Search Result in All

In an awaited address by Americans, US President Barack Obama talked about reforms that he recommends for the spying agency the National Security Agency (NSA). Of course his speech has come as a reaction to uproar by Americans and much of the world. US whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the extent of America\'s snooping agency involvement in eavesdropping on the private lives of regular Americans to foreign heads of state. Stay with us as we take a look at just what these alleged reforms means

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.

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.

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah\\\\\\\'s Speech on June 24, 2011, in which he first confirmed 2 CIA spying cases within Hezbollah, and he talked about the link between the spies and the US Embassy. In addition, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Policy Statement of the new Lebanese government is unlikely to be delayed. The Secretary General also spoke about Israel\\\\\\\'s recent \\\\\\\"Turning Point 5\\\\\\\" drills, saying that these drills serve as proof that Israel is no longer capable of fast deceptiveness, and Israel is thereby admitting that its home front is officially under threat. Sayyed Nasrallah also talked about Bahrain\\\\\\\'s recent prison sentences for some of the Opposition figures, and to end, he addressed the current situation in Syria. For a summary and a full script of this speech in English, please visit: http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=19866&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=14&s1=1

(Last 9 min missing. We thank LitleButerfli for the upload.) Sayyed Nasrallah: Ready for Dialogue, Resistance Weapon Saved Lebanon Marwa Haidar As his eminence stressed that kidnapping of the Lebanese visitors would not change Hezbollah’s position from the Syrian crisis, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced his party’s decision to take part in the National Dialogue in Lebanon which President Michel Sleiman has called for. Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed that the Lebanese army has been the most important guarantee to establish security, urging Lebanese to support this service and to stand behind it. Addressing massive crowds who were marking the twelfth anniversary of Liberation in the southern city of Bint Jbeil, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the weapon of the resistance had defend Lebanon against the Zionist entity, adding that May 25 of the year of 2000 had hammered the last pin of the so-called “Greater Israel” coffin. Sayyed Nasralla also tackled the current developments related to the release of the Lebanese visitors who were kidnapped by Syrian opposition militants two days ago. Hezbollah S.G. thanked the three Presidents: Sleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Najib Miqati as well as former Premier Saad al-Haririr for their efforts that helped in releasing the visitors. His eminence also underlined the importance of the magical formula: army-people-resistance, saying it was the main deterrent against the Israeli attacks. Tackling the latest unrest in the north, Sayyed Nasrallah criticized what he described as the chaos of weapons, refusing to compare between these arms and the resistance weapon. “FIRM STANCE ON SYRIA” Talking about the abduction of Lebanese visitors, Sayyed Nasrallah said Hezbollah’s position from the Syrian crisis would not change, as he thanked different Lebanese, Syrian and Turkish figures for their efforts that helped in releasing the visitors. “We thank God the abduction ended without negative consequences. However it may have some positive ones,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. “Since the first moment of the abduction, several national parties launched many possible contacts in order to release the kidnapped visitors.\\\\\\\" “We thank President Sleiman, PM Miqati, Speaker Berri and Saad al-Hariri, who exert special efforts to free the visitors,” Sayyed Nasrallah added. Meanwhile, Hezbollah S.G. hailed the people’s commitment to calls of calm, noting that the cutting off the roads was useless. “We also thank people who were calm and respond to calls of self restrain.” “Cutting off roads is useless as well as attacking Syrian citizens which is forbidden,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. On the other hand, his eminence said that Hezbollah’s stance on the Syrian crisis was firm and obvious, stressing that the political solution was the only way to end the unrest there. “To kidnappers I say: your act is condemned and it harms what you are working on.” “If you were aiming at changing our political position on the Syrian crisis, then your act is fruitless and has no sense,” his eminence also told the kidnappers. “Our stance is firm and clear, we support the political solution in Syria in order to end the current crisis.” RESISTANCE ACHIEVEMENTS Talking about the occasion, Sayyed Nasrallah said that Resistance and Liberation day was for all Lebanese sects without exception, assuring that the formula of army-people-resistance was the only formula to defend Lebanon. “May 25 is a day for the Lebanese state as well as for all the national parties who contributed to this resistance. This day is also for all who supported the resistance to achieve this victory.” Sayyed Nasrallah said that the resistance had foiled Israeli project against Lebanon. “Everyone knows that the Israeli occupation of 1982 was a part of a US-Israeli project which aimed at inserting Lebanon in the Israeli era; however the resistance foiled this project.” “The Israeli enemy thought that its army would stay in Lebanon, but the resistance gave it a clear impression that the Lebanese land was not safe to implement its projects,” Sayyed Nasrallah added. “This land was liberated with dignity and without any precondition or any accord of humiliation,” Hezbollah S.G. stressed. “The conspiracy planned for Lebanon by the Israeli enemy has failed, thank God.” Sayyed Nasrallah also stressed that the Zionist entity by virtue of the resistance could not dare to attack Lebanon. “Since May 25, 2000 and till now, except for July war in 2006, the Israeli enemy hasn’t dare to attack Lebanon by virtue of army-people-resistance equation.” “Israel which has been attacking us, it fears today that we may attack it, for that the Zionist entity started the construction of the wall along the Lebanese-occupied territories borders.” “May 25 hammered the last pin of the so-called Greater Israel coffin,” Sayyed Nasrallah assured. Meanwhile, Hezbollah S.G. talked about the wall which the Zionist entity has been building along the border with Lebanon. But Sayyed Nasrallah said that this wall would not defend the Zionist entity, stressing that the resistance’s rockets have been capable of reaching any location in the occupied territories. “The Zionist entity sought to dominate the region from Nile to Furat, including Litani River. But today there are people whose rockets can reach any location in the occupied territories.” CHAOS OF WEAPONS Talking about the unrest the Lebanese witnessed in the country’s north, Sayed Nasrallah talked about a chaos of weapons in the country. His eminence also noted that no party can deny its procession of weapons, refusing to compare these arms with the weapon of resistance. “Surely no party can deny it has weapons.. Everybody in Lebanon has arms, whether it were heavy or light weapons.” “What is the aim of these weapons which we witnessed? It’s unacceptable for someone to say they are individual weapons.” Sayyed Nasrallah wondered about the achievements of these weapons, as his eminence refused to compare between the two types of arms. “We believe that there is an essential difference between the two types of arms.” Although that the two types of arms were not similar, Sayyed Nasrallah said he had no problem in discussing the resistance’s weapon. “We are ready to discuss this weapon or that. Let us discuss the defense strategy, the strategy that concerns all the Lebanese people.” In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted the importance of the army-people-resistance formula. READY FOR DIALOGUE Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah said Hezbollah was ready to go on the national dialogue which President Sleiman had called for. “President Sleiman called for a national Dialogue. Hezbollah agrees to take part in the dialogue without any precondition.\\\\\\\" But Sayyed Nasrallah said that March 14 alliance should also take part in the dialogue without preconditions, as they must abandon the calls for the government to step down. Hezbollah S.G. also called on Lebanese to support the army and to stand behind it. “The important service in Lebanon is the army”, Sayyed Nasrallah said, adding that the army “is the last and the most important gurantee of the security in Lebanon.” “For that we must defend the army in order for it to do its duties,” Sayyed Nasrallah said further.

Syed Yahia Bukhari is renound and respected maulana of Sunni Community. On this Chellum (20 safar 1434) after paying tribute to Imam Hussain and other martyr of Karbala in Dargah Shah-e-Mardan, Jorbagh, Delhi, he talked to YouTube Channel ykmedia on shia-sunni unity and other issues. He also talked his meeting with late Ayotallah Khomani and maulana late Kalbe Abid sahib. He also mentioned Pakistan\\\'s sunni jamat thoughts about shias

Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei who is on a trip to provincial city of Mashhad northeast Iran paid a visit Tuesday morning to the prestigious Ferdowsi University in the city and talked with a large audience of deans academics and instructors who had gathered in the educational hub Ayatollah Khamenei told the attendees that university plays a fateful role in promoting the country scientifically The IR Leader highlighted academic researches as imperative in securing identity independence and dignity of the Iranian nation and called for a resolute well thought project to promote the country indeed without sparing any moment In the same regard Ayatollah Khamenei noted that the present day world views international relations through the prism of power and the power of every country straddles its own scientific strength Ayatollah Khamenei hailed indigenous science as source of grandeur for its country of origin adding that his numerous calls during the recent years for creation of science and lift of recognized scientific boundaries were a prelude move to stage for a home grown science Ayatollah Khamenei urged employing of experienced professors besides providing younger talents of post-graduate levels with proper grounds to flourish into academic assets To that effect Ayatollah khamenei urged transforming university into a heated ground of scientific debates and researches Ayatollah Khamenei put the responsibility on university managers and academics to promote a lasting exploratory spirit in the students

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the Iraq war last tuesday - april 8. They talked about security troop cuts among other things but one item was missing from their agenda. MIR - Link TV is a useful resource - with mixed quality at times though - to get a sense of events in the Middle East.

