Search Result in All

Sometimes we feel that since the Imam is in occultation, he is not informed about us. Imam Khomeini reminds us that the living Imam, the Imam of the time, is informed about everything we do. For religious scholars, after the Islamic System has been established, what excuse do you have for not fulfilling your duties? Let\'s renew our pledge of allegiance with Imam Mahdi (A) that we will play our role to end your occultation. We will make ourselves ready for your reappearance.

Contributed by Herald. February 8th, 2010, 6:01 pm Eleven people were arrested Monday evening during a raucous lecture at UC Irvine where Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren came to talk about U.S.-Israel relations. (UCI earlier said that 12 were arrested.) Oren was interrupted 10 times Monday while trying to give his speech before 500 people at the UCI Student Center, where there was heavy security. Oren took a 20 minute break after the fourth protest, asked for hospitality and resumed his speech, only to be interrupted again by young men yelling at him every few minutes. Many members of the audience also applauded Oren. After the 10th interruption, several dozens students who opposed Oren’s talk got up and walked out and staged a protest outside. It is not clear whether they were members of the UCI Muslim Student Union, which issued an email earlier in the day condemning Oren’s appearance on campus. Oren continued talking, completing his speech at 6:42 p.m. Originally, he planned to take question from the audience. But that was canceled after the repeated delays. The second person yelled about “Zionism.” The third yelled, “Israel.” The fourth could not be clearly heard. UCI Police Chief Paul Henisey said it is not clear whether any of the protesters are UCI students. Mark Petracca, a UCI political science professor, lost his temper and yelled, “This is embarrassing … Shame on all of you.” UCI Chancellor Michael Drake also told the audience that he was embarrassed by the outburst. Drake and Petracca were booed by many people, and applauded by others. Hours earlier, UCI’s Muslim Student Union said in an email today that its members “condemn and oppose the presence of Michael Oren, the ambassador of Israel to the United States, on our campus today. We resent that the Law School and the Political Science Department on our campus have agreed to cosponsor a public figure who represents a state that continues to break international and humanitarian law and is condemned by more UN Human Rights Council resolutions than all other countries in the world combined.” The Jewish Federation Orange County said earlier in the day that it had been informed that Oren’s speech at UC Irvine late today might be disrupted by protestors. Shalom C. Elcott, president of JFOC, said in a statement today that, “We have been informed that some students may attempt to disrupt the event. We want to assure the community that our goal is to create a positive environment — indeed, a sacred space – for open dialogue, intellectual debate and civil discourse that befits a university setting.” This was not the first time that there has been confrontation at a political lecture at UCI. In January 2007, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum was interrupted by protesters at UCI while giving a speech titled, “The Threat to Israel’s Existence.” The protesters ended up getting into a brief shouting match with some members of the audience.

A prominent American author says the U.S. mainstream media does not properly inform the nation about the true extent of tax evasions by big corporations. "In the mainstream media, pretty much of what you hear is that the corporate tax rate is too high," says Paul Buchheit, author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" in an exclusive interview with Press TV's U.S. Desk on Saturday. Buchheit said that when U.S. corporate firms are "only paying 12% out of 35, that compares very low to other countries." "When people are well-informed, properly informed ... , you know it's just ..., people are astounded by the actual effect but you will hear very little of it in the mainstream media," he concluded.

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.

