could Umar prevent the manifestation of a Divine Commandment? If writing the will was the order of Allah to his Prophet, then how could be possible that Allah fails to manifest His own wish?
This brother has confused two different issues. Umar was able to prevent the manifestation of divine commandment since he was a human and was gifted some free will. Yet, Umar or any other human can NEVER prevent what Allah foreordained (Taqdir) and what Allah wills (Mashiyyah). Please take a note of this: There is a difference between the commandment of Allah (which people can disobey) and the will of Allah (which people have no ability to go against). It was the commandment of Allah to write that statement, yet the Will of Allah was what happened.
=========
Another brother mentioned that Prophet Muhammad never wrote a single commandment or teaching of his during his 23 years of ministry. Then how could he order people to bring pen and paper to write somthing for them?
Yes, the messenger of Allah did not write in public, because he used to dictate writing. However, this does not mean that he did not know how to write. It is also true that the Prophet was \"Ummi\", but this does not necessarily mean he did not know how to read and write. It rather means that Prophet did not have any human teacher to teach him how to read and write since the time he was born to his mother (\"Ummi\" derived from \"Umm\" meaning mother). His only teacher was Allah. And this is why Quran is a true miracle from a person who did not have a teacher and he who did not go to school. I would say, clearing doubt about the Quran as God\'s revelation was the only reason that the Messenger of Allah was not ordered attempt to write in public or claim as such.
Reading and writing not only in Arabic but also in all other languages, as well as the knowledge of language of all other creatures are not a lot to claim for the master of all messengers when we see in Quran that Prophet Sulayman and David knew the language of the animals. Again, all such knowledge could be released to the Prophet when he really needed, by the permission of Allah. But to the time it is not necessary, he would act as if he does not have such knowledge. It is like having access to the database rather than having all the knowledge within oneself.
About the Tragedy of Thursday, however, what the Prophet (PBUH&HF) meant by \"writing\" was the common sense of \"ordering to write\", and people were aware of it and was not the first time they have heard of it. Based on the traditions no body even said at that time that how he wants to write. Moreover, even we suppose that Prophet wanted to write by himself and people did not know about his ability to write, they could have given him the benefit of doubt (!!) to see if he can do such miracle (!?) beside all the miracles he has had already shown. Were they suspicious to his miracles?
This is the same Prophet that God said about him \"laa yantqu anil Hawaa\" (he does not talk of his own desires)? Never mind verses 33:36, 59:7, 4:80, 4:59, etc., and yet to justify a disobedience by some companions can we accuse him of rave? Did God know that there would be a time that His prophet could not stand to the above standard, and still going ahead and revealing such verses in his honor?
=========
Another brother mentioned that if the Prophet inteneded to appoint Ali as the Imam, why did he not do so in the presence of the whole people and not in his house few days before his demise?
The Prophet had already declared the appointment Imam Ali as Imam in many occasions from his first open preach in Mecca (see al-Tabari English, v6, pp 88-92; Ibn al-Athir, v2, p62; Ibn Asakir, v1, p85; al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p97) to his last open sermon in Ghadir Khum (see Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298; Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa\'is, by al-Nisa\'i). Note that it was not Prophet who appointed him on his own, but it was rather Allah who appointed him.
What the messenger of Allah wanted to do in his last will was to write (or order to write) what he has already said. But, as quoted earlier, some people around him shamelessly reduced him to the level of insanity. What happened on that thursday is a proof by itself that the Prophet ALREADY assigned a successor, otherwise, there was no point of disobedience!
=========
Another person mentioned the verse \"Today I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion (Quran 5:3)\" which was revealed 2 months before the death of the Prophet shows that there was no new religious command is going to come thereafter. Otherwise, if that important statement the prophet was going to dictate to his followers would have been somthing which was forgotten, would make the verse untrue.
Perhaps the above brother would be surprized to know that many Sunni commentators of Quran have confirmed that the above verse (5:3) was revealed in Ghadir Khum AFTER the Messenger of Allah said: \"Whoever I am his leader, Ali is his leader. O\' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.\" (See the ariticled titled \"Ghadir Khum\" for extensive references). This means the perfection of the religion was due announcing the successor of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).
In fact what prophet wanted to do on that Thursday (three days before his death) was just to repeat, to remind, and to emphasize the things that has been revealed before. He didn\'t want to add any thing new.
No Muslim ever claimed that the position of prophethood has been taken from Muhammad sometime before his death. We do not have such case about other prophets either. Even let\'s suppose he was not prophet any more, or he wanted to say something new. Do you think you can find any man better or more enthusiastic than him about the destiny of his community?! Do you think his last wish was against the prosperity of his people?! How much should they have been rude that even they didn\'t let him talk!!!
[Reference : Shia Encycloedia]- http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia
13:48
|
Quick and Easy Delicious Roasted Chicken! English
A wonderful addition to your collection of recipes, quick easy and delicious roasted chicken!
You can either make this in your oven or use an electric skillet
preheat oven to 400 degrees
Ing:
2...
A wonderful addition to your collection of recipes, quick easy and delicious roasted chicken!
You can either make this in your oven or use an electric skillet
preheat oven to 400 degrees
Ing:
2 whole chicken cut in 8 pieces
in a separate bowl mix the following ing:
1 tbsp fresh ginger and garlic
1/2 cup yogurt
salt to taste
1 tbsp lemon pepper
1 tsp pepper
2 tsp basil
1 cup sour cream (you can use fat free if you like)
4 tbsp tomato paste
2 tbsp of lemon basil chopped (add it 1/2 way before the chicken get done)
1 tbsp cilantro chopped also added while you ad the lemon basil
Mix all the marinade together throughly than go ahead and add it to the chicken making sure you mix it well. Once everything is really well mixed add it to the electric skillet which is on 400 degrees and cover it, after the 25 minutes uncover and make sure the chicken is done, than leave the skillet open so the liquid disappears and you are left with a thick gravy.
This is a perfect dish that goes really well with either my roasted potatoes and cheese http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-wU7K... any naan or mashed potatoes!
Enjoy
More...
Description:
A wonderful addition to your collection of recipes, quick easy and delicious roasted chicken!
You can either make this in your oven or use an electric skillet
preheat oven to 400 degrees
Ing:
2 whole chicken cut in 8 pieces
in a separate bowl mix the following ing:
1 tbsp fresh ginger and garlic
1/2 cup yogurt
salt to taste
1 tbsp lemon pepper
1 tsp pepper
2 tsp basil
1 cup sour cream (you can use fat free if you like)
4 tbsp tomato paste
2 tbsp of lemon basil chopped (add it 1/2 way before the chicken get done)
1 tbsp cilantro chopped also added while you ad the lemon basil
Mix all the marinade together throughly than go ahead and add it to the chicken making sure you mix it well. Once everything is really well mixed add it to the electric skillet which is on 400 degrees and cover it, after the 25 minutes uncover and make sure the chicken is done, than leave the skillet open so the liquid disappears and you are left with a thick gravy.
This is a perfect dish that goes really well with either my roasted potatoes and cheese http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-wU7K... any naan or mashed potatoes!
Enjoy
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.