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

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

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

Chaired by David Ignatius Associate Editor and Columnist The Washington Post USA the 2009 World Economic Forum is also a Forum for Israel to express their thoughts regarding the recent conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Recep Tayyip Erdogan Prime Minister of Turkey had some words for Shimon Peres after Peres had a 25 minute speech about Gaza sadly Recep was only allowed one minute. Seems odd other people are allowed speech time but hey I am sure the Washington Post is not biased. Amre Moussa Secretary General League of Arab States Cairo Shimon Peres President of Israel had to listen as the Turkish PM got off a few short words regarding the situation there and briefly talked about the children dying.

George Galloway at Penn State University in a speech about the 22 day attack on the Gaza strip. He talked about what he saw in his recent visit to Gaza after the Israeli attack

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has described the \\\\\\\'unprecedented\\\\\\\' turnout of almost 85% in the election as a \\\\\\\'political quake\\\\\\\' for the enemy. Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said high turnout in the election, which witnessed more than 40 million Iranians casting their votes, was a great manifestation of people\\\\\\\'s solidarity with the Islamic establishment. Addressing Friday prayers congregation, Ayatollah Khamenei said that last Friday\\\\\\\'s election indicated a \\\\\\\'common sense of responsibility\\\\\\\' of the Iranian nation to determine the future of the country. The Leader added that all those who took part in the election proved their \\\\\\\'political consciousness and commitment\\\\\\\' towards the establishment to the whole world. The Leader said the high voter turnout in the election was a \\\\\\\'political quake\\\\\\\' for the enemy and a \\\\\\\'real celebration\\\\\\\' for the friends of the country. \\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic of Iran will by no means betray the votes of the nation,\\\\\\\" the Leader said, adding the legal system of the election will not allow any ballot rigging in Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei, however, maintained that the Guardian Council, the body tasked with overseeing the election, would look into the complaints of the candidates who are unhappy with the election results. The Leader also added that the establishment would never give-in to illegal demands, urging all presidential candidates to pursue their complaints through legal channels. Ayatollah Khamenei called for an end to illegal street protests aimed at reversing the result of the election. Following the announcement of the election outcome, supporters of the defeated candidate Mir-Hussein Mousavi-who rejected the election results-- took to the streets of Tehran and other cities in daily rallies. The Leader also warned against attempts made by foreign media outlets seeking to destabilize the country and blamed Britain in particular. Ayatollah Khamenei also decried the slander of former and incumbent top officials in pre-election debates by candidates. President Ahmadinejad was re-elected the next president of the country with over 60% percent of the votes. He won over his three rivals Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaei with almost 25 million votes. The Leader said the time is over for rivalry, stressing that all should unite and line up behind the president-elect Complete Transcript http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98610 In this sermon, I call all the respected brothers and sisters who have attended the Friday prayers here to piety and I advise them against any wrongdoing. In this sermon, I will address the issue of the election, which is a hot topic in our country. I want to address three different groups on three different issues; firstly, I want to address the general public. Secondly, I want to address the political elite, the candidates of the presidential election, activists and those who have been active in the process of election. I also have something to say to the leaders of the global arrogance, certain Western governments and their media. On the first issue, where I address you dear people, I want to express my appreciation and gratitude. I do not like to exaggerate while I am addressing my audience, but regarding the recent election, I must tell you great people that no matter what I say, words cannot describe the greatness of your great accomplishment. The June 12 election was a great show of the people\\\\\\\'s sense of responsibility, their will to participate, and their dedication to the system. Truly, I have never heard of anything similar to what you have accomplished taking place in any of the democratic systems around the world, whether they are false democracies or truly built on their people\\\\\\\'s vote. In the Islamic Republic, aside from the 1979 referendum, there has no election like the one held last Friday with a turnout of almost 85 percent. This means almost 40 million voters. You can see the presence of the 12 and last Shia Imam behind this. This is a sign of God\\\\\\\'s blessing to us. It is necessary that I address you all across the nation from the depths of my heart, to express my respect and tell you that I feel humble in your presence. Our young generation showed and proved they have insight and that like the first generation of the Islamic Revolution, they are committed. The difference is, during the days of the revolution, revolutionary fire burned in the hearts of all. It was the same is the days of the imposed war but in a different sense. Today, however, there is no more of that but we still witness this commitment, this sense of responsibility, this understanding and fervor in our youth. This is not something that can be ignored. Of course, there are differences of taste and of opinion among our people. Some people support a certain candidate; others back another person and his words and ideas. This is natural, but you can see a collective commitment amid all this and amongst people of all walks of life. You can see a consensus, a collective commitment to the protection of our country and system. Everyone entered the political scene in villages, towns, cities, major cities, different ethnic groups, people of different faiths, men, women, young and old. They all entered the scene. They all took part in this great movement. My dear people, this election was a political tremor for your enemies. For your friends across the world, it was a real celebration -- a historical ceremony and victory. Thirty years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, such a huge turnout and show of commitment to the Islamic system and the late Imam [Khomeini] shows the renewal of the pledge of allegiance to the late Imam and the martyrs. This was a breath of fresh air, a new movement and a great opportunity for the Islamic system. This election put religious democracy on display for the whole world to witness. All ill-wishers of the Islamic establishment saw for themselves the meaning of religious democracy. This is an alternative path in the face of dictatorships and arrogant regimes on the one side and democracies devoid of spirituality and religion on the other. This is religious democracy. This is what brings the hearts of people together and draws them to the scene. This is the first point I wanted to make about the election. The second point is that the June 12 election showed that people live with trust, hope and national enthusiasm in this country. This is against a great deal of comments your enemies make in their propaganda. If the people of this country were not hopeful about their future, they would not have taken part in any election. If people were not dedicated to the Islamic establishment, they would have never voted. If they did not feel free, they would have never shown up at polling stations. The trust they have in the Islamic system was evident in this election. Later on, I will tell you how the enemy targeted the very trust of the people in the Islamic establishment. This trust is the very thing they want to crush. This trust is the greatest asset of the Islamic system, so they want to take it away from the Islamic establishment. They want to cast doubt on the election and weaken the confidence of the people in the system. They want to cause the people to panic. The enemies of the Iranian nation know that without trust there would have been a low turnout. A low turnout would have questioned the legitimacy of the establishment. That is what they are after. They wanted to take away your [people] trust and keep you away from the polls to target this legitimacy, and if they had achieved this goal, the damage done would have been incomparable to any other. For the people to come to the polls en masse and then be told that they made a mistake and should not have trusted the Islamic establishment, this is an enemy game. This path is the same one they pursued even before the elections. A few months before the election, in late march, I said in Mashhad that the enemy has started whispers and rumors that their will be vote rigging. They were preparing the grounds for the events of today. I advised our friends in the country not to repeat what the enemy wants to plant in people\\\\\\\'s minds. The Islamic establishment has the people\\\\\\\'s trust and it has not gained this trust easily. For the past 30 years, authorities in the Islamic Republic have managed to maintain this trust, with their performance and painstaking efforts. The third issue I want to touch upon is the issue of rivalry. This competition was a free, serious and transparent race between four candidates as we all witnessed. These competitions, debates and discussion were so transparent that some began to voice objections. I will tell you that to they had the right to object to some extent. Certain problems were also created that resulted in what you see today. I must tell you that we were and still are under the impression that