Supreme Leader Meets with Students on National Day of Fighting Against Global Arrogance The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 3, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with high school and university students. The meeting was held on the occasion of the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"National Day of Fighting Against Global Arrogance\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech in Meeting with Students on \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"National Day of Fighting Against Global ArroganToday, the warm presence of you dear youth in this hussainyyah is a reminder and a manifestation of the epic and enthusiasm which has been the supporter and guarantee of the revolutionary movement of the Iranian nation over the course of many years- from the beginning of the Revolution until today. The great blessing of God on our country and on the Islamic Republic is the existence of youth with their clear, strong and reasonable motives, with their pure hearts and with their sincere intentions. Our meeting today has been scheduled on the anniversary of the events of the 13th of Aban which occurred over the course of different years - before and after the victory of the Revolution in the country. There are three events: Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s exile in the year 1343, the ruthless slaughter of students in Tehran in the year 1357 and the courageous movement of students in capturing the Den of Espionage in the year 1358. Each of these three events was in some way related to the government of the United States of America. In the year 1343, Imam (may God bestow paradise on him) was exiled because of his opposition to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"capitulation\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", which meant preserving the security of American agents in Iran and their judicial immunity. So this event was related to America. In the year 1357, the regime which was dependent on America killed students on the streets of Tehran and the asphalt of these streets was colored with the blood of our teenagers. This was done by America in order to defend the regime which was dependent on it. This event was also related to America. The event in the year 1358 was a counterattack. Our courageous and religious youth attacked the U.S. embassy and discovered the truth and identity of this embassy, which was the Den of Espionage, and presented this fact to people throughout the world. In those days, our youth called the U.S. embassy the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Den of Espionage\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Today, after the passage of 30-plus years since that day, the name of U.S. embassies in countries which have the closest relationship with America - that is to say, European countries - has become the den of espionage. This means that our youth are 30 years ahead of the rest of the world. This event was related to America as well. These three events were related, in different ways, to the government of the United States of America and its relations with Iran. Therefore, the 13th of Aban - which is tomorrow - was named \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Day of Fighting Against Arrogance\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". What does arrogance mean? Arrogance is a Quranic term. The word \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"arrogance\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" has been used in the Holy Quran. An arrogant individual, an arrogant government and an arrogant group of people means those individuals and those governments which intend to interfere in the affairs of other human beings and other nations. They interfere in all the affairs of other nations in order to preserve their own interests. They think they are free to do anything and they grant themselves the right to impose different things on other nations and to interfere in the affairs of other countries. And they do not answer to anyone. This is the meaning of arrogance. At the opposite end of the scale, there is a group of people who fight against arrogance. What does fighting against arrogance mean? Primarily, it means refusing to give in to this bullying. The meaning of fighting against arrogance is not convoluted and it is not complicated. Fighting against arrogance means the refusal of a nation to give in to the interference and imposition of an arrogant power, individual or government. This is the meaning of fighting against arrogance. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, when I have the opportunity in the future, I will have a detailed discussion about arrogance and fighting against arrogance with you youth and students. Now, there is no time. This is a brief definition of arrogance and fighting against arrogance. The people of Iran consider themselves to be fighters against arrogance because they have not given in to the imposition of the government of America. The government of America is an arrogant government. It grants itself the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries. It wages wars and it interferes in the affairs of other countries. Today, you see that this goes beyond the borders of Asian, African and Latin American countries. It has reached Europe. They interfere in their affairs as well. The Iranian nation stood against the arrogance that the government of the United States of America showed. It stood against the interference and bullying that it caused and it stood against the domination that it had achieved over our dear country in the course of many years. The taghuti and monarchical regime was a regime which was dependent on America without any domestic support. By relying on America, they did whatever they wanted in Iran. They oppressed the people, they usurped their rights, they practiced discrimination among them. They prevented the country from achieving growth and making progress - which was the natural and historical right of the people - in order to promote the interests of America in Iran. The Iranian nation stood firm and it carried out a revolution. Then, it cut out the roots of arrogant powers in the country. It was not like a number of other countries which confronted arrogance at first, but which left it unfinished. Of course, these countries have received a blow because of this. When I was present in a country - whose name I do not want to mention - which had fought against the English for many years, which had put an end to the oppression of the English by fighting against them and which had achieved independence, I saw that they had put up the statue of an English commander in an important recreational center. I said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"What is this?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And this center was named after this arrogant and colonialist commander who had committed thousands of crimes in that country. Of course, they did not gain any benefit from this consideration and compromise. That is to say, this country was and still is under pressure. Compromising and showing leniency towards arrogant powers will bring no benefit for any country. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the great Revolution carried out by the people of Iran confronted American arrogance and it did not leave this task unfinished because it had felt the blow which the Americans had dealt, over many years, on its skin and flesh. It knew who and what these people are. The arrogant outlook which the Americans have adopted and which has continued since decades ago until today has made all nations in the world have a feeling of mistrust and hatred towards the government of America. This is not particular to our country. Any nation which trusted America received a blow, even those who were America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s friends. In our county, Dr. Mosaddeq trusted and relied on the Americans so that he could free himself from the pressure of the English. Instead of helping Dr. Mosaddeq who had trusted them, the Americans allied themselves with the English. They dispatched their agents to our country and they launched the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad. Mosaddeq trusted them and he received a blow for that. Even those who were on friendly terms with America and who had trusted this country received a blow. The taghuti regime had a very close relationship with America. However, the greed of America exhausted them as well. As I said, they imposed \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"capitulation\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" - the judicial immunity of American agents - on this regime and they had to accept this because they had no other source of support except for America. The meaning of capitulation is that if an American sergeant slaps a high-ranking Iranian officer across the face, no one has the right to sue him. If an American agent of low rank shows transgression towards a honorable Iranian man or woman, no one has the right to sue him. The Americans say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You do not have the right to do this. We ourselves will resolve the issue\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". A people cannot be humiliated more than this. They imposed this on Iran which was their friend. They did not even show mercy to their friend. They threw Mohammad Reza out of their country after he fled from Iran and spent a short time in America. They did not let him stay. They did not show even this bit of loyalty to him. They are such people. Nations and even governments do not trust America because of this behavior and this attitude which can be seen in its policies. Anyone who trusted America received a blow. Therefore, today, America is the most hated global power among nations. If a fair and healthy public opinion poll is carried out among all nations in the world, I do not think that the negative scores of any nation equal the negative scores of the government of America. Today, this is the condition of America throughout the world. You have heard the statements that the Europeans make against the Americans. Therefore, the issue of fighting against arrogance and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The National Day of Fighting against Arrogance\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is a fundamental issue, one that is based on correct analyses and statements. And you dear youth and the millions of youth throughout the country, who are students like you, should have a correct analysis of these events. Well, the youth of the early years of the Revolution did not need analyses. Everything was clear to them because they had witnessed everything with their own eyes. They had witnessed the presence of the Americans and SAVAK, which had been taught by the Americans themselves. But today, you should think, analyze and be careful. This should not be only in words. It should be clear why the people of Iran are opposed to arrogance, why they are opposed to the positions of the United States of America and what their hatred results from. Today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s youth should understand this correctly by carrying out research. Well, I would like to raise a few points about our current issues with America, which is a source of discussions these days. There are certain questions in the minds of the people. First, I want to offer an important and necessary piece of advice: no one should think that the negotiating team of our country have compromised with the other party which includes America - the six governments which are known as the P5+1. This is wrong. They are the agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are our own children and they are the children of the Revolution. They are carrying out a mission and the responsibility which they have undertaken is difficult. They are carrying out this responsibility, which falls on their shoulders, with many efforts. Therefore, one should not weaken and insult them and use certain terms - which we sometimes hear such as the notion that they have compromised with the enemy and other such things - against an agent who is carrying out a task and who is in charge of an affair. The things that are said against them are not true. You should pay attention to the fact that the current negotiations with these six countries - including America - are only about the nuclear issue and nothing else. In the beginning of this year, I said in Holy Mashhad that there is nothing wrong with negotiations on particular issues. But I said that I do not trust these negotiations and I am not optimistic about them. However, if they want to negotiate, they can do it and, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, we will not suffer a loss in these negotiations. The Iranian nation benefits from a certain experience which I will refer to in brief. This experience will increase the intellectual capability of our nation, like the experience that we gained in the year 1382 and 1383 in the area of suspending our enrichment activities. At that time, during negotiations with the Europeans, the Islamic Republic agreed to suspend its enrichment activities for a while. But this turned out to be to our benefit. Why? It is because we found out there is no hope at all that our western partners will cooperate with us if we suspend our enrichment activities. If we had not accepted that optional suspension - of course, it was imposed in a way, but we and our officials accepted it anyway - some people would have said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If you had retreated a little bit, all problems would have been solved and Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s nuclear file would have become normal\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That act of suspending our enrichment activities brought us this advantage: it became clear that problems will not be solved by retreating, suspending enrichment activities, postponing our work and cancelling many of our plans and programs. It became clear that the other side is after something else. We noticed this and therefore we started our enrichment activities again. Today, the condition of the Islamic Republic has dramatically changed compared to its condition in the year 1382. In those days, we used to bargain for two, three centrifuges, but today several thousand centrifuges are working. Our youth, our scientists, our researchers and our officials made great efforts and moved things forward. Therefore, we will not suffer a loss as a result of today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s ongoing