Search Result in All

Documentary on Khayaban-e-Wahdat-e-Islam IRAN - People Food Market and much more -Farsi

How Much Longer Will You Remain Silent? - Arabic sub English

[12 Aug 2014] Ukraine rejects Russia’s much-needed humanitarian aid - English

[6 Feb 2016] Lebanon not to receive much from Syria donors - English

(9) Shaykh Amin Rastani - Why So Much Suffering?! - Eve 9th Muharram 1438 - 10/10/2016

[26 March 2019] Blackouts again hit much of Venezuela - English

How much do you know about Karbala 1- Urdu

How much do you know about Karbala 2- Urdu

The Terrorism Industry This Is Pretty Much How It Works

Islam, West have much to offer each other Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:6AM English

Wednesday JAN 11 morning an unknown motorcyclist attached a sticky bomb to Mostafa Ahmadi Roshans car near Allameh Tabatabaei University in Tehran

Iran, the US, and the European Union have ended their negotiations to hammer out a draft deal on Iran\'s nuclear energy program on Friday. The talks now stretch into the third day on Saturday. Iran\'s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has described the trilateral discussions as productive. Araqchi, however, added that lots of work still remains to do. American sources also said progress has been made, but there\'s more work to do. The comments come after five hours of intense negotiations between Iran\'s Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif, his U-S counterpart John Kerry, and EU foreign policy Chief Catherine Ashton. The three were working on a draft agreement which many say could be a breakthrough in Iran\'s nuclear energy case. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and a Chinese deputy foreign minister are also on their way to Geneva to join the negotiations.

A bruising winter storm has brought severe weather to the Middle East. The storm, dubbed Alexa, has already pounded much of Lebanon, Jordan and parts of northern Syria pushing temperatures below zero and dumping snow and heavy rains. Syrian refugees across the region are among the hardest hit by the storm.

Authorities had deployed over 2,000 policemen across central Rome but the much feared demonstration organized by the Pitchfork Movement to protest against what its activists call a EU-imposed austerity regime drew 4,000 protesters only in People Square. Originally made up by farmers and truckers, the Pitchfork Movement has grown into a network that includes disgruntled people from different sectors of society. However the movement has lately become fragmented as a result of the infiltration of political groups. The anti-austerity protest was also joined by neo-Fascist group CasaPound and extreme-right-wing movement Forza Nuova. Casapound\'s vice-president was arrested on Saturday for stealing the European Union flag hung outside the Commission\'s representation office in Rome. Pitchfork movement leaders have threatened new actions in the coming days.

Have you thought about it? Do you know how beneficial it is for You to help the Imam of the Time (ATFS)? Do you know how much it is worth? Watch, find out, move forward.

How much Quran should a Muslim recite daily and why? Ayatollah Dastaghaib Shirazi - the author of the famous book, the Greater Sins - gives us a piece of advice (especially for the youth).

In today\'s fast paced world, we are just so incredibly busy; it\'s sometimes unbelievable. And unfortunately, because we are so very busy in our daily lives, we tend to forget one incredibly important matter. A matter which is of the utmost importance. Sayyid Shahryar uses the wise words of Imam Ali (A) to explain that one thing we are forgetting to think about. #IslamicPulse #OneMinuteWisdom #OMW #Akhlaq #Ethics #Morality #Islam #Quran #AhlulBayt #Business