these rivalries were between the four candidates who are all individuals committed to the system. The Enemies want to portray the situation in the media - some of which belong to the Zionists -as if there is a row between the proponents and opponents of the Islamic Republic. No, this is not the case, this very untrue. The four candidates who entered the presidential race all belonged and still belong to the Islamic establishment. One of these four is the president of our country - a hardworking and trustworthy president. One of them is the two-term prime minister, he served the country when I myself was president. He was my prime minister for eight years. One of them was the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and one of the wartime commanders. One them was two-time head of parliament and Majlis speaker. They are all members of our Islamic establishment. Of course, they have differences of opinion and plans that differ from one another. But, they all belong to this Islamic establishment. This race was defined within the framework of the system. It was not a competition between insiders and outsiders as the Zionist and the US were trying to portray. No, this was a competition within the framework of the system between members of the system. I know them all personally, I know their system of thought and their tastes very well. I am familiar with their personalities. I have worked with all of them closely. I know them all. But of course, I do not share all their views. I believe some of their views and executive records are subject to criticism. I see some more suitable to serve the country than others. But, this is up to the people to decide, and this is exactly what happened, they chose who they wanted. My desire and my choice was never announced nor was there any need for the people to pay heed to it. The people had their own criteria and this is what they based their decision on. Millions here and outside the country decided for themselves. This is an internal issue. Misrepresenting the problem is underhand. The row is not between insiders of the system and outsiders. The row is not between revolutionary and anti-revolutionary forces, it is a difference of opinion between the members of the Islamic Revolution. People who voted for these four candidates, voted with faith in the system. They believed their candidate of choice was better for the country so they voted for him. They voted in favor of the person they found most competent. Well, these campaigns and debates were an important and interesting initiative. They were very clear, to the point and serious. The televised debates proved wrong those who were trying to say from the outside that these competitions are formalities. They saw that these rivalries are real and serious. They saw that they are really battling it out and exchanging viewpoints. From this perspective, these debates were positive. But, they also had some negative points which I will touch upon. The positive aspect was that in these televised discussions and debates everyone spoke their mind clearly and casually. A flood of criticism followed. Everyone was forced to respond. Everyone was criticized and they defended themselves. The stances that these individuals and groups had were unveiled before the eyes of the nation. They talked about their plans, commitments and projects. All this was publicized for the people so that they could judge for themselves. People felt that in the Islamic system they are not the outsiders. Everything was clearly laid out before the people. They were shown that the nature of their vote is not ceremonial. The right to vote truly does belong to the people. People want to have the right to choose. This is what the televised debates indicated. One of the main reasons that ten million additional voters participated in this election was because the people\\\\\\\'s minds had been engaged, therefore they came and voted for the candidate of their choice. These debates found their way into the streets and homes. These debates helped the people become better informed and hence make better decisions. The Islamic establishment is in favor of such debates. Note that such debates should not be steered in a direction that may cause people to hold grudges against one another. If these debates had remained within their intended framework, they would have been positive. But when they turn into arguments than they will gradually bring grudges and hard feelings. Of course, such debates should continue at managerial levels, but without a negative aspect. Officials should allow criticism and feel responsible to answer. If an individual is criticized, he must see it as an opportunity to enlighten the people and reveal fact and truth. If these debates are regularly carried out [as normal government practice], at election time when there are such debates we would not witness such reactions. All arguments would emerge and all ideas would be exchanged over time. These are the positive aspects of such debates. But, there have also been some negative aspects to the debates that need to be dealt with. In some cases, we saw that logical points were undermined and emotional and destructive responses dominated the debate. There were efforts to portray the last four years as a dark era. There were also attempts to portray previous administrations in a similar light. Allegations were made that have not been proven in any court, rumors were used as a reference, and unjust remarks were made. This administration, despite the excellent services it had rendered came under unjust attacks. Similarly, the performance of previous governments in the past 30 years came under attack. The candidates gave in to their emotions. They made some positive points. They also raised some unpleasant negative issues. Like the rest of the nation, I sat and watched these TV debates. I took pride in the freedom of speech I witnessed. I enjoyed the fact that the Islamic Republic has been able to aid the people in deciding their future, but the shortcomings saddened me. For supporters of the candidates the shortcomings and negative aspects were also a cause for concern; both sides were a party to this... both sides had their problems. On the one hand, insults were hurled against the president of the country, even two to three months prior to these debates, speeches were brought to me and in them, I read the insults made and the accusations leveled against the president of the country who was elected by the vote of the people. They accused him of lying. This is not good. They fabricated documents against the government and distributed them everywhere. I saw what was going on. They [accusations] were all untrue and contrary to the facts. They swore at the president, called him superstitious, and called him names. They closed their eyes to ethics and the law. On the other hand, almost the same thing happened. The performance of the past 30 years of the Revolution was brought under question. People were named who are among the system\\\\\\\'s veteran figures. They are people who have dedicated their lives to this establishment. Never before have I mentioned people by name in the Friday prayer sermons, but today, I have to mention some names, particularly Mr. [Akbar] Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mr. [Ali Akbar] Nateq-Nouri. I must mention their names and point out that nobody has accused them of corruption. Now, if anyone has any claims or complaints regarding their [Hashemi Rafsanjani and Nateq-Nouri\\\\\\\'s] relatives they should refer to judicial authorities. You cannot raise these issues in the media before they are proven. If it is proven, you can raise the issue as every member of society is equal, but you are not allowed to make claims. When such things are mentioned, misunderstandings are the outcome. This can cause misunderstandings for the younger generation. Everyone knows Mr. Hashemi. My relationship with him goes back to before the Islamic Revolution. I have known him for more than 25 years. Mr. Hashemi was one of the main revolutionary figures. He was one of the most active proponents of the revolution, and after the Islamic Revolution, he was one of the main political figures serving the people alongside the late Imam, And after the departure of the founder of the Islamic Revolution he has been alongside the leadership to date. On several occasions, there were assassination attempts on his life. Before the revolution, he donated his possessions for the revolutionary cause. Our youth should know these facts. After the revolution, he had different responsibilities. For eight years, he served as the president and before that he was the parliament speaker. He held other sensitive positions as well. Throughout these years, I am not aware of one incident in which he gathered wealth. These are the facts that everyone should know. In the most sensitive of periods, he served the revolution and the establishment. Of course, my opinion and Mr. Rafsanjani\\\\\\\'s differs on numerous issues, which is natural. However, we should not create any misunderstandings for the people. The president and Mr. Rafsanjani have had differences of opinion since the president took office in 2005. They have differences of opinion in foreign policy, in the manner of spreading social justice as well as on some cultural issues. However, the president\\\\\\\'s ideas are closer to mine. The same goes fort Mr. Nateq-Nouri. He has also served the revolution, rendered great services for the establishment and there is not a shred of doubt about that. The live televised debates are a positive step, but these shortcomings should be removed. After the debates, I had a talk with the president because I knew he would listen to me. The stance of the Islamic establishment is clear-cut regarding corruption and social justice. Corruption should be fought anywhere it is traced. There is a point I want to make here. We do not claim that our establishment is free of all economic and financial corruption. Yes, there is corruption. If there was no corruption, I would not have written the eight-point letter to the heads of the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches of the country. We have corruption, but the Islamic establishment is one of the healthiest establishments in the world today. However, it is not right to accuse the country of corruption based on some Zionist reports and sources. Moreover, questioning the credibility of statesmen goes beyond the bounds of decency. Financial corruption is an important issue in the Islamic establishment. The judiciary, executive and legislative branches of the country must do everything within their power to fight against it. Everyone is duty-bound to fight corruption. If corruption is not contained, it will spread in the same manner as you see occurring in many countries…. They are struggling with an alarming level of corruption as you have heard about in the UK. This is only a fraction of the scandal as it goes way beyond what has been publicized. Let me summarize the points I made. The Friday election was a historical event, which touched the entire world. Some of our enemies, however, attempted to cast doubt over this absolute and definitive victory. Some even attempted to portray it as a national defeat. They did not want you to enjoy this victory. They did not want to see the highest turnout in the world go down in history in your name. However, it has happened, it has been recorded in history. They cannot manipulate this. The time for rivalry is passed... These four candidates have all fought in the battlefront of this revolution and they are members of this establishment. Forty million people went to the polls and cast their votes for this revolution. It was not only the 24 million votes that went to the president; 40 million votes were cast in favor of the revolution. The people have trust [in the establishment], and all supporters of candidates should rest assured that the Islamic establishment would never betray the people\\\\\\\'s trust. In fact, the electoral system of the country does not allow for any vote rigging, which is testified to by all those in charge of the election process. When there is a margin of one hundred thousand or one million at most, then one can doubt that there may have been some form of manipulation or irregularity; however, when there is a difference of eleven million votes, how could any vote rigging have taken place? However, as I have said, and the Guardian Council has accepted, if some people have doubts then it should be dealt with through legal channels. Everything must be dealt strictly though legal channels. I will never accept illegal demands. If the legal frameworks are breached today, then no future election can be guaranteed. In every election, there is only one winner, and of course, some defeated candidates. Complaints, if there is any doubt, should be pursued through legal channels. We have a comprehensive and competent legal system. Just as the candidates have the right to appoint observers, they are given the right to file complaints. I have requested the Guardian Council conduct a partial vote recount in the presence of the candidates and their representatives. We have no problem with this. I want to address the politicians, candidates and political parties at this point. We are at a critical historical juncture. Look at current world affairs, the situation in the Middle East, global economic woes and the situation in our neighboring countries. We are duty bound to remain vigilant and to be careful not to commit mistakes at this critical point in time. In the election, people fulfilled their duty in the best way possible, which was by going to the polls. We have heavier responsibilities on our shoulders now. Those figures who are looked up to by the people and politicians, should be cautious about their words and deeds. If they show any amount of extremist attitude, it will penetrate into the ranks of the people. It may have dangerous consequences and may eventually get out of control. Extremism in society will trigger or fan other extremist moves in the country. If political elites disobey the law and make wrong decisions, they will be held accountable for any violent actions or rioting that ensues. I urge these people, these friends of mine, to exercise restraint and patience. You should see enemy hands at work [against the country]. You should see hungry wolves laying in ambush. They are taking off their masks of diplomacy and are showing their true colors. I urge you to open your eyes and see the enemy. In the past few days the prominent diplomats of some Western countries, which have been dealing with us through diplomatic rhetoric, have removed their masks. Today you can see their true face. They are now showing their enmity toward the Islamic establishment and the most treacherous of them all is Britain. I tell these brothers of ours to think of their responsibility. You are responsible before God. I call on you to remember what Imam has written in his will; the law has the final say. All differences should be settled at the ballot box. This is what elections are for, to let ballot boxes and not the streets determine what the people want. If after every election, the supporters of the candidates who have lost take to streets and the supporters of the candidate who has won respond in the same manner, then what need would we have for elections? Why should the people have to suffer? We should not take to the streets to show off with the number of our supporters to the people. Such acts are not a political issue for those terrorists who take advantage of the situation to hide among the masses in order to carry out their agenda. It is a very good cover for these saboteurs. Who will take responsible for this? Some of the people who were killed in these riots were ordinary people, ordinary Basij members. Who will be held accountable for this? They may start taking advantage of this situation to assassinate Basij members, which will naturally provoke emotional reactions. Who is to be held responsible for this? One is grieved to see them attack religious students at Tehran University dormitories and afterwards chant slogans in support of the leadership. Post-election rivalry on the streets is not the right way to go. It only challenges the election. I want all sides to put an end to this. If they do not stop such actions, then they will be responsible for the repercussions of such incidents. It is also wrong to assume that street riots can be used as leverage to pressure the establishment and to force officials to listen to them for what they believe is in the interest of the country. Giving in to illegal demands under pressure is in itself the beginning of dictatorship. This is a miscalculation and the consequences will be directed at those who orchestrated them. If necessary, I will tell the people about them in due time. I ask all these brothers and friends of mine to act based on friendship and abide by the law. I hope God will help us choose the righteous path. The celebration of 40 million votes should be appreciated and the enemy must not be allowed to ruin the celebration. However, if certain people decide to choose another path, then I will have no choice but to talk with the people more openly. The third group I wish to address are the leaders of the Western media and arrogant powers. In the past two to three weeks, I have heard the words and witnessed the actions of politicians from the United States and certain European countries. Before the elections, they attempted to cast doubt over the election itself so that there would be a low voter turnout. They had their own assessments of results forecasts, but they did not expect the mass participation of the people. They never predicted an 85 percent turnout, or 40 million voters. When they saw the mass turnout, they were shocked. They realized the reality of Iran. They came to understand that they need to adapt themselves to the new situation be it regional, nuclear or internal. When they saw the great popular movement on Election Day, they realized that a new chapter had been opened with regards to Iran and that they must come to terms with it. When some candidates began protesting the results, they felt that there was a change, so they jumped at the chance to ride this wave. Their tone after the election changed on Saturday and Sunday. Their attention shifted to the riots and that was when they gradually began removing their masks. Western officials, their presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers commented on this situation. The US President said that we were waiting for the day when people would take to the streets. At the same time they write letters saying that they want to have ties and that they respect the Islamic Republic. Which are we to believe? Inside the country, their elements [foreign countries] began street protests and vandalism, they set fire to public property, they made shops and businesses insecure, and they are trying to rob the people of their security. This has nothing to do with the people and their preferred candidates. This kind of behavior stems from ill-wishers, mercenaries and elements working for Western and Zionist secret services. The incidents occurring inside the country have misled some of those outside our borders, who imagine Iran to be the same as Georgia. A Zionist American capitalist a few years ago, had been quoted in the media saying that he had spent 10 million dollars in Georgia to start a velvet revolution. Our nation cannot be compared to any another nation. Their problem is they have not come to know this revolution and its people. American officials say they are worried about the Iranian nation, how can you be worried? Can you even speak about human rights when you are responsible for the blood shed in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Palestine who has and is supporting and funding the Zionist regime? During the term of a previous US government, eighty people affiliated with the Davidian sect were burnt alive in their compound in Waco, Texas. For some reason these people were disliked by the then US administration. Eighty people were burnt in that building, how dare you talk of human rights? In my opinion, these western officials should at least feel a little embarrassment!