negotiations. Of course, as I said, I am not optimistic and I do not think that these negotiations will produce the results which the Iranian nation expects. However, it is an experience. This will broaden and strengthen the experience of the Iranian nation. It is alright to hold these negotiations, but it is necessary for the Iranian nation to be vigilant. We strongly support our officials, who are active in the camp of diplomacy, but our people should be vigilant. They should know what is happening so that some mercenary promoters of the enemy and some promoters who receive no rewards and who further the goals of the enemy out of naivety cannot mislead public opinion. They want to instill the idea into the minds of the people that if we surrender to the other side on the nuclear issue, all economic, financial and other such problems will be solved. This is one of the methods which they use and one of the lies which they spread. They are promoting this idea. Of course, foreign promoters promote such ideas with very efficient methods. Inside the country too, some people promote the idea that if we back down and surrender to the other side on this issue, all economic and other such problems will be solved. Some of these people do it out of naivety without any bad intention and some people promote this idea intentionally. However, this idea is wrong. Why is it wrong? There are a few reasons why it is wrong. I would like you - including the people who are present in this meeting, our wise, well-informed and highly motivated youth and our university and school students throughout the country - to think about such issues. As I once said, you are the officers of the soft war. One reason is that the enmity of America towards the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic is not at all about the nuclear issue. It is wrong to think that America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s hostility towards us is based on the nuclear issue. This is not the case. The nuclear issue is an excuse. Even long before the nuclear issue - that is to say, since the beginning of the Revolution - these hostilities and oppositions existed. Even if one day the nuclear issue is resolved - imagine that the Islamic Republic retreats, which is the thing they want - you should not think that these hostilities will be over. No, they will gradually make tens of other excuses. For example, they will say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why do you have missiles?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why do you have drones?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why are you on unfriendly terms with the Zionist regime?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why do you not officially recognize the Zionist regime?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why do you support resistance groups?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" in, as they call it, the Middle East region and why and why and why... The issue is not that they have disagreements with the Islamic Republic about its nuclear program. This is not the case. America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s sanctions began since the beginning of the Revolution and these sanctions increased on a daily basis so much so that today, it has reached a high level. They showed other kinds of hostility as well. They brought down a plane which belonged to the Islamic Republic and they killed 290 humans. During the early years of the Revolution, when the people were still enthusiastic about the victory of the Revolution, they launched the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état based in Shahid Nojeh military base. They launched a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état against the Revolution and they supported anti-revolutionary elements in different corners of the country. They gave weapons and other such things to the anti-revolutionary camp. This is the same thing that they did in other countries later on. Their enmity is not based on the nuclear issue. The issue is something else. The Iranian nation said no to the requests of America. The Iranian nation said that America cannot do a damn thing against us. The Americans are opposed to the identity of the Islamic Republic. They are opposed to the influence and power of the Islamic Republic. Recently, one of the American politicians and intellectuals said - his speech was broadcast and this is not a confidential issue - that Iran is dangerous, no matter if it is atomic or non-atomic. This person openly said that the influence and power of Iran - as they say, the hegemony of Iran - is dangerous in the region. This is the kind of Iran which enjoys dignity, respect and power today. They are opposed to this kind of Iran. They will be satisfied when Iran becomes a weak, abandoned, isolated, untrustworthy and humiliated nation. Their enmity is not based on the nuclear issue. This is one point. Another point is that in order to solve the economic issues of the country, all our efforts should be focused on domestic issues. The kind of progress and the kind of solution is valuable which is reliant on the domestic power of a nation. If a people rely on their own power and capabilities, they will no more descend into chaos when another country frowns at and imposes sanctions on them. We should solve this. All that we want to say to officials - whether past or present officials - is that they should look at domestic capabilities in order to resolve the issues and the problems of the country including economic problems. We have certain capacities in the country. These capacities - which include human, natural and geographical resources and regional location - should be utilized. Of course, we support diplomatic dynamism. When we say problems should be solved from the inside, this does not mean that we should close our eyes, that we should not benefit from diplomatic dynamism and that we should not interact with the world. Diplomatic dynamism and diplomatic presence are very necessary. The officials who do these things are part of the work, but we should rely on domestic issues. In diplomatic arenas, that country can be successful which relies on its innate power. That government which relies on its innate power and innate capacities can make others accept what it says at the negotiating table and achieve the desired results. Such governments are taken into consideration. An important point which should receive attention in this regard is that we have never become desperate in the face of our enemies during these years and we will never become desperate in the future. During the first decade after the Revolution, particularly during the first years, we did not have access to many material resources. We did not have money, we did not have weapons, we did not have experience, we did not have organization, we did not have competent armed forces and we did not have military equipment. This was while our enemy was at the peak of his power and capability, whether the enemy which fought against us in the arena of war or the enemy which stood behind him - that is to say, the Ba\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ath regime of Saddam and America, NATO and the Soviet Union of those days. At that time, the Reagan administration was one of the strongest and most powerful governments throughout the world in political and military arenas. This was while we lived in poverty and with difficult conditions, but they could not do anything to us. Today, the situation has changed. Today, the Islamic Republic has weapons. Today, it has money, it has science, it has technology, it has the power to produce, it has international dignity, it has millions of youth who are ready to work and it has millions of talents. Today, we have such a condition. Today, our condition cannot at all be compared with 30 years ago. This is while the situation is the exact opposite of this for the opposing camp. In those days, the Americans were at the peak of their power, but today they are not. Recently, one of the current American government officials, who is a well-known personality, said that today America has reached a point where its friends do not respect it and its enemies do not fear it. It was he who said this, not us. They themselves mention such things. Recently, they have had some political problems. You have seen the disagreement of American politicians about the government\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s budget which shut down the government for 16, 17 days. They sent 800,000 employees on involuntary leave. This is a weakness. This is inefficiency. They have the biggest economic and financial problems. Our problems are nothing compared to their problems. And I will tell you that in the year 2001 or 2002 of the Christian calendar - that is to say, 10, 11 years ago - the financial officials of America made a certain prediction. They predicted that in the year 2011 or 2012, they would have a surplus of 14 trillion dollars. Pay careful attention to this. In 2001, their prediction for 2011 and 2012 was this: they said that in 2011 and 2012 they would have a surplus of 14 trillion dollars. Now, it is 2013, but they have a deficit of around 17 trillion dollars and they do not have any surplus. That is to say, they miscalculated this figure up to 30 trillion dollars. This is their economic condition. This is the way they calculate. This is the condition in the opposing camp. Moreover, as you can see, they have many disagreements. It is mutual interests which have connected them - the Americans and the Europeans - to one another. Otherwise, deep inside, they are on unfriendly terms. The French nation hates the Americans. In different events such as the issue of Syria, the Americans could not establish a partnership with a government which has the closest relationship with them. That is to say, even the English said that we would not take part in this issue. This is while about 40 governments cooperated with them when they attacked Iraq. When they attacked Afghanistan, about 30 governments cooperated with them. The Americans have such a condition in the present time. We have a very good condition. We have made progress, we have become powerful and our people have become a well-informed people. Of course, they exert pressures on us. We should endure and pass through these pressures by relying on our domestic capabilities. This is a wise thing to do and it is being done. Of course, as I said earlier - and I would like to repeat this - we approve of the efforts that the honorable administration and the officials of the country are making. This is an important task and experience and it is most probably a valuable course of action. They can do this. If they achieve results, then so much the better. But if they do not achieve results, this should mean that the county must stand on its own feet in order to solve its problems. I would like to repeat my previous advice: you should not trust the enemy which smiles at you. We would like to offer this advice to our officials, who are our children. Those officials who are working in the arena of diplomacy are our own children and our own youth. This is our advice to them: you should take care not to be misled by a deceptive smile. You should see the subtleties of the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plans. Today, the Americans have the most troubles with the deviated Zionist regime- more than any other regime. They have the most consideration for Zionist lobbies. They show consideration for them and we see the situation. The claws of wealthy and powerful Zionist individuals and companies have such domination over the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress that they have to show consideration for them. We do not have to show consideration for the Zionists. Since the first day we said - and we say it today and we will say it in the future - that we consider the Zionist regime to be an illegal and bastard regime. It is a regime which has come into being with conspiracy and it is being preserved and guarded with conspiracy and conspiratorial policies. The Americans show consideration for this regime. The reason why they do this requires another detailed discussion. The money, power and capital of the Zionists is doing a good job and it is influencing these poor Americans. Therefore, the Americans have to show some consideration for them. It is not only the Americans who have such a condition. Many other western politicians, these poor creatures, have the same problem. They too have the same problem. Therefore, our officials should pay attention and they should look at their statements. On the one hand, they smile and they show interest in negotiations and on the other hand, they immediately say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"All options are on the table\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". So what? What move can they make against the Islamic Republic? If they are serious about these negotiations, they should control themselves. They should stop those people who open their mouth to talk nonsense. A certain wealthy American politician had the audacity to say that they should drop an atomic bomb in such and such a desert in Iran and that they should issue such and such threats. Well, they should smash this person\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mouth! A government which suffers from the delusion that it has a responsibility towards all the issues in the world and a government which considers itself responsible for dealing with the nuclear issue of such and such a country should not dare to issue nuclear threats - particularly in such a time - against a country with such a good condition. They should stop those people who talk nonsense. Anyway, our people are, thankfully, a vigilant people and our officials are the officials of these people. They too are vigilant and they pay full attention. We support whatever action which is to the benefit of the country and we support, help and pray for those officials who carry out such actions. But we also advise both the people and officials - particularly you dear youth - to open your eyes and ears. Any nation can achieve its lofty goals with wisdom, vigilance and watchfulness. And I hope that, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake) will be a source of support for you and I hope that the immaculate soul of Imam and the pure souls of our martyrs pray for you. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you youth will take the country in your own hands with your enthusiastic spirits and I hope that it will be your turn to reach the peaks with your innovation. Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1837&Itemid=4