34:01
|
[24 July 2013] Sayed Nasrallah Speech at Islamic Resistance Women Iftar - English
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=103321&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=14&s1=1
S. Nasrallah: EU Decision Means Involvement in any Israeli Aggression...
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=103321&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=14&s1=1
S. Nasrallah: EU Decision Means Involvement in any Israeli Aggression
Eslam al-Rihani
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on Wednesday that the latest EU decision regarding Hezbollah will only doom to failure, advising the European states to soak their paper in water and drink it, for the Resistance will remain vital and victorious by the will of Allah Almighty.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahDuring his speech at the annual Iftar ceremony held by the Women\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Committee of Islamic Resistance Support Association of Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the resistance has its own presence and influence in the regional equations, and has been always a concern at the Lebanese, Arab, regional and international levels, whether positively or negatively.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A positive interest from those who believe in the resistance, pin their hopes on it and consider it to be a source of pride, and negative interest from those who consider it a source of threat for their occupation and hegemony,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said.
His eminence indicated that the Resistance is not on the margin and there is always attempts to eliminate and crush it, whether militarily, politically, morally or culturally, expressing beliefs that such decisions have no more than psychological effects.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The most important for the Lebanese Resistance is to get the support of its people and to express their will, pride and view in defending their land and their sovereignty.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance has gained credibility among people in Lebanon and the Arab and Islamic world and in many places of the world due to its sacrifices and steadfastness because it did not back down, retreat or get defeated and also due to its achievements and field victories.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance has changed the game rules and dropped projects and liberated captives, dignity and sovereignty of Lebanon. It also imposed a leading position for Lebanon in the region and will remain a solid fork in the eye of the Zionists and those who want Lebanon to get worse,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" his eminence added.
Touching on the EU member-states\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' decision that blacklisted what they dubbed \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'the military wing\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' of Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the decision has been announced in the media without issuing a formal statement to unfold its motives, evidence and logic.
His eminence noted that the EU official statement will be issued within days, and the party will see then whether it will hold any argument or logic to be discussed, pointing out that the historical course of the European states confirms that their stance is not subjected to any values.
Thanking all presidents, leaders, personalities and institutions that rejected the EU decision and condemned it, his eminence stated that the party wasn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t surprised by the decision but the leadership has expected it since the previous period.
Iftar 2013Hezbollah Secretary General went on to say that the Zionists have expressed that the decision was the result of diplomatic efforts they exerted, recommending some of those who rejoiced in Lebanon to hide their joy a little bit so they wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t express the same state of happiness as the Israelis.
Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated that the EU countries have insulted themselves and their principles, interests and sovereignty when they submitted to the Israelis and Americans, stating that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"EU countries should know they are giving legal cover for Israel to launch any war on Lebanon because Israel can claim it is waging war on the terrorists.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"These countries make themselves a full partner in the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, on the Resistance and on any target for the resistance in Lebanon.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
The Lebanese Resistance leader asked why the military wing of Israeli army wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t be put on the list of terror? While the EU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"repeatedly admits that Israel occupies Arab land and does not implement international resolutions since tens of years, and the whole world witnessed the Israeli massacres.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
He also voiced that the EU stance is subjected to the interests and pressures, not to the values and principles, where its effects are nothing more than psychological.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"In this country, resistance fighters fought the Israeli occupation and have endured a lot of pressure and sacrificed martyrs. Then you come to those who are the sons of this people and say they are terrorists. This is a very bad abuse for the fighters, for their people, and for their successive governments that were supporting the Resistance by their ministerial statements,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This is bad for Lebanon and the Lebanese government and people and not only for Resistance fighters,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he added, stressing that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"this will not undermine our morale.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Addressing the European states, Sayyed Nasrallah said: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are nationalists even in holidays. You can retake the visas you were granting for us. We do not have money in Europe. We do not have commercial or trade projects in Lebanon or abroad. therefore, this decision has no effects in this regard.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Yesterday, European delegates in Lebanon tried to say that the decision will not affect relations with Lebanon,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" recalling that some in the March 14 bloc are working to frustrate the people and descend walls on their hopes.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This decision aims at making us bow, to force us to step back and to be afraid. But I tell you that all you will get is failure and frustration,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" his eminence told the European Union.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahIn the same context, Hezbollah Secretary General said that those who think that the resistance, which confronted in such days the strongest army in the region over 33 days, will be undermined by a silly decision is either will be subjugated by this decision are either delusional or ignorant.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This decision will not be able to achieve any of its goals and we invite them (EU states) to correct this mistake because it will not lead to result,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he stressed.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Dip it (the decision) in water and drink it,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he added to the EU.
Touching on the local situation, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the other camp in Lebanon will not be able to exploit the decision in their domestic political calculations, or to isolate the party and form a cabinet without it.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A government without Hezbollah will not be formed, not because we are eager for it but for other things.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
His eminence jokingly suggested that Hezbollah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s ministers in the next government will be of the military wing of the party. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"So do not bet on exploiting the decision internally,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he told the Lebanese political rivals.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We call for the formation of a political government that preserve Lebanon and play in the heart of the storms moving around us.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance will remain and will be victorious by God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Will,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah concluded.
More...
Description:
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=103321&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=14&s1=1
S. Nasrallah: EU Decision Means Involvement in any Israeli Aggression
Eslam al-Rihani
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on Wednesday that the latest EU decision regarding Hezbollah will only doom to failure, advising the European states to soak their paper in water and drink it, for the Resistance will remain vital and victorious by the will of Allah Almighty.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahDuring his speech at the annual Iftar ceremony held by the Women\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Committee of Islamic Resistance Support Association of Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the resistance has its own presence and influence in the regional equations, and has been always a concern at the Lebanese, Arab, regional and international levels, whether positively or negatively.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A positive interest from those who believe in the resistance, pin their hopes on it and consider it to be a source of pride, and negative interest from those who consider it a source of threat for their occupation and hegemony,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said.
His eminence indicated that the Resistance is not on the margin and there is always attempts to eliminate and crush it, whether militarily, politically, morally or culturally, expressing beliefs that such decisions have no more than psychological effects.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The most important for the Lebanese Resistance is to get the support of its people and to express their will, pride and view in defending their land and their sovereignty.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance has gained credibility among people in Lebanon and the Arab and Islamic world and in many places of the world due to its sacrifices and steadfastness because it did not back down, retreat or get defeated and also due to its achievements and field victories.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance has changed the game rules and dropped projects and liberated captives, dignity and sovereignty of Lebanon. It also imposed a leading position for Lebanon in the region and will remain a solid fork in the eye of the Zionists and those who want Lebanon to get worse,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" his eminence added.
Touching on the EU member-states\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' decision that blacklisted what they dubbed \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'the military wing\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' of Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the decision has been announced in the media without issuing a formal statement to unfold its motives, evidence and logic.
His eminence noted that the EU official statement will be issued within days, and the party will see then whether it will hold any argument or logic to be discussed, pointing out that the historical course of the European states confirms that their stance is not subjected to any values.
Thanking all presidents, leaders, personalities and institutions that rejected the EU decision and condemned it, his eminence stated that the party wasn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t surprised by the decision but the leadership has expected it since the previous period.
Iftar 2013Hezbollah Secretary General went on to say that the Zionists have expressed that the decision was the result of diplomatic efforts they exerted, recommending some of those who rejoiced in Lebanon to hide their joy a little bit so they wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t express the same state of happiness as the Israelis.
Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated that the EU countries have insulted themselves and their principles, interests and sovereignty when they submitted to the Israelis and Americans, stating that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"EU countries should know they are giving legal cover for Israel to launch any war on Lebanon because Israel can claim it is waging war on the terrorists.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"These countries make themselves a full partner in the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, on the Resistance and on any target for the resistance in Lebanon.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
The Lebanese Resistance leader asked why the military wing of Israeli army wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t be put on the list of terror? While the EU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"repeatedly admits that Israel occupies Arab land and does not implement international resolutions since tens of years, and the whole world witnessed the Israeli massacres.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
He also voiced that the EU stance is subjected to the interests and pressures, not to the values and principles, where its effects are nothing more than psychological.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"In this country, resistance fighters fought the Israeli occupation and have endured a lot of pressure and sacrificed martyrs. Then you come to those who are the sons of this people and say they are terrorists. This is a very bad abuse for the fighters, for their people, and for their successive governments that were supporting the Resistance by their ministerial statements,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This is bad for Lebanon and the Lebanese government and people and not only for Resistance fighters,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he added, stressing that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"this will not undermine our morale.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Addressing the European states, Sayyed Nasrallah said: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are nationalists even in holidays. You can retake the visas you were granting for us. We do not have money in Europe. We do not have commercial or trade projects in Lebanon or abroad. therefore, this decision has no effects in this regard.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Yesterday, European delegates in Lebanon tried to say that the decision will not affect relations with Lebanon,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" recalling that some in the March 14 bloc are working to frustrate the people and descend walls on their hopes.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This decision aims at making us bow, to force us to step back and to be afraid. But I tell you that all you will get is failure and frustration,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" his eminence told the European Union.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahIn the same context, Hezbollah Secretary General said that those who think that the resistance, which confronted in such days the strongest army in the region over 33 days, will be undermined by a silly decision is either will be subjugated by this decision are either delusional or ignorant.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This decision will not be able to achieve any of its goals and we invite them (EU states) to correct this mistake because it will not lead to result,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he stressed.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Dip it (the decision) in water and drink it,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he added to the EU.
Touching on the local situation, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the other camp in Lebanon will not be able to exploit the decision in their domestic political calculations, or to isolate the party and form a cabinet without it.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A government without Hezbollah will not be formed, not because we are eager for it but for other things.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
His eminence jokingly suggested that Hezbollah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s ministers in the next government will be of the military wing of the party. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"So do not bet on exploiting the decision internally,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he told the Lebanese political rivals.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We call for the formation of a political government that preserve Lebanon and play in the heart of the storms moving around us.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance will remain and will be victorious by God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Will,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah concluded.
26:33
|
Speech to Members of Ahlul Bayt World Assembly and Islamic Radio and Television Union - (English)
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to Members of Ahlul Bayt World Assembly and Islamic Radio and Television Uni Print
17/08/2015
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on...
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to Members of Ahlul Bayt World Assembly and Islamic Radio and Television Uni Print
17/08/2015
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on August 17, 2015 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with the participants of Ahlul Bayt World Assembly and the members of Islamic Radio and Television Union.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al-Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad and upon his immaculate, pure and chosen household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth.
I would like to welcome the honorable participants and the dear brothers and sisters, the brothers and sisters from Ahlul Bayt World Assembly, the brothers and sisters from the Islamic Radio and Television Union and the honorable families of martyrs who are present in the meeting. I ask Allah the Exalted to bestow His blessings on all of you.
I would like to raise a few points about the Ahlul Bayt World Assembly and the Islamic Radio and Television Union. As for the Ahlul Bayt World Assembly, its significance originates from the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (a.s.) household. Allah the Exalted says something - in a very explicit manner - about the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (a.s.) in the Holy Quran: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you members of the Family, and to make you pure and immaculate\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 33]. This description has been used for few groups of people in the Holy Quran. The Ahlul Bayt\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s understanding and knowledge lies in their divine purity. Well, this purity has many dimensions. If a group of people associate themselves with the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (a.s.), they should observe certain criteria. This is what we want to say: these groups should observe certain criteria. The efforts of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (greetings be upon them) revolved around these pivots- first, reviving the original teachings of Islam. They wanted to keep Islamic principles alive. Oppressive governments and taghuts always tried to destroy or change and distort Islamic teachings. One of the most important moves of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household was to resist this attempt. They wanted to preserve and revive Islamic teachings. This was one of their tasks.
Another task that the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (greetings be upon them) did was to implement divine laws. They did so whether during the time when they ruled or during the time when they were removed from government. Their efforts were focused on implementing divine laws in society. This was another task. Another task that they carried out was to engage in jihad in the way of God. You read in the ziarat of the Imams, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I testify that you strove [jihad] in the way of God, such a striving is due to him.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This means that they did not show any negligence in fighting in the way of God. They engaged in jihad in the way of God with all their power and capability. This was another task.
An important part of this jihad - which is a separate chapter in itself - was fighting against oppression and oppressors. The lives of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (a.s.) were imbued with fighting against oppression and oppressors. The reason behind all those pressures and poisoning attempts and all that martyrdom was this- they fought against oppression and oppressors. This is the life of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household. Now, we want to be their followers. Therefore, we should observe these things. These things should be observed. We should promote Islamic teachings. We should consider implementing divine laws as one of our goals. We should engage in jihad in the way of God with all our power. We should fight against oppressors. We should fight against and confront oppressors. This is our responsibility.
Well, jihad is not confined to a military war. Jihad includes all kinds of fighting, ranging from cultural to political and economic fighting. All these kinds of fighting are included in jihad. Our minds should not only switch to a military war. Sometimes, it is possible that a military war breaks out, but jihad is not only this.
In our opinion, today, the manifestation of jihad for us Muslims and followers of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household is fighting against the plots of arrogance in this Islamic region. Today, this is the greatest form of jihad. We should fight against the plots of arrogance. First, we should identify these plots and study the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s thoughts so that we know what he is going to do. After that, we should plan on how we want to fight against his goals. And this is not confined to defense. Fighting includes both defense and offense. Sometimes, it is necessary for us to adopt a defensive position and sometimes, it is necessary to adopt an offensive position. In both cases, the goal is fighting against the plans of arrogance - which is the main enemy - in the region.
This fighting should take place in the entire Islamic region - particularly in this region which is West Asia. The Europeans insist on referring to this region as the Middle East region. In other words, they locate east on the basis of Europe. To them, a region is Far East, another is Middle East and another region is Near East. Because of the Europeans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' arrogance, this region has been called, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the Middle East\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" from the beginning. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Middle East\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is a wrong name. This is West Asia. This is Asia - a large continent - and we are in West Asia. This region is a very sensitive region. It is a very important region in terms of strategy, military power, important underground resources and connection between three continents - Asia, Europe and Africa. It is an important region for which they have certain plans. We should see what these plans are and then we should confront them. This is jihad. The Holy Quran says to us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And strive hard in the way of Allah, such a striving is due to Him\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 22: 78]. Today, this is jihad in the way of God.