Complete Transcript http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98610 In this sermon, I call all the respected brothers and sisters who have attended the Friday prayers here to piety and I advise them against any wrongdoing. In this sermon, I will address the issue of the election, which is a hot topic in our country. I want to address three different groups on three different issues; firstly, I want to address the general public. Secondly, I want to address the political elite, the candidates of the presidential election, activists and those who have been active in the process of election. I also have something to say to the leaders of the global arrogance, certain Western governments and their media. On the first issue, where I address you dear people, I want to express my appreciation and gratitude. I do not like to exaggerate while I am addressing my audience, but regarding the recent election, I must tell you great people that no matter what I say, words cannot describe the greatness of your great accomplishment. The June 12 election was a great show of the people\\\\\\\'s sense of responsibility, their will to participate, and their dedication to the system. Truly, I have never heard of anything similar to what you have accomplished taking place in any of the democratic systems around the world, whether they are false democracies or truly built on their people\\\\\\\'s vote. In the Islamic Republic, aside from the 1979 referendum, there has no election like the one held last Friday with a turnout of almost 85 percent. This means almost 40 million voters. You can see the presence of the 12 and last Shia Imam behind this. This is a sign of God\\\\\\\'s blessing to us. It is necessary that I address you all across the nation from the depths of my heart, to express my respect and tell you that I feel humble in your presence. Our young generation showed and proved they have insight and that like the first generation of the Islamic Revolution, they are committed. The difference is, during the days of the revolution, revolutionary fire burned in the hearts of all. It was the same is the days of the imposed war but in a different sense. Today, however, there is no more of that but we still witness this commitment, this sense of responsibility, this understanding and fervor in our youth. This is not something that can be ignored. Of course, there are differences of taste and of opinion among our people. Some people support a certain candidate; others back another person and his words and ideas. This is natural, but you can see a collective commitment amid all this and amongst people of all walks of life. You can see a consensus, a collective commitment to the protection of our country and system. Everyone entered the political scene in villages, towns, cities, major cities, different ethnic groups, people of different faiths, men, women, young and old. They all entered the scene. They all took part in this great movement. My dear people, this election was a political tremor for your enemies. For your friends across the world, it was a real celebration -- a historical ceremony and victory. Thirty years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, such a huge turnout and show of commitment to the Islamic system and the late Imam [Khomeini] shows the renewal of the pledge of allegiance to the late Imam and the martyrs. This was a breath of fresh air, a new movement and a great opportunity for the Islamic system. This election put religious democracy on display for the whole world to witness. All ill-wishers of the Islamic establishment saw for themselves the meaning of religious democracy. This is an alternative path in the face of dictatorships and arrogant regimes on the one side and democracies devoid of spirituality and religion on the other. This is religious democracy. This is what brings the hearts of people together and draws them to the scene. This is the first point I wanted to make about the election. The second point is that the June 12 election showed that people live with trust, hope and national enthusiasm in this country. This is against a great deal of comments your enemies make in their propaganda. If the people of this country were not hopeful about their future, they would not have taken part in any election. If people were not dedicated to the Islamic establishment, they would have never voted. If they did not feel free, they would have never shown up at polling stations. The trust they have in the Islamic system was evident in this election. Later on, I will tell you how the enemy targeted the very trust of the people in the Islamic establishment. This trust is the very thing they want to crush. This trust is the greatest asset of the Islamic system, so they want to take it away from the Islamic establishment. They want to cast doubt on the election and weaken the confidence of the people in the system. They want to cause the people to panic. The enemies of the Iranian nation know that without trust there would have been a low turnout. A low turnout would have questioned the legitimacy of the establishment. That is what they are after. They wanted to take away your [people] trust and keep you away from the polls to target this legitimacy, and if they had achieved this goal, the damage done would have been incomparable to any other. For the people to come to the polls en masse and then be told that they made a mistake and should not have trusted the Islamic establishment, this is an enemy game. This path is the same one they pursued even before the elections. A few months before the election, in late march, I said in Mashhad that the enemy has started whispers and rumors that their will be vote rigging. They were preparing the grounds for the events of today. I advised our friends in the country not to repeat what the enemy wants to plant in people\\\\\\\'s minds. The Islamic establishment has the people\\\\\\\'s trust and it has not gained this trust easily. For the past 30 years, authorities in the Islamic Republic have managed to maintain this trust, with their performance and painstaking efforts. The third issue I want to touch upon is the issue of rivalry. This competition was a free, serious and transparent race between four candidates as we all witnessed. These competitions, debates and discussion were so transparent that some began to voice objections. I will tell you that to they had the right to object to some extent. Certain problems were also created that resulted in what you see today. I must tell you that we were and still are under the impression that these rivalries were between the four candidates who are all individuals committed to the system. The Enemies want to portray the situation in the media - some of which belong to the Zionists -as if there is a row between the proponents and opponents of the Islamic Republic. No, this is not the case, this very untrue. The four candidates who entered the presidential race all belonged and still belong to the Islamic establishment. One of these four is the president of our country - a hardworking and trustworthy president. One of them is the two-term prime minister, he served the country when I myself was president. He was my prime minister for eight years. One of them was the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and one of the wartime commanders. One them was two-time head of parliament and Majlis speaker. They are all members of our Islamic establishment. Of course, they have differences of opinion and plans that differ from one another. But, they all belong to this Islamic establishment. This race was defined within the framework of the system. It was not a competition between insiders and outsiders as the Zionist and the US were trying to portray. No, this was a competition within the framework of the system between members of the system. I know them all personally, I know their system of thought and their tastes very well. I am familiar with their personalities. I have worked with all of them closely. I know them all. But of course, I do not share all their views. I believe some of their views and executive records are subject to criticism. I see some more suitable to serve the country than others. But, this is up to the people to decide, and this is exactly what happened, they chose who they wanted. My desire and my choice was never announced nor was there any need for the people to pay heed to it. The people had their own criteria and this is what they based their decision on. Millions here and outside the country decided for themselves. This is an internal issue. Misrepresenting the problem is underhand. The row is not between insiders of the system and outsiders. The row is not between revolutionary and anti-revolutionary forces, it is a difference of opinion between the members of the Islamic Revolution. People who voted for these four candidates, voted with faith in the system. They believed their candidate of choice was better for the country so they voted for him. They voted in favor of the person they found most competent. Well, these campaigns and debates were an important and interesting initiative. They were very clear, to the point and serious. The televised debates proved wrong those who were trying to say from the outside that these competitions are formalities. They saw that these rivalries are real and serious. They saw that they are really battling it out and exchanging viewpoints. From this perspective, these debates were positive. But, they also had some negative points which I will touch upon. The positive aspect was that in these televised discussions and debates everyone spoke their mind clearly and casually. A flood of criticism followed. Everyone was forced to respond. Everyone was criticized and they defended themselves. The stances that these individuals and groups had were unveiled before the eyes of the nation. They talked about their plans, commitments and projects. All this was publicized for the people so that they could judge for themselves. People felt that in the Islamic system they are not the outsiders. Everything was clearly laid out before the people. They were shown that the nature of their vote is not ceremonial. The right to vote truly does belong to the people. People want to have the right to choose. This is what the televised debates indicated. One of the main reasons that ten million additional voters participated in this election was because the people\\\\\\\'s minds had been engaged, therefore they came and voted for the candidate of their choice. These debates found their way into the streets and homes. These debates helped the people become better informed and hence make better decisions. The Islamic establishment is in favor of such debates. Note that such debates should not be steered in a direction that may cause people to hold grudges against one another. If these debates had remained within their intended framework, they would have been positive. But when they turn into arguments than they will gradually bring grudges and hard feelings. Of course, such debates should continue at managerial levels, but without a negative aspect. Officials should allow criticism and feel responsible to answer. If an individual is criticized, he must see it as an opportunity to enlighten the people and reveal fact and truth. If these debates are regularly carried out [as normal government practice], at election time when there are such debates we would not witness such reactions. All arguments would emerge and all ideas would be exchanged over time. These are the positive aspects of such debates. But, there have also been some negative aspects to the debates that need to be dealt with. In some cases, we saw that logical points were undermined and emotional and destructive responses dominated the debate. There were efforts to portray the last four years as a dark era. There were also attempts to portray previous administrations in a similar light. Allegations were made that have not been proven in any court, rumors were used as a reference, and unjust remarks were made. This administration, despite the excellent services it had rendered came under unjust attacks. Similarly, the performance of previous governments in the past 30 years came under attack. The candidates gave in to their emotions. They made some positive points. They also raised some unpleasant negative issues. Like the rest of the nation, I sat and watched these TV debates. I took pride in the freedom of speech I witnessed. I enjoyed the fact that the Islamic Republic has been able to aid the people in deciding their future, but the shortcomings saddened me. For supporters of the candidates the shortcomings and negative aspects were also a cause for concern; both sides were a party to this... both sides had their problems. On the one hand, insults were hurled against the president of the country, even two to three months prior to these debates, speeches were brought to me and in them, I read the insults made and the accusations leveled against the president of the country who was elected by the vote of the people. They accused him of lying. This is not good. They fabricated documents against the government and distributed them everywhere. I saw what was going on. They [accusations] were all untrue and contrary to the facts. They swore at the president, called him superstitious, and called him names. They closed their eyes to ethics and the law. On the other hand, almost the same thing happened. The performance of the past 30 years of the