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president

Martyred professor, Allameh Morteza Motahhari, was born on February 2, 1919 in the town of Fariman, 75 kilometers from the holy city of Mashhad. At the age of twelve, he set off for Mashhad seminary to embark on learning the basics of Islamic sciences. In 1937, despite Reza Khan’s intense confrontation with clergymen and also opposition by some of his friends and relatives, he left for Qom seminary to complete his studies. During 15 years of his stay in Qom, he benefited from the presence of Grand Ayatollah Borujerdi (in jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence), Imam Khomeini (12 years in the philosophy of Molla Sadra, gnosis, ethics and principles of jurisprudence) and Allameh Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Tabatabaiee (in philosophy). He had also benefited from the presence of the late Ayatollah Haj Mirza Ali Aqa Shirazi in ethics and gnosis. Among other teachers of professor Motahhari mention can be made of the late Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Hojjat (in principles of jurisprudence) and the late Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Mohaqqeqdamad (in jurisprudence). While he was in Qom, in addition to education, he participated in socio-political affairs as well and he was in contact with Fadaiyan-e-Eslam group. In 1952, he migrated to Tehran though he was one of the renowned teachers and among the future hopes of the seminary. In Tehran, he taught at Marvi School and delivered well-researched speeches. In 1955, the first session of the exegesis of the holy Qur’an in the Students\\\' Islamic Association was held by professor Motahhari. In the same year, he began teaching at the faculty of divinity and Islamic teachings of Tehran University. In 1958-59 concurrent with the establishment of the Physicians\\\' Islamic Association, professor Motahhari was one of the main speakers of the Association and during 1961-1971 he was the only speaker of the Association leaving behind a number of important deliberations. In 1962, with the start of Imam Khomeini’s uprising, professor Motahhari accompanied him to the extent that one can consider the organizing of the June 5th uprising in Tehran and its coordination with Imam Khomeini’s leadership as being indebted to him and his companions. Having given an enlightening speech against the Shah on Wednesday, 5th of June 1963, Ayatollah Motahhari was detained by the police at 1 a.m. and sent to the interim police headquarters and was imprisoned with a number of Tehrani clergymen. 43 days later, following the migration of Ulema from other provinces to Tehran and public pressure, he was freed together with other clergymen. After the formation of groups called “Mo’talefe Eslami”, which was among the combatant groups of the time, Imam Khomeini called on martyr Motahhari to lead these groups along with a number of clergymen. Following Imam Khomeini\\\'s exile, professor Motahhari and his companions shouldered a heavier responsibility. At that time, he wrote books covering social requirements and delivering speeches at universities, the Physicians\\\' Islamic Association and mosques. Professor Motahhari made a lot of ideological efforts to Islamicize the content of the movement and strongly fought against diversions and falsehoods. In 1967, he established Hosseinieh Ershad with the help of some friends. In 1969, after releasing an announcement signed by him, Allameh Tabatabai and Ayatollah Haj Seyyed Abolfazl Mojtahed Zanjani calling for collection of aid for the displaced Palestinians and because of publicizing it during a speech in Hosseinieh Ershad, he was detained and held in solitary confinement for a short while. From 1970-72 he supervised publicity works by Al-jawad mosque where he was the main speaker until the mosque and the Hosseinieh were closed and professor Motahhari was detained for a while. Later, Ayatollah Motahhari gave speeches at Javid, Ark and a number of other mosques. After a while Javid mosque was also closed. Around the year 1974 he was forbidden to speak which lasted till the triumph of the Islamic revolution. Presenting genuine Islamic ideology through teaching, speech and writing books were among the valuable activities of professor Motahhari reaching its climax particularly during the years 1972-78; since in those years the leftists had increased their propaganda and groups of leftist Muslims and also those with a hotchpotch of ideas had emerged. After Imam Khomeini, professor Motahhari was the first figure who found out the ideological deviation of the heads of the so-called “Mojahedin-e-Khalq” organization and prevented others from cooperating with them and even foresaw their change of ideology. In those years, upon Imam Khomeini’s recommendation, professor Motahhari traveled to Qom twice a week to teach at its seminary where he taught important courses and at the same time he taught some courses at home in Tehran. In 1976, following an ideological dispute with a communist teacher of the faculty of divinity, he became retired prematurely. Furthermore; in those years Ayatollah Motahhari, in collaboration with some clergymen, established “Jameye Rohaniat-e-Mobarez” of Tehran hoping that such an institution would be gradually established in other cities as well. Although professor Motahhari’s contact with Imam Khomeini continued after the Imam’s exile in France via letters and other means, in the year 1976 he managed to travel to the holy city of Najaf and consulted with Imam Khomeini on the important issues of the revolution and also seminaries. After