Hatching plots against the world of Islam and this region in particular is not a new development. Since many years ago - since 100 years ago: since World War I until today - this region has been exposed to many pressures by arrogant powers. One day, it was England, one day it was America and one day it was France. It is 100 years or more now that arrogant powers have been pursuing their goals here. However, these pressures, plans and plots have been reinforced since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This is because the victory of Islam in an important, great and sensitive country like Iran was confusing for arrogance. In the beginning, they lost the power to analyze events. We used to pursue events and we were witness to this. In the beginning, they were confused. Later on, when they collected themselves, they began to exert pressure and the pivot of this pressure was the Islamic Republic of Iran. First, they focused their efforts on preventing this experience from being repeated in other countries. They were after this. This was why they thought of increasing pressures on Iran. It is 35 years now that we have gotten used to the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s pressures. The people of Iran have gotten used to pressures. It is 35 years now that we have been facing threats, sanctions, security pressures, different political plots and all kinds of pressures.
This began with the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. However, after the emergence of Islamic Awakening - that began four, five years ago in North African countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and other African countries - the enemies increased their pressures. That is to say, the enemy became anxious and uneasy in the real sense of the word. They adopted many measures that are continuing in the present time. Of course, they think that they have suppressed Islamic Awakening, but this humble person believes that Islamic Awakening is not suppressible. Although they have adopted some measures, this movement exists and it will find its true position sooner or later. In any case, they have increased their efforts in the recent years. They have adopted many measures and they have brought new elements into the equation.
The enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plans are based on two things. First, I will tell you that when we say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" we do not refer to an imaginary and fictional creature. By \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" we mean global arrogance and arrogant powers: powers whose existence depends on dominating others, interfering in their affairs and possessing their financial and vital resources. These are arrogant powers or in other words, the leaders of global arrogance. We have a term in our political literature which is global arrogance. It means the division of the world into \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the oppressor\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the oppressed\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". This is global arrogance. Those who are the leaders of this system are enemies.
If we want to give an example of who this enemy is in the outside world, we should refer to the regime of the United States of America. This regime is the epitome of global arrogance. Of course, others are part of global arrogance as well, but the clearest and the most obvious example is the regime of the United States of America. It knows nothing about human morality and it is not ashamed of committing any crime - of any nature. It covers these crimes, pressures and violent acts behind its smiles and its good and beautiful words. The manifestation of global arrogance is this regime. Therefore, when we say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", it means this.
This enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plan in the region is mainly based on two things. Of course, it has many branches, but these are the main two. One is creating discord and the second it exerting influence. This is the basis of the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plan in the region. They want to create discord between governments and - after that - between nations which is more dangerous than discord between governments. They want to make peoples bear grudge against each other and establish biased groups with different names. One day, it was \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"pan-Iranism\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"pan-Arabism\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"pan-Turkism\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and other such orientations and today, it is the issue of Shia and Sunni, takfirism and other such things. They create discord with anything they can. This is only item of their measures and they are working on it in a very serious way. Of course, the English were the first experts of this measure. They have expertise in creating religious discord. The Americans have learned this from them and they are working on it today with all their power.
All the takfiri groups that you see are their handicraft. Of course, we have been saying this for several years, but some people had doubts. Today, the Americans themselves are acknowledging this. They are acknowledging that it was they who created DAESH, al-Nusra Front and other takfiri groups. A bunch of simple-minded - although sincere - Muslims were deceived by them. This is the important point. What is very instructive to us and what we should pay attention to is that sometimes well-intentioned individuals work inside the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plan because of lack of vigilance. This has happened. One clear example of this is the issue of Syria. When taghuti governments were overthrown in Tunisia and Egypt with Islamic slogans, all of a sudden the Americans and the Zionists decided to use this formula for destroying resistant governments and countries. Therefore, they turned to Syria and as a result, a group of simple-minded and naïve individuals became the target of this plan. They made Syria reach the current situation. It is four, five years now that Syria has been experiencing this tumultuous situation and it is not clear when it will come to an end.
This was what the enemy did and simple-minded individuals were incorporated in this plan. They filled in the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s puzzle. This happens in many cases. It was they who created takfiri groups. It was they who created thuggish and violent groups and set them on the Islamic Ummah. They pretend that this is a denominational war. I will tell you that the conflicts that they are trying to label as denominational conflicts in Iraq, Syria and other countries are not denominational at all. They are of a political nature. The war in Yemen is a political war, not a religious one. They falsely claim that the issue is about Shia and Sunni while this is not the case. Some of those people who are losing their children, women, infants and their hospitals and schools in Yemen under the bombardment of the Saudis are Shafi\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'i and some of them are Zaidi . So, the issue is not about Shia and Sunni. The conflict is a political conflict, the conflict between policies. Today, they are creating such a situation in the region. It was they who created discord.
We should try to eliminate these differences and conflicts. We have said to everyone in an outspoken way that we extend the hand of friendship to all regional and Muslim governments. We have no problems with Muslim governments. Of course in the present time, our relations with many of our neighbors are already friendly and brotherly. The countries to the north, south, east and west of the Islamic Republic of Iran have good relations with us. Of course, some countries - near and far away - have certain differences with us. They behave in an obstinate way and show malevolence. This exists as well, but our principle is based on establishing good relations with neighboring countries, governments and - particularly - peoples. Our country has very good relations with peoples.
Of course, we believe that we should be committed to principles. We say that principles should be preserved. It was with commitment to principles that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) managed to achieve victory, preserve the Revolution and give stability to the Islamic Republic. He was committed to principles. One of these principles is \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"They are strong against unbelievers, compassionate amongst each other\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 48: 29]. This is one of the principles. We do not make peace with our enemies - with arrogance - and we do not show enmity towards our Muslim brothers, rather we behave in a friendly and brotherly manner towards them because we believe that we should be \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"strong against unbelievers, compassionate amongst each other.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
This is the lesson of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). This is the clear line of the Islamic Republic. In supporting the oppressed, we do not look, have not looked and will not look at the other side\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s religion and denomination. This is our magnanimous Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) guideline. Imam behaved towards Shia resistance in Lebanon in the same way that he behaved towards Sunni resistance in Palestine. He behaved towards them without any difference. We supported our brothers in Lebanon in the same way that we supported our brothers in Gaza without any difference. The former were Sunnis and the latter were Shias. The main issue for us is defending Islamic identity and supporting the oppressed. The main issue for us is the issue of Palestine which is the main issue for Muslims in the present time. This is the main issue for us.
We behave in the same way towards our enemies. Our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) fought against Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was apparently a Shia. Likewise, he fought against Saddam Hussein who was apparently a Sunni. Of course, the former was not a true Shia and the latter was not a true Sunni either. Both of them were separate from Islam, but the former was apparently a Shia and the latter was apparently a Sunni. Imam (r.a.) fought against them in the same way. Therefore, the issue for us is not the issue of Sunni, Shia, denominational bias and other such things. The issue is the issue of Islam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s principles: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Be an enemy of the oppressor and helper of the oppressed\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 47]. This is Islam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s command. This is our path. This is our line.