The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 3, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with high school and university students. The meeting was held on the occasion of the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"National Day of Fighting Against Global Arrogance\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech in Meeting with Students on \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"National Day of Fighting Against Global ArroganToday, the warm presence of you dear youth in this hussainyyah is a reminder and a manifestation of the epic and enthusiasm which has been the supporter and guarantee of the revolutionary movement of the Iranian nation over the course of many years- from the beginning of the Revolution until today. The great blessing of God on our country and on the Islamic Republic is the existence of youth with their clear, strong and reasonable motives, with their pure hearts and with their sincere intentions. Our meeting today has been scheduled on the anniversary of the events of the 13th of Aban which occurred over the course of different years - before and after the victory of the Revolution in the country. There are three events: Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s exile in the year 1343, the ruthless slaughter of students in Tehran in the year 1357 and the courageous movement of students in capturing the Den of Espionage in the year 1358. Each of these three events was in some way related to the government of the United States of America. In the year 1343, Imam (may God bestow paradise on him) was exiled because of his opposition to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"capitulation\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", which meant preserving the security of American agents in Iran and their judicial immunity. So this event was related to America. In the year 1357, the regime which was dependent on America killed students on the streets of Tehran and the asphalt of these streets was colored with the blood of our teenagers. This was done by America in order to defend the regime which was dependent on it. This event was also related to America. The event in the year 1358 was a counterattack. Our courageous and religious youth attacked the U.S. embassy and discovered the truth and identity of this embassy, which was the Den of Espionage, and presented this fact to people throughout the world. In those days, our youth called the U.S. embassy the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Den of Espionage\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Today, after the passage of 30-plus years since that day, the name of U.S. embassies in countries which have the closest relationship with America - that is to say, European countries - has become the den of espionage. This means that our youth are 30 years ahead of the rest of the world. This event was related to America as well. These three events were related, in different ways, to the government of the United States of America and its relations with Iran. Therefore, the 13th of Aban - which is tomorrow - was named \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Day of Fighting Against Arrogance\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". What does arrogance mean? Arrogance is a Quranic term. The word \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"arrogance\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" has been used in the Holy Quran. An arrogant individual, an arrogant government and an arrogant group of people means those individuals and those governments which intend to interfere in the affairs of other human beings and other nations. They interfere in all the affairs of other nations in order to preserve their own interests. They think they are free to do anything and they grant themselves the right to impose different things on other nations and to interfere in the affairs of other countries. And they do not answer to anyone. This is the meaning of arrogance. At the opposite end of the scale, there is a group of people who fight against arrogance. What does fighting against arrogance mean? Primarily, it means refusing to give in to this bullying. The meaning of fighting against arrogance is not convoluted and it is not complicated. Fighting against arrogance means the refusal of a nation to give in to the interference and imposition of an arrogant power, individual or government. This is the meaning of fighting against arrogance. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, when I have the opportunity in the future, I will have a detailed discussion about arrogance and fighting against arrogance with you youth and students. Now, there is no time. This is a brief definition of arrogance and fighting against arrogance. The people of Iran consider themselves to be fighters against arrogance because they have not given in to the imposition of the government of America. The government of America is an arrogant government. It grants itself the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries. It wages wars and it interferes in the affairs of other countries. Today, you see that this goes beyond the borders of Asian, African and Latin American countries. It has reached Europe. They interfere in their affairs as well. The Iranian nation stood against the arrogance that the government of the United States of America showed. It stood against the interference and bullying that it caused and it stood against the domination that it had achieved over our dear country in the course of many years. The taghuti and monarchical regime was a regime which was dependent on America without any domestic support. By relying on America, they did whatever they wanted in Iran. They oppressed the people, they usurped their rights, they practiced discrimination among them. They prevented the country from achieving growth and making progress - which was the natural and historical right of the people - in order to promote the interests of America in Iran. The Iranian nation stood firm and it carried out a revolution. Then, it cut out the roots of arrogant powers in the country. It was not like a number of other countries which confronted arrogance at first, but which left it unfinished. Of course, these countries have received a blow because of this. When I was present in a country - whose name I do not want to mention - which had fought against the English for many years, which had put an end to the oppression of the English by fighting against them and which had achieved independence, I saw that they had put up the statue of an English commander in an important recreational center. I said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"What is this?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And this center was named after this arrogant and colonialist commander who had committed thousands of crimes in that country. Of course, they did not gain any benefit from this consideration and compromise. That is to say, this country was and still is under pressure. Compromising and showing leniency towards arrogant powers will bring no benefit for any country. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the great Revolution carried out by the people of Iran confronted American arrogance and it did not leave this task unfinished because it had felt the blow which the Americans had dealt, over many years, on its skin and flesh. It knew who and what these people are. The arrogant outlook which the Americans have adopted and which has continued since decades ago until today has made all nations in the world have a feeling of mistrust and hatred towards the government of America. This is not particular to our country. Any nation which trusted America received a blow, even those who were America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s friends. In our county, Dr. Mosaddeq trusted and relied on the Americans so that he could free himself from the pressure of the English. Instead of helping Dr. Mosaddeq who had trusted them, the Americans allied themselves with the English. They dispatched their agents to our country and they launched the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad. Mosaddeq trusted them and he received a blow for that. Even those who were on friendly terms with America and who had trusted this country received a blow. The taghuti regime had a very close relationship with America. However, the greed of America exhausted them as well. As I said, they imposed \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"capitulation\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" - the judicial immunity of American agents - on this regime and they had to accept this because they had no other source of support except for America. The meaning of capitulation is that if an American sergeant slaps a high-ranking Iranian officer across the face, no one has the right to sue him. If an American agent of low rank shows transgression towards a honorable Iranian man or woman, no one has the right to sue him. The Americans say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You do not have the right to do this. We ourselves will resolve the issue\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". A people cannot be humiliated more than this. They imposed this on Iran which was their friend. They did not even show mercy to their friend. They threw Mohammad Reza out of their country after he fled from Iran and spent a short time in America. They did not let him stay. They did not show even this bit of loyalty to him. They are such people. Nations and even governments do not trust America because of this behavior and this attitude which can be seen in its policies. Anyone who trusted America received a blow. Therefore, today, America is the most hated global power among nations. If a fair and healthy public opinion poll is carried out among all nations in the world, I do not think that the negative scores of any nation equal the negative scores of the government of America. Today, this is the condition of America throughout the world. You have heard the statements that the Europeans make against the Americans. Therefore, the issue of fighting against arrogance and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The National Day of Fighting against Arrogance\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is a fundamental issue, one that is based on correct analyses and statements. And you dear youth and the millions of youth throughout the country, who are students like you, should have a correct analysis of these events. Well, the youth of the early years of the Revolution did not need analyses. Everything was clear to them because they had witnessed everything with their own eyes. They had witnessed the presence of the Americans and SAVAK, which had been taught by the Americans themselves. But today, you should think, analyze and be careful. This should not be only in words. It should be clear why the people of Iran are opposed to arrogance, why they are opposed to the positions of the United States of America and what their hatred results from. Today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s youth should understand this correctly by carrying out research. Well, I would like to raise a few points about our current issues with America, which is a source of discussions these days. There are certain questions in the minds of the people. First, I want to offer an important and necessary piece of advice: no one should think that the negotiating team of our country have compromised with the other party which includes America - the six governments which are known as the P5+1. This is wrong. They are the agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are our own children and they are the children of the Revolution. They are carrying out a mission and the responsibility which they have undertaken is difficult. They are carrying out this responsibility, which falls on their shoulders, with many efforts. Therefore, one should not weaken and insult them and use certain terms - which we sometimes hear such as the notion that they have compromised with the enemy and other such things - against an agent who is carrying out a task and who is in charge of an affair. The things that are said against them are not true. You should pay attention to the fact that the current negotiations with these six countries - including America - are only about the nuclear issue and nothing else. In the beginning of this year, I said in Holy Mashhad that there is nothing wrong with negotiations on particular issues. But I said that I do not trust these negotiations and I am not optimistic about them. However, if they want to negotiate, they can do it and, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, we will not suffer a loss in these negotiations. The Iranian nation benefits from a certain experience which I will refer to in brief. This experience will increase the intellectual capability of our nation, like the experience that we gained in the year 1382 and 1383 in the area of suspending our enrichment activities. At that time, during negotiations with the Europeans, the Islamic Republic agreed to suspend its enrichment activities for a while. But this turned out to be to our benefit. Why? It is because we found out there is no hope at all that our western partners will cooperate with us if we suspend our enrichment activities. If we had not accepted that optional suspension - of course, it was imposed in a way, but we and our officials accepted it anyway - some people would have said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If you had retreated a little bit, all problems would have been solved and Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s nuclear file would have become normal\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That act of suspending our enrichment activities brought us this advantage: it became clear that problems will not be solved by retreating, suspending enrichment activities, postponing our work and cancelling many of our plans and programs. It became clear that the other side is after something else. We noticed this and therefore we started our enrichment activities again. Today, the condition of the Islamic Republic has dramatically changed compared to its condition in the year 1382. In those days, we used to bargain for two, three centrifuges, but today several thousand centrifuges are working. Our youth, our scientists, our researchers and our officials made great efforts and moved things forward. Therefore, we will not suffer a loss as a result of today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s ongoing negotiations. Of course, as I said, I am not