the martyrdom of Ayatollah Seyyed Mostafa Khomeini and the start of the new phase of the Islamic revolution, professor Motahhari fully devoted himself to the revolution and hence played a fundamental role in all of its phases. At the time of Imam Khomeini’s stay in Paris, Ayatollah Motahhari traveled to France where he spoke with the Imam on the important issues of the revolution and it was then that Imam Khomeini urged him to shape the Islamic Revolution Council. Upon Imam Khomeini’s return to Iran, he personally took the responsibility of the welcoming committee and till the victory of the revolution and after that he always acted as a supporter of the leader of the Islamic revolution and served as a kind and trusted advisor for him. But at 22:20 p.m. of Tuesday, 1st of May 1979 he was martyred by a grouplet called “Forqan” after leaving an ideological and political gathering. This caused profound sorrow and grief for Imam Khomeini and the Islamic Ummah who had a lot of hopes for this great man’s future. There remain tens of works by Ayatollah Motahhari. These works deal with a variety of religious issues and offer responses to many of the important questions of religious society so much so that we can name his works as a reliable source concerning the Islamic ideology system. Some of Imam Khomeini’s Words on Martyr Allameh Morteza Motahhari [Motahhari] was rare in Islamology and different Islamic and Qur’anic sciences. I have lost a very dear child. I am mourning for him who was one of the figures who was considered the fruit of my life. Martyrdom of this righteous child and immortal clergyman created a vacuum in the dear Islam that cannot be filled by any means. Motahhari, who was rare in purifying spirit, the strength of belief and the power of speech, flew to the ethereal world, but the ill-wishers should know that his Islamic, scientific and philosophical personality won’t perish with his departure. Motahhari was a dear child for me and a firm stronghold for the religious and scientific seminaries and a useful servant for people and country. I recommend the students and the committed intellectuals not to let this dear professor’s books be forgotten by non-Islamic schemes. In his short life, [Motahhari] left behind immortal works which stemmed from a wakeful conscience and a spirit filled with the love for religion. He embarked on educating and training the society with an eloquent style and an able thought in analyzing Islamic subjects and explaining philosophical facts with a popular diction and without uncertainty. His oral and written works are unexceptionally instructive and inspiring; and his advice and admonitions, which sprang from a heart filled with faith and belief, are useful both for the Ulema and the laymen. Late Motahhari was an individual who had different aspects of personality; and few people have done the service to the young generation and others as Motahhari has done. All his works are unexceptionally good and I don’t know anybody else whose works I could call unexceptionally good. His works are unexceptionally good and constructive for humans. Professor Motahhari from the Viewpoint of Ayatollah Khamenei Interview with the Supreme Leader on Martyr Motahhari ‘I consider myself Mr. Motahhari’s pupil’ As you know late professor Motahhari was a philosopher; the science sought by him was mostly the philosophical science. Later on; however, he got to the subjects of theology, i.e. he dealt with Islamic issues with new argumentation method of modern philosophy. But he spent most of his time on philosophical matters. He was considered the philosophical student of Imam Khomeini and Allameh Tabatabaiee. Thus what he maintains in theology is Hekmat Mota’aliah, i.e. the Philosophy of Molla Sadra. His behaviour was like that of the mystics who would set out to find a perfect instructor. Basically his spiritual and moral condition was in such a way. He would search to know for example if a perfect elderly instructor is somewhere in the world, and he would go to him to stay by him. Indeed, spiritually, such a situation was fitting him. Yet he had found such a perfect instructor in Iran. He was absorbed in Imam Khomeini and Allameh Tabatabaiee. He was captivated by their love and regarded their scientific and mystic status very high. Morally, late Motahhari was a prominent man; and a pure-hearted, enlightened, just, self-possessed and mature person. In his personal bonds with God he was a mystic, a man of God’s remembrance, journey towards God and worship. He used to say: “I have learnt paying attention to and worship of God from my father.” Professor Motahhari had a lot of historical information especially about the recent history, and particularly on the issues related to the Ulema, seminaries, scientific, spiritual, philosophical and mystic figures. These pieces of information were not registered in any book and are heard from the professors and great figures and kept in mind. Since he knew all professors and Ulema of Najaf, Samarra and Isfahan, he was well-informed about their events and he would talk of them in the gatherings and visits held on different occasions. Supereme Leader’s Words on Professor Motahhari’s Personality and Works “As time passes from his martyrdom, his spiritual and ideological works and bounties manifest more fresh dimensions. The ideological and scientific works of that grand clergyman become clearer in the scene of the country press and religious knowledge; and one understands that an intellectual clergyman with responsibilities could have so fruitful life.” Martyr Motahhari with his strong and decent