Intensifying discord in the world of Islam is forbidden. We are opposed to the behavior of some Shia groups, as it leads to discord. We have said outspokenly that we are opposed to insulting the holy beliefs of Sunnis. Some people from both sides intensify and fuel the fire of enmities. Many of them have good intentions, but they do not have foresight. Foresight is necessary. We should see what the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plan is. The enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s first plan is creating discord and his second plan is exerting influence. They want to have decade-long influence in Islamic and regional countries. Today in the region, America does not enjoy the reputation that it did in the past and therefore, it wants to retrieve it. They have the same intention in our country. They have the same intention in Iran. They thought that they could use the nuclear negotiations to exert influence inside our country. Now, the fate of this nuclear agreement is not clear either in Iran or in America. It is not clear whether it will be approved or not in both countries. They wanted to use it as a means to exert influence in our country, but we blocked their path and we will definitely block their path in the future as well [audience chant \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
We will not allow the Americans to have economic or political influence in our country, nor will we allow them to have a political presence and cultural influence in our country. We will confront them with all our power which is thankfully great in the present time. The same is true of the region. In the region too, they want to exert influence, have an excuse to show their presence and pursue their goals. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, we will do our best to prevent this. Our policies in the region are the exact opposite of the Americans. The territorial integrity of regional countries is very important to us. The territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria is very important to us. On the contrary, they are after dismembering these countries. I have said before that the Americans are after dismembering Iraq, but some people expressed surprise. Recently, the Americans themselves have acknowledged that they are after dismembering Iraq. They want to dismembering Iraq. If they can, they want to dismember Syria as well.
Their purpose of doing this is to create small and obedient countries, but by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, this will not happen [audience chant \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"]. We will defend the Resistance in the region. We will defend the Palestinian Resistance which is one of the most prominent chapters in the history of the Islamic Ummah throughout these years. We will defend this group. We will support anyone who fights against Israel, who condemns the Zionist regime and who approves of the Palestinian Resistance. We will offer all kinds of support, within the scope of our capabilities, to such people. We will offer all kinds of possible support to anyone who confronts the Zionist regime. We will support the Resistance. We will support the territorial integrity of countries. We will support all those individuals who resist the divisive policies of America. We confront all those people who create discord.
We do not approve of the kind of Shia whose headquarters are in London [audience chant \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"] because it is not the kind of Shia that the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (greetings be upon them) promoted. The kind of Shia that is based on creating discord and on clearing the road for the presence of the enemies of Islam is not real Shia, rather it is deviation. Shia is the epitome of original Islam and the Holy Quran. We will support all those people who help unity and we will oppose all those who act against unity. We will support all the oppressed. We will not leave the arena just because they say that we interfered in the affairs of Bahrain and other countries. We did not interfere at all, but we will support them. We feel for the oppressed people of Bahrain and Yemen. We pray for them and we will offer any kind of help we can.
Today, the people of Yemen are really oppressed. They are destroying a country just because of some arrogant and political polices which are pursued in a foolish manner. They could have pursued political goals in a different manner, but they are pursuing them foolishly. The events of Yemen and many other events in the world of Islam - in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other such countries - are really painful for us. And these events are too many and they are really painful. The world of Islam should cure such problems with vigilance and foresight.
As for the Islamic Radio and Television Union, I want to say that this union is very important. The task that you have begun - that is to say, establishing this union - is a very important task. Notice that in the present time, at least 70, 80 percent of the people in Muslim countries are committed to religious principles and beliefs. If you take a look at Islamic countries, you will see that the people are committed to and believe in their religion. To what extent are the radio and television networks in such countries - which should be the representatives of the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s wishes and demands - committed to religion? There is a shocking gap and rift. Seventy, eighty percent of the people are religious, but radio and television networks in such countries do not move in a religious direction and they do not reflect the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s demands. This is very strange. They reflect the same things that the dangerous media empire of arrogance wants. Today, arrogance has created a great media empire. They distort and cover up news and they tell lies. This way, they promote their policies. This is while they constantly say that they take an impartial position. The English radio claims that it is impartial, but they are lying. They are not impartial at all. They move in the exact direction of arrogant and colonialist policies - whether American or English policies.
Audio and print media, news agencies and the complicated means of mass communication that exist today are all at the service of their policies. They are at the service of arrogance, Zionism and their goals. We should do something in the face of this dangerous empire and this large media mafia that is in the hands of American and Zionist capitalists and cartels. What you are doing is the beginning of a movement and therefore, it should be pursued and strengthened on a daily basis. You should bring your partners and colleagues into the arena as well.
By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, a good future is awaiting us. I will tell you that despite the boastful behavior of arrogance and the great efforts that arrogance and its allies and followers are carrying out in financial, military, political and security areas, the future belongs to Islam in the region and in the entire world of Islam. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, Islam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s dignity and power will increase on a daily basis. Of course, it is necessary to show diligence. Thankfully, there are many mujahid men, women and youth in the entire world of Islam. Therefore, we should appreciate their value and we should use our slogans, our moves, our words and our activities in this direction. If we do so, Allah the Exalted will definitely help: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If you help the cause of Allah, He will help you and make firm your feet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 47: 7].
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to Members of Ahlul Bayt World Assembly and Islamic Radio and Television Uni Print
17/08/2015
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on August 17, 2015 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with the participants of Ahlul Bayt World Assembly and the members of Islamic Radio and Television Union.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al-Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad and upon his immaculate, pure and chosen household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth.
I would like to welcome the honorable participants and the dear brothers and sisters, the brothers and sisters from Ahlul Bayt World Assembly, the brothers and sisters from the Islamic Radio and Television Union and the honorable families of martyrs who are present in the meeting. I ask Allah the Exalted to bestow His blessings on all of you.
I would like to raise a few points about the Ahlul Bayt World Assembly and the Islamic Radio and Television Union. As for the Ahlul Bayt World Assembly, its significance originates from the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (a.s.) household. Allah the Exalted says something - in a very explicit manner - about the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (a.s.) in the Holy Quran: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you members of the Family, and to make you pure and immaculate\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 33]. This description has been used for few groups of people in the Holy Quran. The Ahlul Bayt\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s understanding and knowledge lies in their divine purity. Well, this purity has many dimensions. If a group of people associate themselves with the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (a.s.), they should observe certain criteria. This is what we want to say: these groups should observe certain criteria. The efforts of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (greetings be upon them) revolved around these pivots- first, reviving the original teachings of Islam. They wanted to keep Islamic principles alive. Oppressive governments and taghuts always tried to destroy or change and distort Islamic teachings. One of the most important moves of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household was to resist this attempt. They wanted to preserve and revive Islamic teachings. This was one of their tasks.
Another task that the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (greetings be upon them) did was to implement divine laws. They did so whether during the time when they ruled or during the time when they were removed from government. Their efforts were focused on implementing divine laws in society. This was another task. Another task that they carried out was to engage in jihad in the way of God. You read in the ziarat of the Imams, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I testify that you strove [jihad] in the way of God, such a striving is due to him.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This means that they did not show any negligence in fighting in the way of God. They engaged in jihad in the way of God with all their power and capability. This was another task.
An important part of this jihad - which is a separate chapter in itself - was fighting against oppression and oppressors. The lives of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (a.s.) were imbued with fighting against oppression and oppressors. The reason behind all those pressures and poisoning attempts and all that martyrdom was this- they fought against oppression and oppressors. This is the life of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household. Now, we want to be their followers. Therefore, we should observe these things. These things should be observed. We should promote Islamic teachings. We should consider implementing divine laws as one of our goals. We should engage in jihad in the way of God with all our power. We should fight against oppressors. We should fight against and confront oppressors. This is our responsibility.
Well, jihad is not confined to a military war. Jihad includes all kinds of fighting, ranging from cultural to political and economic fighting. All these kinds of fighting are included in jihad. Our minds should not only switch to a military war. Sometimes, it is possible that a military war breaks out, but jihad is not only this.