Revolution was brought under question. People were named who are among the system\\\\\\\'s veteran figures. They are people who have dedicated their lives to this establishment. Never before have I mentioned people by name in the Friday prayer sermons, but today, I have to mention some names, particularly Mr. [Akbar] Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mr. [Ali Akbar] Nateq-Nouri. I must mention their names and point out that nobody has accused them of corruption. Now, if anyone has any claims or complaints regarding their [Hashemi Rafsanjani and Nateq-Nouri\\\\\\\'s] relatives they should refer to judicial authorities. You cannot raise these issues in the media before they are proven. If it is proven, you can raise the issue as every member of society is equal, but you are not allowed to make claims. When such things are mentioned, misunderstandings are the outcome. This can cause misunderstandings for the younger generation. Everyone knows Mr. Hashemi. My relationship with him goes back to before the Islamic Revolution. I have known him for more than 25 years. Mr. Hashemi was one of the main revolutionary figures. He was one of the most active proponents of the revolution, and after the Islamic Revolution, he was one of the main political figures serving the people alongside the late Imam, And after the departure of the founder of the Islamic Revolution he has been alongside the leadership to date. On several occasions, there were assassination attempts on his life. Before the revolution, he donated his possessions for the revolutionary cause. Our youth should know these facts. After the revolution, he had different responsibilities. For eight years, he served as the president and before that he was the parliament speaker. He held other sensitive positions as well. Throughout these years, I am not aware of one incident in which he gathered wealth. These are the facts that everyone should know. In the most sensitive of periods, he served the revolution and the establishment. Of course, my opinion and Mr. Rafsanjani\\\\\\\'s differs on numerous issues, which is natural. However, we should not create any misunderstandings for the people. The president and Mr. Rafsanjani have had differences of opinion since the president took office in 2005. They have differences of opinion in foreign policy, in the manner of spreading social justice as well as on some cultural issues. However, the president\\\\\\\'s ideas are closer to mine. The same goes fort Mr. Nateq-Nouri. He has also served the revolution, rendered great services for the establishment and there is not a shred of doubt about that. The live televised debates are a positive step, but these shortcomings should be removed. After the debates, I had a talk with the president because I knew he would listen to me. The stance of the Islamic establishment is clear-cut regarding corruption and social justice. Corruption should be fought anywhere it is traced. There is a point I want to make here. We do not claim that our establishment is free of all economic and financial corruption. Yes, there is corruption. If there was no corruption, I would not have written the eight-point letter to the heads of the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches of the country. We have corruption, but the Islamic establishment is one of the healthiest establishments in the world today. However, it is not right to accuse the country of corruption based on some Zionist reports and sources. Moreover, questioning the credibility of statesmen goes beyond the bounds of decency. Financial corruption is an important issue in the Islamic establishment. The judiciary, executive and legislative branches of the country must do everything within their power to fight against it. Everyone is duty-bound to fight corruption. If corruption is not contained, it will spread in the same manner as you see occurring in many countries…. They are struggling with an alarming level of corruption as you have heard about in the UK. This is only a fraction of the scandal as it goes way beyond what has been publicized. Let me summarize the points I made. The Friday election was a historical event, which touched the entire world. Some of our enemies, however, attempted to cast doubt over this absolute and definitive victory. Some even attempted to portray it as a national defeat. They did not want you to enjoy this victory. They did not want to see the highest turnout in the world go down in history in your name. However, it has happened, it has been recorded in history. They cannot manipulate this. The time for rivalry is passed... These four candidates have all fought in the battlefront of this revolution and they are members of this establishment. Forty million people went to the polls and cast their votes for this revolution. It was not only the 24 million votes that went to the president; 40 million votes were cast in favor of the revolution. The people have trust [in the establishment], and all supporters of candidates should rest assured that the Islamic establishment would never betray the people\\\\\\\'s trust. In fact, the electoral system of the country does not allow for any vote rigging, which is testified to by all those in charge of the election process. When there is a margin of one hundred thousand or one million at most, then one can doubt that there may have been some form of manipulation or irregularity; however, when there is a difference of eleven million votes, how could any vote rigging have taken place? However, as I have said, and the Guardian Council has accepted, if some people have doubts then it should be dealt with through legal channels. Everything must be dealt strictly though legal channels. I will never accept illegal demands. If the legal frameworks are breached today, then no future election can be guaranteed. In every election, there is only one winner, and of course, some defeated candidates. Complaints, if there is any doubt, should be pursued through legal channels. We have a comprehensive and competent legal system. Just as the candidates have the right to appoint observers, they are given the right to file complaints. I have requested the Guardian Council conduct a partial vote recount in the presence of the candidates and their representatives. We have no problem with this. I want to address the politicians, candidates and political parties at this point. We are at a critical historical juncture. Look at current world affairs, the situation in the Middle East, global economic woes and the situation in our neighboring countries. We are duty bound to remain vigilant and to be careful not to commit mistakes at this critical point in time. In the election, people fulfilled their duty in the best way possible, which was by going to the polls. We have heavier responsibilities on our shoulders now. Those figures who are looked up to by the people and politicians, should be cautious about their words and deeds. If they show any amount of extremist attitude, it will penetrate into the ranks of the people. It may have dangerous consequences and may eventually get out of control. Extremism in society will trigger or fan other extremist moves in the country. If political elites disobey the law and make wrong decisions, they will be held accountable for any violent actions or rioting that ensues. I urge these people, these friends of mine, to exercise restraint and patience. You should see enemy hands at work [against the country]. You should see hungry wolves laying in ambush. They are taking off their masks of diplomacy and are showing their true colors. I urge you to open your eyes and see the enemy. In the past few days the prominent diplomats of some Western countries, which have been dealing with us through diplomatic rhetoric, have removed their masks. Today you can see their true face. They are now showing their enmity toward the Islamic establishment and the most treacherous of them all is Britain. I tell these brothers of ours to think of their responsibility. You are responsible before God. I call on you to remember what Imam has written in his will; the law has the final say. All differences should be settled at the ballot box. This is what elections are for, to let ballot boxes and not the streets determine what the people want. If after every election, the supporters of the candidates who have lost take to streets and the supporters of the candidate who has won respond in the same manner, then what need would we have for elections? Why should the people have to suffer? We should not take to the streets to show off with the number of our supporters to the people. Such acts are not a political issue for those terrorists who take advantage of the situation to hide among the masses in order to carry out their agenda. It is a very good cover for these saboteurs. Who will take responsible for this? Some of the people who were killed in these riots were ordinary people, ordinary Basij members. Who will be held accountable for this? They may start taking advantage of this situation to assassinate Basij members, which will naturally provoke emotional reactions. Who is to be held responsible for this? One is grieved to see them attack religious students at Tehran University dormitories and afterwards chant slogans in support of the leadership. Post-election rivalry on the streets is not the right way to go. It only challenges the election. I want all sides to put an end to this. If they do not stop such actions, then they will be responsible for the repercussions of such incidents. It is also wrong to assume that street riots can be used as leverage to pressure the establishment and to force officials to listen to them for what they believe is in the interest of the country. Giving in to illegal demands under pressure is in itself the beginning of dictatorship. This is a miscalculation and the consequences will be directed at those who orchestrated them. If necessary, I will tell the people about them in due time. I ask all these brothers and friends of mine to act based on friendship and abide by the law. I hope God will help us choose the righteous path. The celebration of 40 million votes should be appreciated and the enemy must not be allowed to ruin the celebration. However, if certain people decide to choose another path, then I will have no choice but to talk with the people more openly. The third group I wish to address are the leaders of the Western media and arrogant powers. In the past two to three weeks, I have heard the words and witnessed the actions of politicians from the United States and certain European countries. Before the elections, they attempted to cast doubt over the election itself so that there would be a low voter turnout. They had their own assessments of results forecasts, but they did not expect the mass participation of the people. They never predicted an 85 percent turnout, or 40 million voters. When they saw the mass turnout, they were shocked. They realized the reality of Iran. They came to understand that they need to adapt themselves to the new situation be it regional, nuclear or internal. When they saw the great popular movement on Election Day, they realized that a new chapter had been opened with regards to Iran and that they must come to terms with it. When some candidates began protesting the results, they felt that there was a change, so they jumped at the chance to ride this wave. Their tone after the election changed on Saturday and Sunday. Their attention shifted to the riots and that was when they gradually began removing their masks. Western officials, their presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers commented on this situation. The US President said that we were waiting for the day when people would take to the streets. At the same time they write letters saying that they want to have ties and that they respect the Islamic Republic. Which are we to believe? Inside the country, their elements [foreign countries] began street protests and vandalism, they set fire to public property, they made shops and businesses insecure, and they are trying to rob the people of their security. This has nothing to do with the people and their preferred candidates. This kind of behavior stems from ill-wishers, mercenaries and elements working for Western and Zionist secret services. The incidents occurring inside the country have misled some of those outside our borders, who imagine Iran to be the same as Georgia. A Zionist American capitalist a few years ago, had been quoted in the media saying that he had spent 10 million dollars in Georgia to start a velvet revolution. Our nation cannot be compared to any another nation. Their problem is they have not come to know this revolution and its people. American officials say they are worried about the Iranian nation, how can you be worried? Can you even speak about human rights when you are responsible for the blood shed in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Palestine who has and is supporting and funding the Zionist regime? During the term of a previous US government, eighty people affiliated with the Davidian sect were burnt alive in their compound in Waco, Texas. For some reason these people were disliked by the then US administration. Eighty people were burnt in that building, how dare you talk of human rights? In my opinion, these western officials should at least feel a little embarrassment! Supreme Leader Ayatullah Sayyed Ali Khamenei - Friday Prayer Speech - 19Jun09 - English