thought stepped in the fields of Islamic subjects that hitherto nobody had stepped; and considering the ideas that had prevailed or were going to prevail in the country---through translation and import from the west and east, he entered a profound, vast and interminable scientific challenge. He both embarked on a very clever struggle to confront with the Marxists and entered the scene to confront with the western and Liberalist thoughts. This role is very important; it needs both courage and self-confidence, it requires both thinking strength and Ijtihad (being well- qualified in jurisprudence and different theological fields), it both needs certainty and resolute belief. This great man had all these together; he was both a learned man and very faithful, he was firm in his belief and had self-confidence, too; these are all necessary.” Leader’s Visit with Martyr Motahhari’s Family (1996) He had three characteristics regarding ideological issues: First, he had a strong thought and he was a true thinker. Secondly, while presenting and spreading the ideological principles, he had no intention but God’s nearness, promotion of the truth and fighting against the false. There was sincerity in him and his personal actions which would naturally make the second characteristic tangible. For example think of some people who are thinkers, yet do not present their thought for God’s sake, but they present it to show that they are knowledgeable, to draw people’s attention and to say that they are philosophers. Martyr Motahhari was not such. He would present thought for God’s sake and for Islam. He would truly burn up [like a candle] and would gush forth [like a fountain] and would present [Islamic ideas]. The reason for his survival is his second characteristic. It means that sincerity will have its impact and the Almighty God will grace any deed done with sincerity. The third characteristic was his working hard and his inexhaustibility. The truth is that he wouldn’t sit till he might be referred to; but rather he would himself go after activity. He had these three characteristics.” Leader’s Visit with Martyr Motahhari’s Family (1998) “We should introduce Mr. Motahhari to the world especially the Islamic world. And if we want to introduce him, which points should be highlighted? I think this is your most important job. Some aspects of a figure’s personality are either unique that must be highlighted or are very outstanding that should be stressed. In the life of the late Martyr Ayatollah Motahhari, his personality and his scientific identity there are numerous examples of these. One point, that in my opinion has the prime importance, is the new interpretation of the Islamic teachings. This is apart from his philosophical aspect and his strong and compelling arguments in the footnotes of ‘The principles of philosophy’ by ‘Ayatollah Tabatabaiee. This is another point. He elucidated Islamic concepts and teachings with a novel diction and expression which was much needed. I don’t say that if the works of the predecessors were pondered and scrutinized signs of this exegesis would not be found. Really if one had attentively studied the works of the Ulema he would have found some hints and cues; but I want to say that nobody had done this. As far as we know, nobody had done it before Mr. Motahhari. Even the modernist writers, who had emerged in the Arab countries, and we knew some of them, had not done this. These Egyptian authors, who were modernists and would write things with a broader sight and who knew the world somewhat more than Martyr Motahhari, most of them had traveled a lot and had visited different universities. Yet he [Ayatollah Motahhari] was not so, he was confined. I mean he was inside Iran and Tehran but his profound vision of the Islamic issues and his novel understanding of the verses [of Qur’an] and the narrations [of the Ahl-ul-Bayt], in my opinion, was one of his most outstanding aspects. It was he who, for the first time, substantively expressed the subjects related to principles of ideology, piety, patience, love, fairness, justice, and so on in the ideological atmosphere of Iran. We thank God that Mr. Motahhari’s name was not forgotten in our society and the mental atmosphere of this country; but rather it became more prominent day by day. Many of the world phenomena are naturally perishable and by the lapse of time they become older. Most of the world phenomena are such. Yet there are some phenomena that not only do not fall into oblivion via lapse of time but become brighter, more manifest, more spectacular and more impressive. The phenomena based on reality are usually such. I clearly feel that, thank God, Martyr Ayatollah Motahhari’s thoughts are such.” Memoirs of Dr. Ali Motahhari (Martyr Motahhari’s Son) Night Supplication in front of the Word Allah As it is said he didn’t give up midnight vigilance, midnight prayer, and wakefulness since his youth till the end of his life. It was his practice both at the time of studentship and after that and even at the time of martyrdom. I remember that facing our house there was the house of one of the previous regime’s officials which was usually guarded by two police officers. Apparently since the official had seen that the lamp of our house was lit at midnight, had worried to find the reason and it was important for him from the security point of view. He had told the guards to look for the reason. Professor [Motahhari] had a neon board of Allah which was green when lit. He would turn it on and perform his midnight prayer in its light. After the revolution one of the officers said, we had examined