In our opinion, today, the manifestation of jihad for us Muslims and followers of the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household is fighting against the plots of arrogance in this Islamic region. Today, this is the greatest form of jihad. We should fight against the plots of arrogance. First, we should identify these plots and study the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s thoughts so that we know what he is going to do. After that, we should plan on how we want to fight against his goals. And this is not confined to defense. Fighting includes both defense and offense. Sometimes, it is necessary for us to adopt a defensive position and sometimes, it is necessary to adopt an offensive position. In both cases, the goal is fighting against the plans of arrogance - which is the main enemy - in the region.
This fighting should take place in the entire Islamic region - particularly in this region which is West Asia. The Europeans insist on referring to this region as the Middle East region. In other words, they locate east on the basis of Europe. To them, a region is Far East, another is Middle East and another region is Near East. Because of the Europeans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' arrogance, this region has been called, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the Middle East\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" from the beginning. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Middle East\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is a wrong name. This is West Asia. This is Asia - a large continent - and we are in West Asia. This region is a very sensitive region. It is a very important region in terms of strategy, military power, important underground resources and connection between three continents - Asia, Europe and Africa. It is an important region for which they have certain plans. We should see what these plans are and then we should confront them. This is jihad. The Holy Quran says to us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And strive hard in the way of Allah, such a striving is due to Him\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 22: 78]. Today, this is jihad in the way of God.
Hatching plots against the world of Islam and this region in particular is not a new development. Since many years ago - since 100 years ago: since World War I until today - this region has been exposed to many pressures by arrogant powers. One day, it was England, one day it was America and one day it was France. It is 100 years or more now that arrogant powers have been pursuing their goals here. However, these pressures, plans and plots have been reinforced since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This is because the victory of Islam in an important, great and sensitive country like Iran was confusing for arrogance. In the beginning, they lost the power to analyze events. We used to pursue events and we were witness to this. In the beginning, they were confused. Later on, when they collected themselves, they began to exert pressure and the pivot of this pressure was the Islamic Republic of Iran. First, they focused their efforts on preventing this experience from being repeated in other countries. They were after this. This was why they thought of increasing pressures on Iran. It is 35 years now that we have gotten used to the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s pressures. The people of Iran have gotten used to pressures. It is 35 years now that we have been facing threats, sanctions, security pressures, different political plots and all kinds of pressures.
This began with the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. However, after the emergence of Islamic Awakening - that began four, five years ago in North African countries such as Egypt, Tunisia and other African countries - the enemies increased their pressures. That is to say, the enemy became anxious and uneasy in the real sense of the word. They adopted many measures that are continuing in the present time. Of course, they think that they have suppressed Islamic Awakening, but this humble person believes that Islamic Awakening is not suppressible. Although they have adopted some measures, this movement exists and it will find its true position sooner or later. In any case, they have increased their efforts in the recent years. They have adopted many measures and they have brought new elements into the equation.
The enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plans are based on two things. First, I will tell you that when we say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" we do not refer to an imaginary and fictional creature. By \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" we mean global arrogance and arrogant powers: powers whose existence depends on dominating others, interfering in their affairs and possessing their financial and vital resources. These are arrogant powers or in other words, the leaders of global arrogance. We have a term in our political literature which is global arrogance. It means the division of the world into \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the oppressor\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the oppressed\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". This is global arrogance. Those who are the leaders of this system are enemies.
If we want to give an example of who this enemy is in the outside world, we should refer to the regime of the United States of America. This regime is the epitome of global arrogance. Of course, others are part of global arrogance as well, but the clearest and the most obvious example is the regime of the United States of America. It knows nothing about human morality and it is not ashamed of committing any crime - of any nature. It covers these crimes, pressures and violent acts behind its smiles and its good and beautiful words. The manifestation of global arrogance is this regime. Therefore, when we say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", it means this.
This enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plan in the region is mainly based on two things. Of course, it has many branches, but these are the main two. One is creating discord and the second it exerting influence. This is the basis of the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plan in the region. They want to create discord between governments and - after that - between nations which is more dangerous than discord between governments. They want to make peoples bear grudge against each other and establish biased groups with different names. One day, it was \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"pan-Iranism\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"pan-Arabism\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"pan-Turkism\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and other such orientations and today, it is the issue of Shia and Sunni, takfirism and other such things. They create discord with anything they can. This is only item of their measures and they are working on it in a very serious way. Of course, the English were the first experts of this measure. They have expertise in creating religious discord. The Americans have learned this from them and they are working on it today with all their power.
All the takfiri groups that you see are their handicraft. Of course, we have been saying this for several years, but some people had doubts. Today, the Americans themselves are acknowledging this. They are acknowledging that it was they who created DAESH, al-Nusra Front and other takfiri groups. A bunch of simple-minded - although sincere - Muslims were deceived by them. This is the important point. What is very instructive to us and what we should pay attention to is that sometimes well-intentioned individuals work inside the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plan because of lack of vigilance. This has happened. One clear example of this is the issue of Syria. When taghuti governments were overthrown in Tunisia and Egypt with Islamic slogans, all of a sudden the Americans and the Zionists decided to use this formula for destroying resistant governments and countries. Therefore, they turned to Syria and as a result, a group of simple-minded and naïve individuals became the target of this plan. They made Syria reach the current situation. It is four, five years now that Syria has been experiencing this tumultuous situation and it is not clear when it will come to an end.
This was what the enemy did and simple-minded individuals were incorporated in this plan. They filled in the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s puzzle. This happens in many cases. It was they who created takfiri groups. It was they who created thuggish and violent groups and set them on the Islamic Ummah. They pretend that this is a denominational war. I will tell you that the conflicts that they are trying to label as denominational conflicts in Iraq, Syria and other countries are not denominational at all. They are of a political nature. The war in Yemen is a political war, not a religious one. They falsely claim that the issue is about Shia and Sunni while this is not the case. Some of those people who are losing their children, women, infants and their hospitals and schools in Yemen under the bombardment of the Saudis are Shafi\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'i and some of them are Zaidi . So, the issue is not about Shia and Sunni. The conflict is a political conflict, the conflict between policies. Today, they are creating such a situation in the region. It was they who created discord.
We should try to eliminate these differences and conflicts. We have said to everyone in an outspoken way that we extend the hand of friendship to all regional and Muslim governments. We have no problems with Muslim governments. Of course in the present time, our relations with many of our neighbors are already friendly and brotherly. The countries to the north, south, east and west of the Islamic Republic of Iran have good relations with us. Of course, some countries - near and far away - have certain differences with us. They behave in an obstinate way and show malevolence. This exists as well, but our principle is based on establishing good relations with neighboring countries, governments and - particularly - peoples. Our country has very good relations with peoples.