Noam Chomsky, linguist and icon of the American left who has been denied from entering Israel, talked to RT days before the incident about his views, background and US domestic and foreign policy.

The main topic talked over in this edition of Press TV's Comment is BBC's attack on Press TV. The BBC, ITV and the Evening Standard have launched attacks on Ken Livingstone for presenting Epilogue on Press TV. Both the BBC and ITV had contributions from the head of the British Zionist Federation on the program. Events in Tunisia and Tony Blair's refusal to hand over to the Iraq war inquiry and his letters to President George Bush in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq are among the other issues Derek Conway and the callers talk about

A narrated Hikayat, some good sayings

Topics talked over in this edition of Press TV's Comment are as follows: -More protests in the Arab world -US government double standards over Bahrain and Libya -BBC's Panorama program ignoring the uprisings on the Arabian peninsula and instead airing a program about post election Iran and accusing Press TV of propaganda. -Arrest of Mubarak and his sons -Full face veil ban in France

Some of the topics talked over in this edition of Press TV's Comment are as follows: -Fraternization of western leaders with the rulers of Bahrain, regardless of the suppression of the democracy movement. -Yemenis' getting rid of Saleh dictatorship - Ofcom and its ruling against Press TV - UK training of Saudi troops

Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah delivered this speech on 17 August 2011. Sayyed talked about: 1) US-backed UN Lebanese Tribunal for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. 2) Sacrifice of Lebanese Martyrs 3) Protection of Lebanese Land, Oil Reserves on Lebanese Waters, and Lebanese Economic Zones 4) Propaganda against Hizballah. Tireless efforts to tarnish the image of the resistance 5) Military aids to crush the Hizballah resistance nationally and internationally 6) Credibility of Hizballah resistance 7) Attempts to create Sectarianism and push Lebanon towards civil war(s) ***LONG LIVE RESISTANCE*** ***LONG LIVE SAYYED NASRALLAH***

Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah delivered this speech on 17 August 2011. Sayyed talked about: 1) US-backed UN Lebanese Tribunal for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. 2) Sacrifice of Lebanese Martyrs 3) Protection of Lebanese Land, Oil Reserves on Lebanese Waters, and Lebanese Economic Zones 4) Propaganda against Hizballah. Tireless efforts to tarnish the image of the resistance 5) Military aids to crush the Hizballah resistance nationally and internationally 6) Credibility of Hizballah resistance 7) Attempts to create Sectarianism and push Lebanon towards civil war(s) ***LONG LIVE RESISTANCE*** ***LONG LIVE SAYYED NASRALLAH***

Vali Amr Muslimeen Ayatullah Sayyed Ali Khamenei delivered this speech on the occasion of Eid Al-Fitr. Last 2 minutes of Rahber's speech was not aired. Sorry. Sayyed talked about helping the famine stricken people of Somalia. Please help them.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the leader of Iran\'s Islamic Republic, has paid a visit to the Province of Kermanshah. The province of Kermanshah, with an estimated population of 2 million, has various religious, ethnic and cultural groups. Iran\'s dominant faith is Shia Islam, but despite this the Shia leader is warmly welcomed in Kermanshah, a province with a large Sunni and Jewish population among others. This is a province that has had its own fare share of challenges since the revolution and the 8 year Iran-Iraq war that followed. He made speeches in different cities of the province, visited the families of the martyrs, and talked of change and renewal in Iran\'s governmental system. His visit to Kermanshah is the subject of this week\'s program.

Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.” In his November 8 report on Iran's nuclear program, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano claimed that Iran had engaged in activities related to developing nuclear weapons before 2003, adding that these activities “may still be ongoing.” Based on the report, which Iran has called "unfounded and unbalanced," the IAEA Board of Governors on Friday passed a new resolution on the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities. The resolution voices "deep and increasing concern" over Tehran's nuclear program and also calls for Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the issue. Larijani made the remarks in a heated television debate aired on the American channel MSNBC. US president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Richard Haass, Mike Barnicle and John Mitchun were the other guests on the television debate. What follows is a rough transcription of the interview: MSNBC: Let's go to the heart of the matter when it comes to Iran, the headlines of the past week, the IAEA report found evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran and you are quoted as saying that is “quite laughable.” Why sir? Larijani: The reason is very simple. There is no single evidence in that. These allegations which is aired again is based on a document which was put to us four years ago based on a laptop somewhere found by United States authorities. And at that time, four years ago, it has been discussed with the agency and the conclusion was that none of these allegations could be verified. So by a letter it has been closed- the whole issue. Then again it has been renewed and [let me] just give you an example. A good part of this so-called document which is on the laptop, for example lecture notes that somebody presented in Brussels or at some universities. Some of them are parts of some textbook as put together with pictures, formulas, so it is totally inconclusive. MSNBC: Let's back up. Before I send this to Richard Haass- are you saying it doesn't exist? There is no nuclear program? Larijani: Well we have a very extensive nuclear program but not to the direction of producing arms. Our nuclear project is very extensive, very advanced. We are number one in the Middle East but we are not pursuing the nuclear armament for two basic reasons. Number one there is a Fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader and it is against the Islamic jurisprudence to build and use mass destructing weapons. It is Haram we call it, unlawful. And secondly, it doesn't add to our security. It is more liability than asset for us. Our military muscle is strong enough to repel or to deter any imminent threat and this is basically very important achievement. MSNBC: Richard Haass, put this into perspective for us. What the reports were saying and what this gentleman is saying. Haass: Well quite frankly it is impossible to take the Iranian denial seriously. They are preposterous. The International Atomic Energy Agency taking information from all the member states in the United Nations have put together a comprehensive and extraordinarily damning report. And what there is, is a pattern, not a single incident, a pattern over years of Iranian program to move in the direction of developing nuclear weapons. We see a procurement mechanism to gain access to all sorts of equipment, we see all sorts of undeclared efforts to produce nuclear material now up to 20 percent well on its way to what it needs to produce a weapon, most important there is now serious evidence about the Iranian testing of the implosive device that would actually be the heart of the nuclear weapon. So the idea that the Iranians have all these underground and undeclared facilities, that they have been misleading the International Atomic Energy Agency for years, the idea they're doing this- this oil rich country in order to produce electricity? If you believe that you seriously have to believe in the tooth fairy. MSNBC: Sir this doesn't sound like preposterous, little pieces of information that were roaming together randomly. Larijani: Well the whole scenes of allegation is produced and initiated by the United States. It seems there is a good machinery to produce perpetual allegation against Iran, it is not only one case. I am telling you exactly that there are no secret programs in our nuclear program and development. Iran's transparency is far ahead of United States, far ahead of UK, far ahead of France and incomparable to Israel which is a renegade state in the sense of NPT. Barnicle: So you allow inspectors to just come into Iran. Larijani: The inspectors are coming to Iran periodically, the cameras are there 24 hours. This is quite obvious. Haass: But the whole concept the way this works, just when you talk about inspectors, let's just be clear, I am sure if everyone watching this will understand, the entire international nuclear inspection effort depends upon the willingness of the country in question to cooperate fully. This is a gentlemen's agreement. They declare their facilities that are involved in the nuclear business then the inspectors come in and look at them. If they do not declare facilities the inspectors don't give a chance and the problem is this is a gentlemen's agreement in a world where not every country is a gentleman. So Iran quite frankly has undeclared facilities and undeclared programs which the inspectors had not had access to and the reason we only know about it is that member states, not simply the United States sir, but many, many member states of the United Nations have provided independent information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which by the way you know and I know is not controlled by the United States. We have fundamental differences with this agency over the years including over Iraq. We had fundamental differences and we've also had differences over Iran where we the United States felt, this agency was not being nearly tough enough. So now they have come in with an extraordinarily damning report and Iranian officials can dismiss it. MSNBC: So if this is a gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen certainly don't agree and sir, you seem very confident and almost as if it's funny it's interesting because we interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about this about a year ago, off camera, and he too seemed very comfortable about his position which is similar to yours. And if you are so comfortable with your position about the lack of nuclear armament and the facilities that the IAEA is talking about, why not let inspectors completely come in? Open the door let them come in and see what you have. Larijani: Well the mechanism that the gentleman addressed is not complete because first of all there is no single secret installment or activity which is concealed from the agency. Secondly, two years ago we asked the agency tell us all the questions you have and he managed to put to us six groups of questions. The questions were raised by themselves not dictated by us. So one by one groups of inspectors came to Iran and we cleared them up and there is official letters from them this group has been finished then we moved to another one. Well it doesn't make sense that every morning somebody says we guess there is some secret things done there. There should be foundation for this allegation. What do you mean the door should be open? They should ask where do you want to inspect? Did they want to inspect my bedroom or other places? I mean it doesn't make sense. Barnicle: A few moments ago when you mentioned the nuclear programs of other nations I detected a definite edge in your voice when you mentioned the state of Israel. Do you fear an attack from the state of Israel on your nuclear facilities? Larijani: Well I am beyond the fear. What is the difference between us and Israel? Israel has a bomb, not a member of NPT; it doesn't disclose anything to agency, nothing wrong with it. You see what the double standard is in here. We are member of NPT, they periodically come to Iran, their cameras are there, we don't have the weapon then the whole pressure is put on us. No, not at all. We don't fear any attack from anyone. We take it serious in our calculation but we don't fear. There is a difference between that. Mitchum: Given your tone again Sir when you talk about Israel, just a second ago why shouldn't we suspect that there would be ambitions for Iran to join the club of which Israel is a part with the nuclear arms? Larijani: We are very advanced in the nuclear technology which is a matter of pride for us and that gentleman mentioned that we have plenty of gas and oil with all good calculations, the age of this is up to 20-25 period, 25 years from now. It means that if we don't have it, then we should beg in front of the Western countries to light our houses and we know how bad they are treating us in this area. We are right now very happy that we have the first power plant, we know how to make the fuel. We already have more than 25 percent share of sodalite and erudite they don't give us a bit of this fuel that we need, even the twenty percent that we needed for Tehran. Haass: It's important to keep in mind we are not talking about an established democracy that treats its own people with respect, we are talking about a country also that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So this is obvious and understandable concern about what Iran is doing. Larijani: In terms of record I think United States of America is the largest and the greatest country supporting terrorism. The records of terrorist activity which is supported by the tax money of these people is enormous, I can go one by one. Barnicle: Wait a minute. This is a free country. And part of our gift is we have the liberty and the freedom to say anything and to sound foolish, to sound absurd, to sound smart. That's absurd saying that America is the biggest terrorist nation in the world. My question to you Sir is, you seem like a really nice guy, alright, why doesn't your country be a better neighbor? Larijani: We have fantastic relations with all of our neighbors... Barnicle: Really? [laughing] Larijani: Definitely, but the policy of demonizing Iran, a very important policy which is pursued in the region- well it has its own benefit. Barnicle But it's just in little things, like the American tourists cross the border, supposedly cross the border, you grab them, you scoop them, you hold them for months on end. Why? Larijani: This is a very simple question I answered before; suppose the security of your people... Barnicle You're here... Larijani: No, I'm here with visa- It's quite different. [Suppose] The security of the United States' people, on a patrol with Mexico elsewhere they pick 3 Iranians and ask them why are you here? They say well we are just walking in the desert. Well, with the whole hostility and suspicion which is between the two countries, you are in here to blow up somewhere definitely they will be put into jail for years if not in Guantanamo, they bring them somewhere else. It took a lot of time that we convince- I was working on this case because they were like me from ... Berkeley. I talked with their families, managed to contact between them and their families when they were arrested- for their families to come to Iran to take the suspicion away. This is very natural for security of people to suspect a cross bordering which is in the most volatile regional area of Iran- in which there is daily shooting over there. Barnicle Ok. They're going to blow up the desert. What is the root? What do you think is the root of Iranian paranoia towards the United States and towards many of its neighbors? What is the root of this paranoia? Is it the fear that we find out about your nuclear program? Larijani: We don't have any paranoia about our neighbors. We are very suspicious of American paranoia with us. The question is what is wrong with Iran that this persistent hostility... Barnicle: You have a track record of international terrorism. Larijani: This is not true. We are ourselves the victim of international terrorism- terrorism in the area. Let me ask you, who was helping Al-Qaida and Taliban for years while we were at war with them in Afghanistan? The United States of America. The money from the United States was pouring to Al-Qaida and Taliban- the idea was we should curb Iran by another religious front. Is it correct? Haass: No it's not correct. The United States did support the Mujahidin; obviously in order to get rid of the Soviet... to say that the United States supported Al-Qaida is again preposterous- the fact is that Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon, it's supporting groups like Hezbollah, groups like Hamas; it is involved in Iraq; it is involved in Afghanistan. Iran has basically become a regional power that is trying to destabilize many countries, trying to make them in some ways heavily influenced by Tehran and that is simply a fact of life- which again is one of the reasons the world is so concerned about Iranian nuclear program. How do we know Iran will not become even more aggressive? How do we know that nuclear materials will not end in the hands of a group like Hezbollah? What do we see about Iran's track record that would lead us to believe that Iran in any way would be responsible with nuclear material? This is a genuine concern and if you dismiss it as laughable Sir you are seriously underestimating not simply the American, not simply the Israeli, but I would suggest the world's concern over the direction your government is heading. Larijani: The disastrous thing is the blind policy of the United States in supporting carte blanche renegade Israel which is the source of all tension in the region. If you call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups- they are fighting to be given the permission to live. What about Israel? Israel is involved in government sponsored terrorism. Kills anybody who thinks that it's not correct and deprives millions of people from basic tenures of life. 60 years of atrocity in that area is supported carte blanche by the US, this is even against the basic interests of that nation- they don't know it. Mitchum:Sir do you recognize the right of Israel to exist? Larijani: We recognize the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together in peace and tranquility- to create a racist regime in the middle of a land put the others out is like creating a small colony for the blacks and leave the rest for the whites. Mitchum: Thank you for the answer. Barnicle: The answer is no. Larijani: No, the answer is not no. We respect any decision by Palestinians. We are not in a position to tell them what kind of state they [should] have. But they should be given the chance to decide. MSNBC:This has been fascinating and a great picture window into the choices that Americans make when they're choosing their president and also a sense of what our Secretary of State and what our diplomats have to confront in dealing with when they're going out into the world and working with other countries. It is extremely complicated and often conversations feel like they're going in circles because it's very hard to develop a common understanding or even a place where you can start engaging and I think this was an example of that. Mohammad Javad Larijani, thank you for coming on the show this morning.

Ghader missile, an anti-ship cruise missile equipped with technology that makes it undetectable by the best radars. Ghader missile was mass produced and delivered to the both naval forces of Iran, Islamic Revolution Guard Corp (IRGC) and the Military by Iran's Ministry of Defense on Wednesday. The missile has been designed, constructed and mass produced by Iranian experts and engineers to be used against large battleships and aircraft carriers. Iran's President first inaugurated Ghader missile late August of this year. Western media was very skeptical of the event. Ghader missile can be fired from air, ground and the ship. . It is equipped with digital auto-pilot, anti-jamming radar technology and is programmable. Ghader can detect and find its target in the sea in low altitudes and sink them. Iran's high ranking military officials say that production of such weapons is exclusive and that Iran is the only country with such capabilities. High ranking naval officials talked of the destructive power of Gahder missile. Ghader missile has a range of more than 200 Kilometers.

[03 June 2012] Clinton urges Russia to join anti - Syria efforts - Englsih At a press conference in the Swedish capital Stockholm, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton also urged Russia to join efforts to increase pressure on Syrian. She said she has talked to Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov about the situation.

[11 June 2012] Israel West seek to topple Assad Government: Analyst - English In the latest anti-Damascus move, an Israeli deputy minister accused Syrian forces of using chemical weapons against civilians. Ayoob Kara claimed in an interview with Israel Radio that Israeli medics, stationed on the border between Turkey and Syria, are reporting the use of such weapons. To shed more light on Tel Aviv's escalating rhetoric against Syria, Press TV talked with Maya Nasser, a Damascus-based political analyst.