several nights and I had looked through the window to see what was going on inside the house. At the end I myself saw that he came at midnight and started worshipping for an hour. We were somehow absorbed by the professor, and despite much negative propaganda against the clergymen and him in particular to make us pessimist to them, we became very interested in him so much so that some would say we got our salary from the government but it was as if we were guarding him. A Voice vis-à-vis MHe was very sensitive against ideological deviations and believed that we were seeking Islamic revolution and not mere revolution. It is not important that Shah goes but it is important to see what system is established after his going. Because if after the ouster of the Shah, for example the Mojahedin-e-Khalq take the lead, it is much better not to stage a revolution at all. Thus the deviated groups had found out professor Motahhari’s sensitiveness and had become his enemy. Three or four months before the victory of the Islamic revolution, a person, who had some tendencies to Mojahedin-e-Khalq and the leftists and was intended to be religious, too, was freed from the prison. Professor [Motahhari] said we had better visit him. I was with the professor. There was a man by the name of Ashuri as one of the heads of the Forqan group. He spoke of Islam and Marxism and said: ‘These two religions say one single thing and their content is the same with different forms. They speak of the laborers and we speak of the oppressed. Therefore our word is the same. We should unite to topple the regime of Shah and basically there is no difference between Islam and Marxism, etc.’ Professor was very upset and that man knew that professor Motahhari would answer him. That’s why he rose to leave. The professor said: ‘No, Be seated! Be seated!’ He made him sit and explained him in detail that our path is fundamentally separate from that of the Marxists. In no way can the forms be different with the same content. And we cannot unite with the Marxists in any way. Immortal among People Prior to the victory of the Islamic revolution, at the time of Imam Khomeini’s staying in Paris, it was heard everywhere that the regime of Shah wanted to arrest the leaders and prominent figures of the revolution. Some people told him [Ayatollah Motahhari] it was better to go somewhere else to hide. He said: ‘Such actions are not good for clergymen. It is not good for us to escape from one place to another to hide; such things are not good for us.’ He stayed at home like before and nothing happened. His Method of Training Children One of the features of the professor’s training method for his children was that he would never resort to force and coercion and he would let them to realize and choose the right path with their own thought and wisdom. About choosing the field of education and the way of spending leisure time and the like he would never force us to do something necessarily; but he would show us the way. As the holy Qur’an says: ‘…be he grateful or ungrateful.’ And it was we who would choose the way. There was never force over our heads and we would choose one way with interest and free will. The Professor’s Arrest after anti-Israel Speech I have another memory from the year 1969 when he delivered the provocative speech on Palestine in Hosseinieh Ershad. This speech has been broadcast many times by IRIB. It was a very provocative, important and interesting speech which shook the regime of Shah; and it required a lot of courage to deliver such a speech when the regime of Shah was in the zenith of power and had the highest level of relations and unity with Israel. When the Israeli planes would refuel in Iran’s airport(s) during the 1967 war and would fly over the heads of the Arabs and Muslims, much bravery was needed to give such a speech and we saw that professor Motahhari gave that speech and was promptly arrested and taken away. When he was freed he said, ‘They made me sit in a car and blindfolded me and the car set out. I told them there is no need to blindfold and I will not look. If you want me not to look I will close my eyes. But they didn’t agree. Yet I realized the route till Ferdowsi square but didn’t realize after that.’ Apparently they had taken him to the committee of the SAVAK which was presumably located in the same Ferdowsi Street. Allameh Tabatabaiee’s Message on the Occasion of Ayatollah Motahhari’s Martyrdom In the name of the Almighty God In memory of a scientific and philosophical personality who cast a world into grief and made the world of science and merit mournful with his departure. Late Motahhari, who was a scientist, a thinker and a researcher with an overflowing intellect, a bright thought and a realistic mind, has left behind marvelous works and researches written about scientific and argumentative purposes that are seen in his books. Late Motahhari, through his precious and blissful life that was abundant with scientific effort and philosophical thinking, sends an expressive and valuable message to the enthusiasts of science and philosophy never to repose from effort towards perfection and never forget scientific struggle for perfection; and in the market of realities turn their life--which is the best human commodity-- to the spiritual life— which is the lofty human life and is lasting till the world exists; and not to be absorbed and deceived by fabricated and imaginary personalities in this short life. Yes, a narrow route opened by a scientist towards realities will bestow eternal life upon him and this is more valuable than the world and what it contains.