Of course, we believe that we should be committed to principles. We say that principles should be preserved. It was with commitment to principles that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) managed to achieve victory, preserve the Revolution and give stability to the Islamic Republic. He was committed to principles. One of these principles is \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"They are strong against unbelievers, compassionate amongst each other\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 48: 29]. This is one of the principles. We do not make peace with our enemies - with arrogance - and we do not show enmity towards our Muslim brothers, rather we behave in a friendly and brotherly manner towards them because we believe that we should be \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"strong against unbelievers, compassionate amongst each other.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
This is the lesson of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). This is the clear line of the Islamic Republic. In supporting the oppressed, we do not look, have not looked and will not look at the other side\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s religion and denomination. This is our magnanimous Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) guideline. Imam behaved towards Shia resistance in Lebanon in the same way that he behaved towards Sunni resistance in Palestine. He behaved towards them without any difference. We supported our brothers in Lebanon in the same way that we supported our brothers in Gaza without any difference. The former were Sunnis and the latter were Shias. The main issue for us is defending Islamic identity and supporting the oppressed. The main issue for us is the issue of Palestine which is the main issue for Muslims in the present time. This is the main issue for us.
We behave in the same way towards our enemies. Our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) fought against Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was apparently a Shia. Likewise, he fought against Saddam Hussein who was apparently a Sunni. Of course, the former was not a true Shia and the latter was not a true Sunni either. Both of them were separate from Islam, but the former was apparently a Shia and the latter was apparently a Sunni. Imam (r.a.) fought against them in the same way. Therefore, the issue for us is not the issue of Sunni, Shia, denominational bias and other such things. The issue is the issue of Islam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s principles: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Be an enemy of the oppressor and helper of the oppressed\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 47]. This is Islam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s command. This is our path. This is our line.
Intensifying discord in the world of Islam is forbidden. We are opposed to the behavior of some Shia groups, as it leads to discord. We have said outspokenly that we are opposed to insulting the holy beliefs of Sunnis. Some people from both sides intensify and fuel the fire of enmities. Many of them have good intentions, but they do not have foresight. Foresight is necessary. We should see what the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plan is. The enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s first plan is creating discord and his second plan is exerting influence. They want to have decade-long influence in Islamic and regional countries. Today in the region, America does not enjoy the reputation that it did in the past and therefore, it wants to retrieve it. They have the same intention in our country. They have the same intention in Iran. They thought that they could use the nuclear negotiations to exert influence inside our country. Now, the fate of this nuclear agreement is not clear either in Iran or in America. It is not clear whether it will be approved or not in both countries. They wanted to use it as a means to exert influence in our country, but we blocked their path and we will definitely block their path in the future as well [audience chant \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"].
We will not allow the Americans to have economic or political influence in our country, nor will we allow them to have a political presence and cultural influence in our country. We will confront them with all our power which is thankfully great in the present time. The same is true of the region. In the region too, they want to exert influence, have an excuse to show their presence and pursue their goals. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, we will do our best to prevent this. Our policies in the region are the exact opposite of the Americans. The territorial integrity of regional countries is very important to us. The territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria is very important to us. On the contrary, they are after dismembering these countries. I have said before that the Americans are after dismembering Iraq, but some people expressed surprise. Recently, the Americans themselves have acknowledged that they are after dismembering Iraq. They want to dismembering Iraq. If they can, they want to dismember Syria as well.
Their purpose of doing this is to create small and obedient countries, but by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, this will not happen [audience chant \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"]. We will defend the Resistance in the region. We will defend the Palestinian Resistance which is one of the most prominent chapters in the history of the Islamic Ummah throughout these years. We will defend this group. We will support anyone who fights against Israel, who condemns the Zionist regime and who approves of the Palestinian Resistance. We will offer all kinds of support, within the scope of our capabilities, to such people. We will offer all kinds of possible support to anyone who confronts the Zionist regime. We will support the Resistance. We will support the territorial integrity of countries. We will support all those individuals who resist the divisive policies of America. We confront all those people who create discord.
We do not approve of the kind of Shia whose headquarters are in London [audience chant \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allahu Akbar\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"] because it is not the kind of Shia that the Holy Prophet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s household (greetings be upon them) promoted. The kind of Shia that is based on creating discord and on clearing the road for the presence of the enemies of Islam is not real Shia, rather it is deviation. Shia is the epitome of original Islam and the Holy Quran. We will support all those people who help unity and we will oppose all those who act against unity. We will support all the oppressed. We will not leave the arena just because they say that we interfered in the affairs of Bahrain and other countries. We did not interfere at all, but we will support them. We feel for the oppressed people of Bahrain and Yemen. We pray for them and we will offer any kind of help we can.
Today, the people of Yemen are really oppressed. They are destroying a country just because of some arrogant and political polices which are pursued in a foolish manner. They could have pursued political goals in a different manner, but they are pursuing them foolishly. The events of Yemen and many other events in the world of Islam - in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other such countries - are really painful for us. And these events are too many and they are really painful. The world of Islam should cure such problems with vigilance and foresight.
As for the Islamic Radio and Television Union, I want to say that this union is very important. The task that you have begun - that is to say, establishing this union - is a very important task. Notice that in the present time, at least 70, 80 percent of the people in Muslim countries are committed to religious principles and beliefs. If you take a look at Islamic countries, you will see that the people are committed to and believe in their religion. To what extent are the radio and television networks in such countries - which should be the representatives of the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s wishes and demands - committed to religion? There is a shocking gap and rift. Seventy, eighty percent of the people are religious, but radio and television networks in such countries do not move in a religious direction and they do not reflect the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s demands. This is very strange. They reflect the same things that the dangerous media empire of arrogance wants. Today, arrogance has created a great media empire. They distort and cover up news and they tell lies. This way, they promote their policies. This is while they constantly say that they take an impartial position. The English radio claims that it is impartial, but they are lying. They are not impartial at all. They move in the exact direction of arrogant and colonialist policies - whether American or English policies.
Audio and print media, news agencies and the complicated means of mass communication that exist today are all at the service of their policies. They are at the service of arrogance, Zionism and their goals. We should do something in the face of this dangerous empire and this large media mafia that is in the hands of American and Zionist capitalists and cartels. What you are doing is the beginning of a movement and therefore, it should be pursued and strengthened on a daily basis. You should bring your partners and colleagues into the arena as well.
By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, a good future is awaiting us. I will tell you that despite the boastful behavior of arrogance and the great efforts that arrogance and its allies and followers are carrying out in financial, military, political and security areas, the future belongs to Islam in the region and in the entire world of Islam. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, Islam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s dignity and power will increase on a daily basis. Of course, it is necessary to show diligence. Thankfully, there are many mujahid men, women and youth in the entire world of Islam. Therefore, we should appreciate their value and we should use our slogans, our moves, our words and our activities in this direction. If we do so, Allah the Exalted will definitely help: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If you help the cause of Allah, He will help you and make firm your feet\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 47: 7].
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
The Suez Crisis 1 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Gamal Nasser and Prime Minister Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim world in...
This documentary tells the story of Gamal Nasser and Prime Minister Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim world in this crisis. ---------- FROM WIKIPEDIA SUEZ CRISIS THE PROTOCOL OF SEVRES Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state. - Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. --
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Gamal Nasser and Prime Minister Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim world in this crisis. ---------- FROM WIKIPEDIA SUEZ CRISIS THE PROTOCOL OF SEVRES Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state. - Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. --
The Suez Crisis 2 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
The Suez Crisis 3 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
The Suez Crisis 4 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
The Suez Crisis 5 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
The Suez Crisis 6 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
The Suez Crisis 7 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
The Suez Crisis 9 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
The Suez Crisis 8 of 9 - the other side of Suez - English
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From...
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
More...