optimistic and I do not think that these negotiations will produce the results which the Iranian nation expects. However, it is an experience. This will broaden and strengthen the experience of the Iranian nation. It is alright to hold these negotiations, but it is necessary for the Iranian nation to be vigilant. We strongly support our officials, who are active in the camp of diplomacy, but our people should be vigilant. They should know what is happening so that some mercenary promoters of the enemy and some promoters who receive no rewards and who further the goals of the enemy out of naivety cannot mislead public opinion. They want to instill the idea into the minds of the people that if we surrender to the other side on the nuclear issue, all economic, financial and other such problems will be solved. This is one of the methods which they use and one of the lies which they spread. They are promoting this idea. Of course, foreign promoters promote such ideas with very efficient methods. Inside the country too, some people promote the idea that if we back down and surrender to the other side on this issue, all economic and other such problems will be solved. Some of these people do it out of naivety without any bad intention and some people promote this idea intentionally. However, this idea is wrong. Why is it wrong? There are a few reasons why it is wrong. I would like you - including the people who are present in this meeting, our wise, well-informed and highly motivated youth and our university and school students throughout the country - to think about such issues. As I once said, you are the officers of the soft war. One reason is that the enmity of America towards the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic is not at all about the nuclear issue. It is wrong to think that America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s hostility towards us is based on the nuclear issue. This is not the case. The nuclear issue is an excuse. Even long before the nuclear issue - that is to say, since the beginning of the Revolution - these hostilities and oppositions existed. Even if one day the nuclear issue is resolved - imagine that the Islamic Republic retreats, which is the thing they want - you should not think that these hostilities will be over. No, they will gradually make tens of other excuses. For example, they will say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why do you have missiles?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why do you have drones?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why are you on unfriendly terms with the Zionist regime?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why do you not officially recognize the Zionist regime?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"why do you support resistance groups?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" in, as they call it, the Middle East region and why and why and why... The issue is not that they have disagreements with the Islamic Republic about its nuclear program. This is not the case. America\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s sanctions began since the beginning of the Revolution and these sanctions increased on a daily basis so much so that today, it has reached a high level. They showed other kinds of hostility as well. They brought down a plane which belonged to the Islamic Republic and they killed 290 humans. During the early years of the Revolution, when the people were still enthusiastic about the victory of the Revolution, they launched the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état based in Shahid Nojeh military base. They launched a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état against the Revolution and they supported anti-revolutionary elements in different corners of the country. They gave weapons and other such things to the anti-revolutionary camp. This is the same thing that they did in other countries later on. Their enmity is not based on the nuclear issue. The issue is something else. The Iranian nation said no to the requests of America. The Iranian nation said that America cannot do a damn thing against us. The Americans are opposed to the identity of the Islamic Republic. They are opposed to the influence and power of the Islamic Republic. Recently, one of the American politicians and intellectuals said - his speech was broadcast and this is not a confidential issue - that Iran is dangerous, no matter if it is atomic or non-atomic. This person openly said that the influence and power of Iran - as they say, the hegemony of Iran - is dangerous in the region. This is the kind of Iran which enjoys dignity, respect and power today. They are opposed to this kind of Iran. They will be satisfied when Iran becomes a weak, abandoned, isolated, untrustworthy and humiliated nation. Their enmity is not based on the nuclear issue. This is one point. Another point is that in order to solve the economic issues of the country, all our efforts should be focused on domestic issues. The kind of progress and the kind of solution is valuable which is reliant on the domestic power of a nation. If a people rely on their own power and capabilities, they will no more descend into chaos when another country frowns at and imposes sanctions on them. We should solve this. All that we want to say to officials - whether past or present officials - is that they should look at domestic capabilities in order to resolve the issues and the problems of the country including economic problems. We have certain capacities in the country. These capacities - which include human, natural and geographical resources and regional location - should be utilized. Of course, we support diplomatic dynamism. When we say problems should be solved from the inside, this does not mean that we should close our eyes, that we should not benefit from diplomatic dynamism and that we should not interact with the world. Diplomatic dynamism and diplomatic presence are very necessary. The officials who do these things are part of the work, but we should rely on domestic issues. In diplomatic arenas, that country can be successful which relies on its innate power. That government which relies on its innate power and innate capacities can make others accept what it says at the negotiating table and achieve the desired results. Such governments are taken into consideration. An important point which should receive attention in this regard is that we have never become desperate in the face of our enemies during these years and we will never become desperate in the future. During the first decade after the Revolution, particularly during the first years, we did not have access to many material resources. We did not have money, we did not have weapons, we did not have experience, we did not have organization, we did not have competent armed forces and we did not have military equipment. This was while our enemy was at the peak of his power and capability, whether the enemy which fought against us in the arena of war or the enemy which stood behind him - that is to say, the Ba\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'ath regime of Saddam and America, NATO and the Soviet Union of those days. At that time, the Reagan administration was one of the strongest and most powerful governments throughout the world in political and military arenas. This was while we lived in poverty and with difficult conditions, but they could not do anything to us. Today, the situation has changed. Today, the Islamic Republic has weapons. Today, it has money, it has science, it has technology, it has the power to produce, it has international dignity, it has millions of youth who are ready to work and it has millions of talents. Today, we have such a condition. Today, our condition cannot at all be compared with 30 years ago. This is while the situation is the exact opposite of this for the opposing camp. In those days, the Americans were at the peak of their power, but today they are not. Recently, one of the current American government officials, who is a well-known personality, said that today America has reached a point where its friends do not respect it and its enemies do not fear it. It was he who said this, not us. They themselves mention such things. Recently, they have had some political problems. You have seen the disagreement of American politicians about the government\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s budget which shut down the government for 16, 17 days. They sent 800,000 employees on involuntary leave. This is a weakness. This is inefficiency. They have the biggest economic and financial problems. Our problems are nothing compared to their problems. And I will tell you that in the year 2001 or 2002 of the Christian calendar - that is to say, 10, 11 years ago - the financial officials of America made a certain prediction. They predicted that in the year 2011 or 2012, they would have a surplus of 14 trillion dollars. Pay careful attention to this. In 2001, their prediction for 2011 and 2012 was this: they said that in 2011 and 2012 they would have a surplus of 14 trillion dollars. Now, it is 2013, but they have a deficit of around 17 trillion dollars and they do not have any surplus. That is to say, they miscalculated this figure up to 30 trillion dollars. This is their economic condition. This is the way they calculate. This is the condition in the opposing camp. Moreover, as you can see, they have many disagreements. It is mutual interests which have connected them - the Americans and the Europeans - to one another. Otherwise, deep inside, they are on unfriendly terms. The French nation hates the Americans. In different events such as the issue of Syria, the Americans could not establish a partnership with a government which has the closest relationship with them. That is to say, even the English said that we would not take part in this issue. This is while about 40 governments cooperated with them when they attacked Iraq. When they attacked Afghanistan, about 30 governments cooperated with them. The Americans have such a condition in the present time. We have a very good condition. We have made progress, we have become powerful and our people have become a well-informed people. Of course, they exert pressures on us. We should endure and pass through these pressures by relying on our domestic capabilities. This is a wise thing to do and it is being done. Of course, as I said earlier - and I would like to repeat this - we approve of the efforts that the honorable administration and the officials of the country are making. This is an important task and experience and it is most probably a valuable course of action. They can do this. If they achieve results, then so much the better. But if they do not achieve results, this should mean that the county must stand on its own feet in order to solve its problems. I would like to repeat my previous advice: you should not trust the enemy which smiles at you. We would like to offer this advice to our officials, who are our children. Those officials who are working in the arena of diplomacy are our own children and our own youth. This is our advice to them: you should take care not to be misled by a deceptive smile. You should see the subtleties of the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plans. Today, the Americans have the most troubles with the deviated Zionist regime- more than any other regime. They have the most consideration for Zionist lobbies. They show consideration for them and we see the situation. The claws of wealthy and powerful Zionist individuals and companies have such domination over the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress that they have to show consideration for them. We do not have to show consideration for the Zionists. Since the first day we said - and we say it today and we will say it in the future - that we consider the Zionist regime to be an illegal and bastard regime. It is a regime which has come into being with conspiracy and it is being preserved and guarded with conspiracy and conspiratorial policies. The Americans show consideration for this regime. The reason why they do this requires another detailed discussion. The money, power and capital of the Zionists is doing a good job and it is influencing these poor Americans. Therefore, the Americans have to show some consideration for them. It is not only the Americans who have such a condition. Many other western politicians, these poor creatures, have the same problem. They too have the same problem. Therefore, our officials should pay attention and they should look at their statements. On the one hand, they smile and they show interest in negotiations and on the other hand, they immediately say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"All options are on the table\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". So what? What move can they make against the Islamic Republic? If they are serious about these negotiations, they should control themselves. They should stop those people who open their mouth to talk nonsense. A certain wealthy American politician had the audacity to say that they should drop an atomic bomb in such and such a desert in Iran and that they should issue such and such threats. Well, they should smash this person\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mouth! A government which suffers from the delusion that it has a responsibility towards all the issues in the world and a government which considers itself responsible for dealing with the nuclear issue of such and such a country should not dare to issue nuclear threats - particularly in such a time - against a country with such a good condition. They should stop those people who talk nonsense. Anyway, our people are, thankfully, a vigilant people and our officials are the officials of these people. They too are vigilant and they pay full attention. We support whatever action which is to the benefit of the country and we support, help and pray for those officials who carry out such actions. But we also advise both the people and officials - particularly you dear youth - to open your eyes and ears. Any nation can achieve its lofty goals with wisdom, vigilance and watchfulness. And I hope that, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake) will be a source of support for you and I hope that the immaculate soul of Imam and the pure souls of our martyrs pray for you. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you youth will take the country in your own hands with your enthusiastic spirits and I hope that it will be your turn to reach the peaks with your innovation. Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings

Supreme Leader\\\\\\\'s Speech on 25th Demise Anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) Print 06/06/2014 Hotuba ya Kiongozi Muadhamu katika Maadhimisho ya Mwaka wa 25 wa Kufariki Dunia Imam KhomeiniThe following is the full text of the speech delivered on June 4, 2014 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, on the occasion of the demise anniversary of Imam Khomeini (r.a.). The speech was delivered at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\'s shrine. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings upon our Master and Prophet, Muhammad, and upon his immaculate household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth. \\\\\\\"Our Lord, forgive us and those of our brethren who had precedence of us in faith, and do not allow any spite to remain in our hearts towards those who believe. Our Lord, surely You are Kind, Merciful\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 59: 10]. \\\\\\\"Our Lord, surely You have given to Pharaoh and his chiefs finery and riches in this world\\\\\\\'s life. To this end, our Lord, that they lead people astray from Your way. Our Lord, destroy their riches and harden their hearts so that they believe not until they see the painful punishment\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 10: 88]. Allah the Omniscient said in His book: \\\\\\\"Have you not considered how Allah sets forth a parable of a good word being like a good tree, whose root is firm and whose branches are in heaven, yielding its fruit in every season by the permission of its Lord?\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 14: 24-25] On this unforgettable and important day, I would like to divide my statements to you dear brothers and sisters into three parts. In the first part, I will speak about an important reality which exists about the Islamic Republic. Today, paying attention to this reality is very important. In the second part, I will provide a brief explanation of our magnanimous Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) permanent and eternal school of thought. Although we have said and heard many things about Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought, it is necessary to provide a brief explanation at this point in time. I will provide a short portrayal of all the things that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) created as a unique phenomenon in the contemporary world. The third part is about two important challenges which lie ahead of the people of Iran and the Islamic Republic. It is important for us to pay attention to these two challenges in order to move forward in the right way and on the right path. As for the first part, the reality that I referred to is that 25 years have passed from the demise of our great Imam (r.a.), but people\\\\\\\'s enthusiasm and excitement to hear and know about him has not diminished. And this is not particular to our country. Rather, this reality exists in the world of Islam and even beyond that. Not only in our country - where the third generation of the Revolution is growing and blossoming - but also in the entire world of Islam, the youth of the age of communications and Internet are after gaining more information about the issues of the Revolution, about the Islamic Republic and about the architect of this great structure. And these youth can easily familiarize themselves with the issues which occur far away from their own environment. The phenomenon of religious democracy and the theory of Wilayat-e Faqih are issues which are significant and attractive for the intellectual environments of the world of Islam. From the first days, our enemies began making a comprehensive effort and the more we moved forward, the more comprehensive this effort became. They used hundreds and thousands of television, radio stations and Internet sites to abuse the Islamic Republic, its great founder and its supporters. Of course, this issue has been helpful to us because it has aroused the curiosity of listeners and viewers throughout the world. These listeners and viewers want to know the reason behind all these enmities, hostilities and mudslinging. They want to know the nature of the truth which has been the target of these enmities. So, our enemies mentioned our names and they spoke about our Imam (r.a.) and our system with the purpose of showing their enmity, but \\\\\\\"...surely they will scheme, and I too will scheme\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 86: 15-16]. This is what Allah the Exalted says. They started this widespread movement with such an intention, but it eventually created an opportunity for us because the sense of curiosity of the listeners to these stations was aroused throughout the world. Islamic Awakening - in which anti-arrogant feelings were dominant more than any other phenomenon - in Islamic countries and our region is the sign of this curiosity and search for the truth and it continues to exist. It is possible that western and American intelligence services report to their seniors that they have managed to suppress Islamic Awakening in our region. If they have such a notion, then this will be another strategic mistake and another wrong interpretation on the part of our enemies. Islamic Awakening might be suppressed for a while in part of the world of Islam, but it will undoubtedly not be uprooted. On the contrary, it will develop. This understanding, this perception and this awareness in all countries and among Muslim youth in the region is not something that can be destroyed easily. Of course, they will make certain efforts in order to destroy it and these efforts may seem to be successful in some areas in the short run, but in the end, they will prove to be fruitless. The curiosity that exists in today\\\\\\\'s young generation all over the world - particularly in the world of Islam - about the phenomenon of religious democracy is rooted in the fact that the Islamic Republic is a phenomenon from whose birth 35 years have passed. And during all these 35 years, it has faced the violent and hostile reactions of the dominant powers in the world. They showed military reactions, they showed propaganda reactions, they showed economic reactions - which began from the beginning of the Revolution and which have been reinforced on a daily basis - and they showed political reactions. It is 35 years now that this powerful western camp has been doing whatever it could against the Islamic Republic. It has made military efforts, it has helped the aggressors who attacked our country, it has supported the enemies of the Islamic Republic in any area, it has used widespread propaganda and it has made perfect and unprecedented efforts in the area of sanctions and economic siege. But in the face of all these invasions and all these violent and unscrupulous hostilities, the Islamic Republic was not destroyed, it did not adopt a conservative outlook, it was not blackmailed by the west and it made progress on a daily basis. This is what forms the essence of this curiosity. Despite the fact that the primary military, political and economic powers of the world joined hands against a country and a government and despite the fact that they made efforts for 35 years, not only was this government not destroyed, but it also became stronger on a daily basis. This government was not blackmailed by them and it did not pay any attention to them at all. The Islamic Republic showed its power and capability to survive in different arenas. Today, when they look at the Islamic Republic, they see that the second and third generations of the Revolution in the country are comprised of several million students, several thousand knowledgeable clergy, several thousand researchers, several thousand university and seminary professors, thousands of scientific and intellectual personalities - some of whom are well-known on an international level - and thousands of activists and producers and thousands of political, cultural and economic personalities. This is the reality about our today\\\\\\\'s society. In the arena of science and technology, the Islamic Republic launches satellites into space despite all sanctions. It sends living creatures into space and it brings them back. It produces nuclear energy. It is ranked among the first ten countries in the world in many new sciences. The centers in charge of releasing statistics have announced that the rate of scientific progress in the Islamic Republic is 13 times faster than the global average. It gives scientific and technological services to different countries. Despite unprecedented sanctions, it manages a 75-million-strong country. It has the final word on regional policies. It shows resistance against the usurping Zionist regime, which is supported by global bullies, and it does this on its own. It does not compromise with oppressors and it defends the oppressed. Any well-informed individual becomes curious to know what this organism and phenomenon is and how it benefits from all these innate capabilities and this potential to survive despite all the enmities. This is the nature of this curiosity. This was about the issues related to scientific, technological and other such areas. As for political and social issues, the higher aspect of this religious democracy is that we have had 32 elections during the 35 years from the beginning of our Revolution. Thirty two public elections have been held in this country. Is this a minor achievement? This is an exceptional phenomenon. Elections in the Islamic Republic are held with a high turnout - higher than the global average and in some cases, it is much higher. Our elections witness a turnout of 70, 72 percent. Our elections are like this. These elections are the manifestation of democracy. Another exceptional example is the two phenomena which we people have gotten used to, but which are extraordinarily exciting and important for global inspectors and witnesses. These two phenomena are the 22nd of Bahman rallies and Quds Day Rallies in the month of Ramadan. During the past 35 years, the people have held the Revolution celebration each year with a great, exciting and glorious rally on the cold days of late Bahman. We have gotten used to this and we do not truly see the significance and greatness of this issue, but global witnesses see these things and they are very astonishing to them. These are the factors behind the element which arouses people\\\\\\\'s curiosity and which presents a new path to the minds of enthusiastic, inquisitive and research-oriented individuals. This is the important reality of our time which can be described as the general curiosity of youth, intellectuals, well-informed personalities and analysts throughout the world of Islam about the phenomenon which has emerged and grown on a daily basis in Islamic Iran. This is the first issue. This reality has been built by the hands of our great architect. We have said many things about Imam (r.a.). Perhaps some people think that we have spoken about Imam in an exaggerated way. But this is not the case. What we have said about our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) is neither exaggeration nor magnification of the truth. Rather, it is the truth. Our magnanimous and dear Imam (r.a.) was more complex and meaningful than what we managed to say and reflect about him. What is available to the people of Iran and what is in front of the eyes of people throughout the world has been built by those powerful hands. We should know about the architect\\\\\\\'s plan in order to take the path in the right way. If developers and builders do not have access to a plan in order to build an ordinary building and if it is not clear what the main plan is, then they may make a mistake no matter how skilled they are. We should know the main plan so that we can use our expertise in building on the basis of this plan. Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) plan was not one that could be designed by a human being. It was definitely God\\\\\\\'s work. Our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) himself knew and acknowledged this. He himself used to say, \\\\\\\"What has occurred is a handicraft of divine power\\\\\\\". He had understood this correctly and his insightful and vigilant eyes had seen this correctly. We should be careful. We should know the plan so that we can continue the path. If we do not know the plan, we will deviate from the right path. And when we deviate, we will drift away from the main and the straight path on a daily basis. When we drift away from the straight path, we will drift away from goals and we will fail to reach them. In order to reach the goals, we should take care not to lose the path and in order to avoid losing the path, we should have the main plan in front of our eyes. We should know and identify this plan. Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) plan and main task was to create a civil-political system on the basis of Islamic reason. The prerequisite for carrying out this task was to uproot the monarchic regime which was corrupt, dependent and dictatorial. The monarchic regime had these three characteristics: it was corrupt - different moral, financial and other such corruptions. It was dependent on powers. One day, it was dependent on England and another day, it was dependent on America. It was prepared to abandon its own interests and the interests of the people for the sake of the interests of foreigners. And it was dictatorial and oppressive. For the monarchic regime, the people\\\\\\\'s votes and requests counted for nothing. Each of these characteristics forms a long chapter. Each of them forms a long book. The prerequisite for the great task that Imam (r.a.) wanted to carry out was to uproot this corrupt, dependent and dictatorial regime. He focused his efforts on doing this and consequently, the regime was uprooted. In our country, the issue was not replacing a monarchic regime with another monarchic or semi-monarchic regime. The issue was uprooting the characteristics that the monarchic regime had and this was done by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) statements, guidelines and behavior were oriented towards this goal. There are two fundamental points in building this civil-political system and these two points are interconnected. In one sense, these two points are two sides of the coin of truth. One is entrusting the affairs of the country to the people through democracy and elections and another is launching this movement - which originated from Islam - and any movement which originates from democracy and entrusting tasks to people, within the framework of Islamic sharia. These are two parts. In other words, these are two sides of the same truth. Some people should not think that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) derived elections from the western culture and then mixed it with Islamic thoughts and Islamic sharia. This was not the case. If elections, democracy and reliance on the votes of people had not been part of religion and Islamic sharia, then Imam (r.a.) would have told us. If this had been the case, he would have announced it in an outspoken and decisive way. Democracy is part of religion. Therefore, Islamic sharia is the framework. When passing and implementing laws, when assigning individuals different tasks and discharging them from their service and during all tasks that follow this political-civil system, Islamic sharia should be observed. All tasks in this system revolve around democracy. All the people elect the members of the Majlis and the president, they elect ministers indirectly, they elect the members of the Assembly of Experts and they elect the Leader indirectly. All tasks are in the hands of the people. This was the main base of our magnanimous Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) movement. The great structure that this great personality built was founded on these two bases. Commitment to Islamic sharia is the soul and truth of the Islamic government. Everyone should pay attention to this issue. If Islamic sharia is completely observed in society, this will ensure both civil and individual freedom - the freedom of individuals - and collective freedom which is called independence. Independence means freedom of a people. It means that a people are not dependent on anyone and any place. \\\\\\\"A free people\\\\\\\" means a people who are not under the influence and domination of their opponents, their enemies and foreigners in any way. If Islamic sharia is observed, it will ensure both justice and spirituality in society. These are the four main elements: freedom, independence, justice and spirituality. If Islamic sharia dominates society, these main phenomena in the order of Islamic society will show themselves. Therefore, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) stressed the necessity of Islamic sharia which is the soul of the Islamic Republic. He also stressed the necessity of religious democracy which is a means and a tool and which is derived from sharia. According to Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought, any power and force which has come into being through deception and oppression is unacceptable. In the Islamic government, oppression and subjugation are meaningless. Power and authority are meaningful, but only the one that originates from people\\\\\\\'s free will and choice. The kind of power which originates from bullying, subjugation and weapons is meaningless from the viewpoint of Islam, Islamic sharia and Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) school of thought. The kind of power which emerges on the basis of people\\\\\\\'s choice is respectable. No one should confront this power. No one should try to suppress and subjugate this power. If they do so, this is called fitna. This is the new prescription that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) introduced to the world. He added this important chapter to the political literature of the world. As we pointed out, one of the main elements in this new version is rushing to help the oppressed and confronting the oppressor. We should help the oppressed and in the present time, the concrete manifestation of being oppressed is the people of Palestine. As you witnessed, from the first day until the end of his life, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) stressed the issue of Palestine. He supported the issue of Palestine and stated in his testament that the people of Iran and the officials of the country should not forget about this issue. Helping the oppressed, showing resistance against the oppressor, condemning his transgressions, rejecting his power and grandeur in an outspoken way and shattering this grandeur are among the parts of this system and this new version presented by our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). This is a short summary, portrayal and description of the political order and the foundation that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) introduced to society after overthrowing the monarchic regime in the country. This matter was completely accepted by the people and it was put into practice. Unlike many political slogans, this matter was not confined to books. Rather, it was realized, put into practice and reflected in reality. And the people of Iran showed their determination, loyalty and self-sacrifice by preserving this matter and strengthening it on a daily basis until today. So, Imam (r.a.) succeeded. He achieved complete success in what he wanted to do. Will this great task continue? Will the empty boxes of this table - naturally, there are some empty boxes in social and historical tables - be filled in? This depends on how determined and aware you and I are and to what extent we observe and move in the direction of that clear line. It is completely possible to do this. Considering the people that we see, considering the experience that they have gained and considering the successful and continuous movement that they have launched in the past 35 years - and in the past 25 years since Imam\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) demise - it is possible to continue this path. The empty boxes will be filled in, great feats will be accomplished and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, our people will reach the peaks. Like all the important paths which have been delineated for reaching great goals, this path involves certain challenges and obstacles. We should identify these obstacles so that we can pass through them. If we do not identify obstacles, overcoming them will be either difficult or impossible. I am saying these things to you honorable participants of this great and magnificent meeting and, in fact, to the people of Iran who will hear these statements. But it is our youth, our scholars and our intellectuals who should think about, work on and study each of these chapters and parts. They should work on not only semi-intellectual and theoretical discussions but also on practical and functional discussions which reflect the truth. What we are saying is some chapters for carrying out intellectual tasks. By Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, these chapters will be followed up by our youth who are much better and prepared than we are. I would like to refer to two challenges: one is an external challenge and another is an internal challenge. Our external challenge is the interferences of global arrogance. I would like to speak without any consideration. The external challenge is the interferences of America. They engage in mudslinging. Although some of their thinkers say in their analyses that it is useless or impossible to confront this great movement, they engage in mudslinging. We should know their plan. This is America\\\\\\\'s plan which has been revealed through their discussions, reports, statements and behavior: America divides all countries, orientations and people throughout the world into three groups: the first group is made up of the submissive including submissive countries, submissive political and social orientations and submissive individuals. The first group is comprised of these people. The second group is comprised of countries which are not submissive and which should be tolerated. From the viewpoint of America, a number of countries, personalities and orientations should be tolerated. They believe that they should define common interests with these countries and that they should get along with them somehow. Later on, I will explain this more. The third group is made up of disobedient countries, those which do not give in to America and which refuse to be blackmailed by it. The third group is comprised of these countries. From the viewpoint of the Americans, no country, no political, social, civil and economic orientation and no individual in the world is out of these three groups. Everyone is either submissive and docile or independent - and you should get along with them - or disobedient, bold and courageous. One should behave in a different way towards the third group. America\\\\\\\'s policy towards the first group is complete support. Of course, they do not provide this support for free. They support them, but they also milk them. In fact, they use their capabilities and resources to the advantage of their own interests and for safeguarding their own interests. The Americans ride roughshod over these people and they make them render all kinds of services to them. As I said, they milk them and they do not care at all. Of course, if these people and countries behave in a way that is considered to be indecent according to global conventions, the Americans do not condemn it. On the contrary, they defend and justify it. For example, there are some dictatorial countries which are managed by biased, reactionary and completely dictatorial regimes, but they have friendly relations with the Americans. These countries give in to the Americans and they are prepared to serve and obey them. They are members of the first group. When the Americans want to describe them, they do not refer to them as dictatorial countries. Rather, they say that they are patriarchal countries and thus they cover up their dictatorship. They say, \\\\\\\"They are not dictators. Rather, they are patriarchal countries\\\\\\\". What is the meaning of patriarchal in political systems? What does it mean? Is a patriarchal country a country in which there is no parliament, no elections, no power to speak freely, no freedom of speech and no freedom of expression? Is a patriarchal country a country in which the slightest disobedience to the wishes of the rulers is suppressed in a very serious and severe way? In one part of his life, Saddam Hussein was one of these obedient and submissive individuals. In that stage of his life, they gave him all kinds of support and they rendered some services to him. They gave him chemical weapons and they provided him with the plans of our military movement which had been discovered via satellite. They gave him military plans because he was at their service and because he was against the disobedient Islamic Republic which was a member of the third group. So, these people represent the first group. As I said, the second group is made up of the countries which America gets along with. The policy and plan of America is to get along with these countries. What does getting along mean? It means defining common interests and establishing friendly relations with someone. But when America has the opportunity, it will stab them in the back and tear their hearts open and it will not show any consideration for them. Which countries represent the second group? European countries represent the second group. Today, European countries are in such conditions. America gets along with them, but this does not mean that it defends their interests. This is not the case. It will kick them as much as it can. For example, it spies - Internet espionage - on the number one in its allied country. It also spies on him by tapping his cell phone. The Americans even keep watch on his personal life and they have no scruples whatsoever. When it comes out, they say, \\\\\\\"Sorry, it happened because we had no choice\\\\\\\". They are not even willing to apologize in a sincere way. My understanding of political issues tells me that the Europeans are making a great strategic mistake by serving America. They promote the interests of America, but America does not and will not do so and it will be the same until the end. This was about the second group. The third group is made up of countries which do not give in to America. America\\\\\\\'s policy towards this group is to use each and every tool they find against these disobedient countries. They use any tool they find and they do not have any limits for that. If you see that there is a country which is disobedient to America and that America does not attack or impose sanctions on it, then you should know that there is a problem - that is to say, there is an obstacle in their way. To put it simply, they cannot do it. If they can, they will definitely do it. The only crime that this disobedient country has committed is that it is not willing to give in to America, to be blackmailed by it and to let the interests of America have priority over its own interests. This is the definition of a disobedient country. In order to bring this country to its knees, the Americans do everything that they can. They do whatever is possible for them. If they do not do something, it is because they cannot. Well, what are the things that the Americans do? Today, launching a military attack is not a priority from the viewpoint of the Americans. They have understood that they suffered a loss on the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan where they launched military attacks. They have understood that launching a military attack is as dangerous for the aggressor as it is for the defender and sometimes, it is even more dangerous for the aggressor. They have understood this correctly. Therefore, it can be said that they have changed their mind about launching a military attack. They have other ways ahead of them. One of these ways is entrusting the task of furthering their goals in the target country - which is the target of their attacks - to the elements inside this country. The issue is not only about Islamic Iran and the Islamic Republic. They are doing these things all over the world and we are witnessing some instances of their effort in the present time. Another way is launching a coup d\\\\\\\'état. They empower some people inside the target country so that they can launch a coup d\\\\\\\'état and overthrow those governments and political systems which do not give in to them. One of the ways that they use is this. Another way is drawing part of the people to the streets. An example is the color revolutions which were carried out in each and every part of the region in recent years. Take the case of a government which comes to power in a country. After all, if the government that comes to power holds 60 percent of the votes, it means that 40 percent of the people did not vote for it. The Americans go to that 40 percent, choose certain elements and leaders among them and make them - either by bribing or by threatening them - draw that 40 percent or part of it to the streets. America\\\\\\\'s hands were behind the color revolutions - for example, such and such an orange revolution and other revolutions in different countries - that were carried out in recent years. We do not make any judgment about the events which are taking place in an area in Europe. But when one takes a look, one sees what a role an American senator and official can play - by showing his presence - in the demonstrations of a minority against a country. They showed their presence in such areas. One of the measures that they adopt is that they draw part of the people to the streets and make them break the law, thereby overthrowing the government which they do not approve of and which is not blackmailed. Another measure that they adopt is empowering and forming terrorist groups. They did this in Iraq, Afghanistan and some Arab countries in the region. They did it in our country as well. They form terrorist groups in order to kill well-known personalities. In our country, they struck and martyred scientists and experts on atomic energy. Before that too, they struck political, cultural, scientific and seminary personalities. These terrorists grew with the help of the Americans. Some of them were accepted into America by the Americans for the services that they rendered. Today, munafeqeen are in America\\\\\\\'s arms. They take part in different meetings and commissions of the U.S. Congress. The same munafeqeen who killed people from different social backgrounds - including great personalities, ulama, scientists and political personalities - and who carried out explosions are with the Americans today. So, this is another way they use. Another way is creating discord among decision-makers of countries. One of the measures that they adopt is this: they try to create a rift in the highest levels of the government and system that is not with them. They try to establish a dual government. Of course, they do not succeed in many countries. But unfortunately, they succeed in some areas. This is one of their ways. Another way is that they discourage - with their propaganda - the hearts and minds of people from following their ideological and religious principles. They try such measures. The regime of the United States of America has done all these things to our dear and Islamic Iran and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, it has failed in all of them. Launching military coups d\\\\\\\'état, supporting those who instigate fitna, drawing some people to the streets, confronting elections and creating rifts were some of the measures that they either adopted or tried to adopt and thankfully, they failed in all of them. Why did they fail? It was because the people were vigilant and religious. It is here that I want to speak about the second challenge which is the internal challenge. Dear brothers and sisters, the internal challenge for our people is the risk of ignoring, forgetting about and losing the spirit and orientation of our magnanimous Imam (r.a). This is the greatest danger. The internal challenge is making a mistake in knowing our enemies and our friends and confusing the camp of our enemies and friends so much so that we do not know who our enemies and friends are. Another mistake is failing to know our major and minor enemies. This is another danger. You dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Iran should pay attention that sometimes, someone shows enmity towards you. But if you pay careful attention, you will see that his enmity is not the main one. It is a function of another factor and another person. You should find the main enemy. Otherwise, if one confronts the lesser enemy, one\\\\\\\'s energy is sapped and the result will not be good. Today, some people in different parts of the world of Islam - which go by the name of takfiri, Wahhabi and Salafi groups - are adopting bad and inappropriate measures against Iran, Shia Muslims and Shia Islam. But everyone should know that they are not the main enemies. They show enmity and they adopt foolish measures, but the main enemy is the person who provokes them, who gives them money and who motivates them with different means when their motivation is weakened to some extent. The main enemy is the person who sows the seeds of rupture and discord between that foolish and ignorant group and the oppressed people of Iran. These measures are adopted by the hidden hands of intelligence and security services. That is why we have constantly said that we do not consider these foolish groups - who confront the Islamic Republic in the name of Salafism, takfiri and Islam - to be our main enemy. We consider you to be the deceived. We have said to these people: \\\\\\\"If you stretch your hand against me to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against you to slay you: for I fear Allah, the Cherisher of the worlds\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 5: 28]. If you make a mistake and if you prepare yourself to kill your Muslim brothers, we do not consider you to be so important that we try to kill you. Of course, we defend ourselves. Anyone who attacks us will face our firm fist. This is natural, but we believe that these people are not our main enemies. They have been deceived. The main enemy is the person who acts behind the scenes. The main enemy is the visible hand that comes out of the sleeve of intelligence services, that confronts Muslims and that pits them against one another. This is our internal challenge: becoming busy with domestic differences - those which are trivial and unimportant. Such differences make us busy, pit us against one another, create tension and make us forget about the main issues and guidelines. This is one of the manifestations of the main challenge which was referred to. Losing national solidarity is one of our challenges. Suffering from laziness, lack of confidence, idleness, desperation and hopelessness and thinking that we cannot succeed and that we have not succeeded until today are among the internal challenges we should confront. As Imam (r.a.) said, we can. We should show determination. National determination and jihadi management can untie all the knots. As we said, our dear youth, our outstanding personalities and our scholars should sit and study these issues. These are our main points. The auspicious name of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.), the remembrance of that great man and the plan of that great architect can help us in all these chapters. It can give us hope, enthusiasm and morale, as it has done this until today and by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, it will continue to do this in the future. Dear God, bestow your blessings on our dear people. Dear God, help our dear youth on the path of building an ideal Islamic structure. Dear God, protect us from deviations and digressions. Dear God, make the hands of the people of Iran stronger than the hands of their enemies. Help them achieve victory over their enemies. Make the holy heart of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake) kind to us. Help us benefit from the prayers of that great Imam (a.s.). Associate the pure souls of Imam (r.a.) and our dear martyrs with the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.). Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1921