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

The following is the full text of the speech delivered on July 23, 2014 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with students. The meeting was held on the eve of Quds Day. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Muhammad, and upon his immaculate household I thank Allah the Exalted because at this point in time our country is witness to a group of young, religious, enthusiastic, motivated, reasonable and thoughtful people. Today, our meeting was a very good meeting. This matter has two parts: one is related to the details of the statements that the friends madew in this meeting. Well, good and valuable statements were made. It is possible that this humble person agrees or disagrees with these statements. The issue of content is one part of the issue. In my opinion, the part that is important and praiseworthy is the enthusiastic and inquiring spirit of students. This showed itself in the statements of the students who delivered a speech. This is important. It is possible that some of the requests that these students made are reasonable and that some are not reasonable, achievable and acceptable. But the essence of this inquiring spirit and this motivation for wanting, thinking, suggesting and criticizing is perfect. Of course, one should observe morality, piety and religious obligations in all affairs. We should avoid unfair statements. We should avoid baseless and unsubstantiated statements. These points are important in their own respect, but what is of primary importance is that our young students should be inquiring, motivated, enthusiastic, present on the scene and attentive to the issues of the country. Well, let us spend a few minutes discussing some of the issues that the friends raised in the meeting. The first issue is what I just said. I became happy with the spirit that exists in our young students - most of whom are representatives of student groups - and I thank God because one can feel that they enjoy enthusiasm, new ideas, motivation and an inquiring spirit. I hope that by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this spirit remains in you until you will be in charge of affairs because in the future, you will be officials in charge of affairs and you will be the managers of the country. I hope that by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this spirit and this critical, inquiring, responsible and dutiful outlook remains in you. If this happens, the country will be saved. The friends in the meeting raised a number of issues which, in my opinion, are noteworthy and important. The issue of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"knowledge for the sake of knowledge without paying attention to its benefits for the country\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" - which was raised by a number of friends - is completely correct and we have repeatedly brought it up as well. Today, scientific work and endeavor in the country and in our universities and research centers is a lively, successful and praiseworthy endeavor. However, everyone should pay attention that knowledge is an introduction to action. Valuable knowledge is the kind of knowledge that helps the country and that is useful for solving its problems. Mere publication of our articles in, say, ISI journals and other such journals - even if they become a reference point - is not an ideal although it is praiseworthy in terms of knowledge. Scientific work should address the needs of the country. This was mentioned by the friends in this meeting as well and I would like to stress it. The officials and high-ranking managers in charge of higher education are present in this meeting. I hope that by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, they pay attention to this point. There was another point in the statements of the friends which was correct. I too would like to place emphasis on it. This point is the relationship between methods of economic management and the culture of society. The idea that we brought up the issue of cultural invasion in the 1370s while the invasion was economic is completely correct. We do not reject this, but our outlook on knowledge as an original and vital issue should receive everyone\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s attention at any level. At that time too, certain complaints were made about the methods of economic management. However, what was important and what is important today is our outlook on cultural orientations. Of course, we agree that the methods of economic management have certain effects on culture, but the opposite is true as well. An issue that was discussed as a peripheral issue - but that is not peripheral to me and that is an important issue - is the issue of youth\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s marriage [students laugh and make noises indicating support]. We knew that you would have such a reaction to this issue. The issue of youth\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s marriage is an important issue. I fear that this indifferent outlook towards the issue of marriage - unfortunately, this indifferent outlook exists more or less today - will have terrible consequences for the future of the country. You brought up the issue of military service, but in my opinion, the issue of military service is not a difficult issue. It is possible to think about and work on this issue. The solution for the problem of military service as an obstacle in the way of marriage is not that we shorten the term. We can adopt other methods for this problem, but it remains an issue. Motivation for marriage should turn into a practical measure. That is to say, marriage should be promoted. Allah the Exalted says, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 