Description:
This documentary tells the story of Nasser and Eden wrestling over the control of the Suez Canal. Israel as always plays the role of a STAB IN THE HEART of the Muslim World in this crisis. - From WIKIPEDIA - SUEZ CRISIS - The Protocoal of Sevres - Three months after Egypts nationalization of the canal company a secret meeting took place at Sevres outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene instructing that both the Israeli and Egyptian armies withdraw their forces to a distance of 16 km from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypts control of such an important route was too tenuous and that it need be placed under Anglo-French management. - The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.- Prior to the operation Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans trusting instead that Nassers engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers. ---
4:14
|
Are you afraid to die - Dr. Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi - Arabic
Dr. 'Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, one of the seven founders of Hamas. He was killed when a US-made Apache helicopter fired seven missiles on his car, also killing two passersby - a mother and her...
Dr. 'Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, one of the seven founders of Hamas. He was killed when a US-made Apache helicopter fired seven missiles on his car, also killing two passersby - a mother and her five-year-old daughter.
Are you afraid to die?
It's death. Either by killing or by cancer,
it's the same thing.
We are all waiting for the last day of our lives.
Nothing will be changed.
If it is by apache or by cardiac arrest.
I prefer it to be by apache
More...
Description:
Dr. 'Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, one of the seven founders of Hamas. He was killed when a US-made Apache helicopter fired seven missiles on his car, also killing two passersby - a mother and her five-year-old daughter.
Are you afraid to die?
It's death. Either by killing or by cancer,
it's the same thing.
We are all waiting for the last day of our lives.
Nothing will be changed.
If it is by apache or by cardiac arrest.
I prefer it to be by apache
1:53
|
Saudi Prince Bandar - UK bribery disgrace in trade with Saudi Arabia - Persian
Latest News: 15th May 2008
Saudi-Israeli plot against Hezbollah
Thu, 15 May 2008 16:36:28
Prince Bandar bin Sultan (L), Ehud Olmert
Former Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin...
Latest News: 15th May 2008
Saudi-Israeli plot against Hezbollah
Thu, 15 May 2008 16:36:28
Prince Bandar bin Sultan (L), Ehud Olmert
Former Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan asks Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to move against Hezbollah.
Saudi's Prince Bandar bin Sultan has formally requested Olmert to move the Zionist regime's military forces in the north of the Occupied Lands on the border with Lebanon as a threat against Hezbollah if the latter did not stop attacking government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Filkka - Israel website revealed Wednesday.
Bandar bin Sultan arrived in the Occupied Territories in his private plane directly from Jeddah airport to Lod Airport in Tel Aviv.
Bin Sultan asked Olmert to do what is necessary to support PM Siniora, offering to bear all the financial costs of any Israeli war against Hezbollah.
Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert who is under investigation in a bribe case, said that he could not do so now, assuring his guest that he could not wage a war on behalf of Saudi Arabia, but he will discuss the issue with the Israeli officials in order to carry out military maneuvers in the south of Lebanon.
Old News
UK bribery disgrace in trade with Saudi Arabia: Former Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan received hundreds of millions of pounds in secret payments from Britain's top defence manufacturer with the knowledge of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, according to the BBC.
The payments made by BAE Systems were actually a conduit to Bandar for his role in the multi-billion al-Yamamah arms agreement, Britain's biggest ever export deal signed in 1985, the state-funded broadcaster said it had learned Thursday.
The alleged bribes were said to have been discovered during a year-long inquiry conducted by Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO), but which was abruptly halted last December after Blair said the investigation was a threat to national security.
The dropping of the investigation also came amid concerns that it might jeopardize a new multi-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia to supply Eurofighters.
The BBC said that the payments, believed to total more than Pnds one billion (Dlrs 1.9 bn), were sent to two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington, were written into the government-to-government arms deal contract in secret annexes.
Allegations previously made in the British press have also suggested that Mark Thatcher, son of the British prime minister at the time, was also involved in the deal.
The al-Yamamah deal included the supply of more than 100 Tornado aircraft and is estimated to have been worth over Pnds 40 billion (Dlrs 78 bn) over more than a decade.
The new claims, to be made in the BBC's current affairs Panorama programme next Monday prompted the head of parliament's committee which investigates strategic exports, Labour MP Roger Berry, to call for a proper investigation into the allegations.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said that if ministers in either the present or previous governments were involved there should be a "major parliamentary inquiry".
"It is one thing for a company to have engaged in alleged corruption overseas. It is another thing if British government ministers have approved it," Cable said
More...
Description:
Latest News: 15th May 2008
Saudi-Israeli plot against Hezbollah
Thu, 15 May 2008 16:36:28
Prince Bandar bin Sultan (L), Ehud Olmert
Former Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan asks Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to move against Hezbollah.
Saudi's Prince Bandar bin Sultan has formally requested Olmert to move the Zionist regime's military forces in the north of the Occupied Lands on the border with Lebanon as a threat against Hezbollah if the latter did not stop attacking government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Filkka - Israel website revealed Wednesday.
Bandar bin Sultan arrived in the Occupied Territories in his private plane directly from Jeddah airport to Lod Airport in Tel Aviv.
Bin Sultan asked Olmert to do what is necessary to support PM Siniora, offering to bear all the financial costs of any Israeli war against Hezbollah.
Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert who is under investigation in a bribe case, said that he could not do so now, assuring his guest that he could not wage a war on behalf of Saudi Arabia, but he will discuss the issue with the Israeli officials in order to carry out military maneuvers in the south of Lebanon.
Old News
UK bribery disgrace in trade with Saudi Arabia: Former Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan received hundreds of millions of pounds in secret payments from Britain's top defence manufacturer with the knowledge of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, according to the BBC.
The payments made by BAE Systems were actually a conduit to Bandar for his role in the multi-billion al-Yamamah arms agreement, Britain's biggest ever export deal signed in 1985, the state-funded broadcaster said it had learned Thursday.
The alleged bribes were said to have been discovered during a year-long inquiry conducted by Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO), but which was abruptly halted last December after Blair said the investigation was a threat to national security.
The dropping of the investigation also came amid concerns that it might jeopardize a new multi-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia to supply Eurofighters.
The BBC said that the payments, believed to total more than Pnds one billion (Dlrs 1.9 bn), were sent to two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington, were written into the government-to-government arms deal contract in secret annexes.
Allegations previously made in the British press have also suggested that Mark Thatcher, son of the British prime minister at the time, was also involved in the deal.
The al-Yamamah deal included the supply of more than 100 Tornado aircraft and is estimated to have been worth over Pnds 40 billion (Dlrs 78 bn) over more than a decade.
The new claims, to be made in the BBC's current affairs Panorama programme next Monday prompted the head of parliament's committee which investigates strategic exports, Labour MP Roger Berry, to call for a proper investigation into the allegations.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said that if ministers in either the present or previous governments were involved there should be a "major parliamentary inquiry".
"It is one thing for a company to have engaged in alleged corruption overseas. It is another thing if British government ministers have approved it," Cable said
President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 1 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now
President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 2 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 3 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
[CLIP] Moharram and Gaza - Urdu
To view this speech and many other great speeches please visit either www.islamimarkaz.org or www.islamimarkaz.com. Three series of Majalis are being uloaded everyday.
To view this speech and many other great speeches please visit either www.islamimarkaz.org or www.islamimarkaz.com. Three series of Majalis are being uloaded everyday.