Informed sources in Beirut have told Press TV that Hezbollah intends to decide the fate of its conflict with the Lebanese government within the coming hours.

Rachel Corrie died defending a Palestinian family home from demolition by an Israeli military bulldozer. Kathleen McQuillen of American Friends Service Committee shares her thoughts. We also hear from Rachels Father. The words of Rachel speak so strongly for the rights of the people of the Gaza and the West Bank. We all need to be more informed and stronger advocates for all peoples human rights. Playing the part of Rachel is Julie Rada. Julie does a wonderful job with this part. The director, Brian Freeland is Executive Artistic director for The LIDA Project.

Canada Border Services Agency continues to routinely effect deportation orders of US Iraq War resisters. Iraq War Resister Sergeant Patrick Hart and his family were informed this week that they must voluntarily leave Canada or face deportation to the United States on October 30th.

A seminar was organized by youth of KPSIAJ Karachi on the topic "Affiliation of SHIA schools in AKUEB?" with the aim of generating awareness in the community regarding AKUEB. Speakers in the seminar were Aga Zahid Ali Zahidi, Aga Syed Ali Murtaza Zaidi, Moulana Shabbir Maisami. This part contains short speech of Aga Ali Mubabbir (Vakil of Ayatollah Sistani) in which he informed regarding his conversation on telephone call directly with Ayatollah Sistani's Najaf office

So WHO makes United States' decisions - Jan09 - English. US denies Olmert influenced UN vote The US has denied that a telephone call made by Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, to George Bush, the US president, led to the US abstaining in a UN vote on the Gaza war last week. In a speech late on Monday, Olmert said Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, was left "pretty shamed" at the vote and had to abstain on a resolution she had helped arrange. Sean McCormack, a US state department spokesmen, who was with Rice at the UN last week during debate on the security council resolution, said the remarks were "just 100 per cent, totally, completely untrue". McCormack said that Washington had no plans to seek clarification from Israel. Mark Regev, a spokesman for Ehud Olmert, said the Israeli leader stood by his remarks. Telephone influence The Israeli prime minister said on Monday that he demanded to talk to Bush last Thursday, minutes before a vote in the UN Security Council on a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. "When we saw that Rice, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the resolution ... I looked for President Bush," Olmert said. Bush, who Olmert said was taken off a stage in Philadelphia where he was making a speech, said he was not informed on the resolution and was "not familiar with the phrasing". "I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour." Olmert claimed telling the US president. "He [Bush] gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it, a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for," Olmert said. Bush was in Philadelphia on Thursday morning and gave a 27-minute speech on education policy that ended about 10 hours before the UN vote and there was no interruption of the public event. The Israeli prime minister described Bush as an "unparalleled friend" of Israel. UN call Fourteen of the security council's 15 members supported the legally binding resolution, which has until now failed to stop Israel's offensive in Gaza. Olmert criticised the UN resolution, saying that "no decision, present or future, will deny us our basic right to defend the residents of Israel". Israel launched its offensive on December 27, in what it said was an attempt to stop Hamas firing rockets into southern Israel from Gaza. After an intensive air campaign in the first week, Israel sent ground forces into Gaza in the second week of fighting and continues to push deeper into the strip.

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

Hope other communities will take inspiration from this project. We need more of such culturally sensitive, religiously informed, and professionally trained services in our communities addressing issues of youth, women, and families.

Iran has informed the IAEA that it will proceed with 20% Enrichment of Uranium on Tuesday. Iran has also called on the IAEA to send inspectors to oversee the process; the IAEA has agreed. Report with Details and statement by Dr Soltaniyeh, Iran's Ambassador to the IAEA. Recorded FEbruary 08, 2010 at 2000GMT

Iran's security officers grounded the plane carrying the ringleader of Jundullah terrorist group Abdolmalek Rigi in one of Iran's southern ports, informed sources say. Jundullah, which has operated in Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan and Pakistan's Baluchistan provinces, has carried out a number of attacks against high profile Iranian targets, especially the government and security officials. Jundallah is responsible for several terrorist attacks inside Iran. In October, the group claimed responsibility for a bombing that left over 40 people dead in Iran's southeast.

Iran's security officers grounded the plane carrying the ringleader of Jundullah terrorist group Abdolmalek Rigi in one of Iran's southern ports, informed sources say. Jundullah, which has operated in Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan and Pakistan's Baluchistan provinces, has carried out a number of attacks against high profile Iranian targets, especially the government and security officials. Jundallah is responsible for several terrorist attacks inside Iran. In October, the group claimed responsibility for a bombing that left over 40 people dead in Iran's southeast.

Barbara Loe Fisher am the Co founder and President of the National Vaccine Information Center the mother of three children a writer and speaker on vaccination and informed consent issues

Iran questions Obama's 'change' Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has criticized his American counterpart Barack Obama for failing to realize his campaign trail promise of "change." "They (the Americans) announced that they had pulled out part of their forces from Iraq in recent days and claimed that their move was in line with their slogan of 'change,'" Fars News Agency quoted President Ahmadinejad as saying on Wednesday. "You said you would withdraw all your troops from Iraq, why is it that some of them are still in this country? Secondly, where are you relocating your forces from Iraq?" "The Americans want to relocate their soldiers to Afghanistan. What kind of a change in their military policy is this?" the president asked during a speech in the western Hamadan Province. Ahmadinejad went on to say, "Real change means that you take your forces... and leave our region." The president also referred to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, urging the US leader "not to miss another chance" over Tehran's nuclear fuel swap proposal. "Obama missed last year's chance for fuel swap, but this opportunity is once again on the table today. We have informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that we are ready for fuel swap and for negotiations from mid-Ramadan (September)." The president dismissed a recent host of unilateral sanctions imposed against Iran by the US, the European Union, Canada, and Australia, as "ineffective." Western powers, led by the US and Israel, accuse Iran of following a covert military nuclear program. Tehran denies the charges, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) it has the right to civilian nuclear technology. Earlier reports on Wednesday said that the president's motorcade had come under a grenade attack during the trip to Hamadan. The President's office, however, rejected the reports.

Secretary of Auqaf committee has informed IG Sindh that he has ordered all sufi shrines across Karachi be closed. Members of the forensics lab are gathering evidence to uncover what was used to make the bomb.

Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks. "The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question. "We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any." The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later. "The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany." Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, "a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban... That was later turned into the official justification for the war." "All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said. The 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan was launched with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country. Nine years on, however, the American and Afghan officials admit that the country remains unstable and civilians continue to pay the heaviest price.

Hezbollah leader says the Lebanese resistance movement will not accept any accusations against its members over the assassination of Lebanon\\\\\\\'s former premier. \\\\\\\"Whoever thinks the resistance could possibly accept any accusation against any of its jihadists or leaders is mistaken -- no matter the pressures and threats,\\\\\\\" Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a speech on the occasion of Hezbollah Martyr\\\\\\\'s Day on Thursday. Rafiq Hariri was killed alongside more than 20 other people in a massive car bomb blast in Beirut on February 14, 2005. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) was set up by the United Nations and the Lebanese government in May 2007 to investigate the murder. The tribunal is expected to announce its findings by the end of 2010. \\\\\\\"Whoever thinks that we will allow the arrest or detention of any of our jihadists is mistaken,\\\\\\\" AFP quoted Nasrallah as saying, adding that his political rivals are \\\\\\\"in a hurry to see an indictment\\\\\\\" in the five-year-old case. Nasrallah said in July that he had been informed by the slain leader\\\\\\\'s son and successor, Saad Hariri, that the court \\\\\\\"will accuse some undisciplined [Hezbollah] members.\\\\\\\" He rejected the allegation and warned that the plot was part of \\\\\\\"a dangerous project that is targeting the resistance.\\\\\\\" Nasrallah also warned that the court had led Beirut to a \\\\\\\"sensitive place,\\\\\\\" saying it was aimed at inciting division in the country. Western-backed parties in Lebanon accused Syria and the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah of involvement in Hariri\\\\\\\'s murder, a claim rejected by both Damascus and Hezbollah. In September, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri admitted to have wrongly accused Syria of being behind his father\\\\\\\'s assassination and acknowledged that the accusations were politically charged.

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri plans to visit Iran in November in an effort to expand ties with the Islamic Republic, a newspaper close to his political alliance has reported. Hariri announced his plans to visit Iran in a recent meeting of his Future Movement political party, major Lebanese daily An-Nahar reported, quoted by IRNA on Sunday. The Lebanese daily, affiliated with the March 14 Alliance which is close to the Lebanese premier, said Hariri's visit will likely take place in late November. Another influential Lebanese daily As-Safir also confirmed the reported planned visit and siad that Hariri's trip to Iran will likely take place on November 28 and 29. An IRNA report from Beirut, however, quotes an informed source in Hariri's office as describing the reports as "media speculations." While not denying the planned visit, the source stated that the "official date" of the visit has not been announced "though it will not take long for it to be set." The Lebanese prime minister is due to visit Russia on Monday and then travel to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday for an official visit. According to the IRNA report, Abu-Dhabi will be Hariri's next destination before his visit to Iran. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad led a high-level delegation in a landmark visit to Lebanon last October in which he emphasized Iran's determination to expand ties with the country in all fields.

Not many people will go through all the leaked documents. They will mostly hear what the mainstream media and political groups choose to focus on. In this clip Ray McGovern argues that The New York Times ignores intelligence that there is no evidence of Iran nuclear weapons program. --- One should not discount the possibility of a good number of forged and fragmented documents intentionally released to the Wikileaks by government apparatuses. That reason alone is enough to suggest that the Wikileaks cannot be a measure of truth per se, but it is the perspective with which one judges its content, and since there can be multiple perspectives, the truth of these leaks will remain contested. Further, the accuracy of some documents in the leaks should not be taken as a verification of the accuracy of the rest of the documents. On the question of verification, the Wikileaks website itself suggests that, the "simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinize and discuss leaked documents.” Lastly, in any review of these leaks, one should also interrogate the sources used and the background and politics of the people working for the Wikileaks. Because these considerations have a huge impact on what the Wikileaks editors choose to release (and what they do not), their timing, and their targets. Perhaps, their politics and agenda will become clearer with the release of more leaked documents.

[19 April 11] نشرة الأخبار News Bulletin - Arabic

[20 April 11] نشرة الأخبار News Bulletin - Arabic