24: 32]. This is a divine promise. We should trust this promise as we trust other divine promises. Marriage and starting a family has not made and will not make individuals experience hard living conditions. This means that one does not necessarily go through rough times because of marriage- on the contrary- marriage may solve the problems of individuals. The academic environment is a good and appropriate environment for preparing the ground for marriage. In my opinion, youth themselves, their families and officials in charge of universities should think about and make a decision about the issue of youth\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s marriage. We should not allow the age of marriage - which has unfortunately gone up today, particularly among women - to continue going up. There are certain wrong notions and traditions that are highly problematic. These wrong traditions are an obstacle in the way of promoting marriage among youth. Therefore, they should be practically broken. In my opinion, you - who are young, inquiring and enthusiastic and you who suggest breaking many habits and traditions - you should break the wrong traditions that exist on the issue of marriage. This is another issue that I deem necessary to stress. Of course, it was common in the past for a number of well-intentioned matchmakers and religious individuals to act as intermediaries and to introduce eligible women and men to one another. In this way, they helped them get married. Such tasks should be carried out. There should really be a movement in society in this regard. Another point that was witnessed in the statements of the friends in the meeting - this point also existed in the questions that students asked me indirectly - is about the compatibility between the political positions of students or student groups, and the viewpoints of the Leadership. Before this meeting, students had been asked: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"What would you say if you were present in this meeting?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" We have received certain answers. They brought us a book that contained 100 - or even more - pages. This book is about the opinions of students. I saw in the book that this question has been posed. And in this meeting, it was posed in a different way. In my opinion, this is not a very good and reasonable question. It is not the case that all the positions that people from different social backgrounds - including students who are among the leading groups among the people - adopt should be a copy of the viewpoints that the Leadership puts forward. This is not the case. As Muslims and as religious and thoughtful individuals, you should take a careful look in order to perceive your responsibilities and to make your own analyses. I will expand on this later on. You should adopt a position and express your viewpoints about individuals, orientations, policies and governments. It is not the case that you should wait and see what position the Leadership adopts about such and such an individual, movement, measure and policy so that you adopt your position on the basis of this position. This will lock affairs up. The Leadership has certain responsibilities. If Allah the Exalted helps him and bestows His blessings on him, he will carry them out. You too have certain responsibilities. You should look at the scene and make your own decisions. However, the standard should be piety. The standard should be piety. Piety means exercising self-restraint in supporting or opposing someone and in criticizing or praising someone. You should observe piety. If it is observed, then both criticizing, and supporting and praising people is good no matter if it is an individual, an administration, a political orientation or a political event that you criticize or support. There is nothing wrong with this criticism and support. Of course, if this humble person expresses his viewpoint about an issue, it is possible that it influences the decision of those who have trust in him and who accept this viewpoint. However, this does not mean that individuals should be absolved of responsibilities and opinions. This is not what I mean. Everyone should take a look and carry out their responsibility. As I said, the standard is that piety should be observed. That is to say, if we make a criticism, if we support someone, if we approve of a movement and a policy or if we reject it, this should really be done out of a sense of responsibility and without engaging our personal interests and temptations. This is another point. One of the friends in the meeting said that students have lost sleep over a certain issue. If concerns make students be so sensitive, this is very good. Of course, we hope that you get enough sleep and go to sleep on time! The expression \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I have lost sleep over something\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is a very good expression. If this is really the case, we become very happy. This feeling of worry and anxiety about different issues makes you look at issues with open eyes. As for what I have written down to discuss, it has two, three parts and I will discuss each part by paying attention to our time. First of all, we should consider students to be among those individuals who manifest the vigilant conscience of a people and a country. Of course, this is the truth of the matter. If students launch a movement in a society and if they make a move and a request, this shows the general orientation of that society. This is the case all over the world. Students are, in fact, among those groups of people who show the vigilant conscience and orientation of a nation. Therefore, students should pay attention to issues in a very wise way. They should know their conditions and their environment. They should know threats, opportunities, enemies and enmities. Of course, we do not expect students to forget about their lessons and different affairs in order to engage in political work only. This is not what we expect them to do. Rather, we expect them to look at issues with open eyes, with a clear outlook, with a sense of responsibility and with a high motivation. This is our expectation of students. Some of the issues that we are faced with today are issues related to our surrounding environment and to the region. Regional issues are not separate from the issues of the country. Today, one important and fundamental issue is the issue of Palestine and Gaza. Well, the issue of Gaza and the disasters that have befallen the people of Gaza today and that have a long history should receive our attention from two perspectives: one perspective is that this shows the truth of the Zionist regime. This is the Zionist regime. In my opinion, this is not the important part of the issue. The Zionist regime is a regime that has set itself the goal of showing blatant violence since the beginning of its illegitimate birth. They do not even deny this violence. They have set themselves the goal of clenching an iron fist. They say this everywhere and they are proud of it. This is their policy. Since the year 1948 - when this fake regime came into being officially - until today, they have been pursuing this policy. It is 66 years now that they have been pursuing this policy. Of course, it had committed many crimes in Palestine even before it was officially recognized and even before colonialists imposed it on the world and on the region. But during these 66 years, they did whatever they could as a government and as a political system. They committed any violent act that one can think a government can do to a people. And they have no scruples whatsoever. This is the truth of the Zionist regime. There is no cure for this except the annihilation of this regime. Annihilating the Zionist regime does not at all mean massacring the Jewish people in the region. The logical statement that our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) made - that Israel should be annihilated - is based on a human principle. We presented to the world the practical solution for this and no one could criticize it in a reasonable way. We said that a poll and a referendum should be conducted so that the people who live in, come from and belong to this region determine who should rule over it. We said that the people should resolve this issue. This is the meaning of annihilating the Zionist regime. This is the solution. This is a solution that is understandable and favored by today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s standards of logic in the world. This is a practical solution. We even put forward a proposal to the United Nations and a number of international organizations in charge of such affairs. And this proposal was discussed by them. There is no cure for the problem that this savage and wolfish regime - whose policy is to behave towards people with iron fists, cruelty and savagery and that does not care about and deny killing people and children, attacking different regions and causing destruction - has created except its destruction and annihilation. If, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, that day comes and if it is annihilated, then so much the better. But what is the cure as long as this fake regime survives? The cure is decisive and militant resistance against this regime. The Palestinians should display power in the face of the Zionist regime. No one should think that if it had not been for the missiles of Gaza, the Zionist regime would have stopped their incursions. This is not the case. Notice what they are doing in the West Bank. This is while there is no missile, weapon and gun in the West Bank. The only weapon that the people have there is stones. Notice what the Zionist regime is doing there. It is doing whatever it can. It destroys people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s homes, it destroys their gardens, it destroys their lives and it humiliates and belittles them. If it is necessary, it closes water on them and it blacks out electricity. The Zionists could not tolerate someone like Yasser Arafat who compromised with them. They besieged, humiliated, poisoned and destroyed him. It is not the case that if we do not display power in the face of the Zionists, they will tolerate and show mercy to people and observe their rights. This is not the case at all. The only cure that exists before the Zionist regime is annihilated is that the Palestinians manage to act in a powerful way. If they act in a powerful way, it is possible that the other side - which is this wolfish and violent regime - will retreat, as they are looking for a truce with all their power. This means that they have become desperate. They kill people and children and they show cruelty in an excessive way. But they are desperate as well. They are in dire straits and this is why they are after a truce. Therefore, we believe that the West Bank should become armed like Gaza. It is necessary to show power. Those people who are interested in the fate of Palestine should do whatever they can. This is what should be done: the people in the West Bank should become armed as well. The only thing that can alleviate the Palestinians\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' pains is to show power. Otherwise, if we act in a tame, subservient and obedient way, nothing that is to the advantage of the Palestinians will be done and the violence that this violent, malevolent and wolfish creature is showing will not decrease. Today, the responsibility of people all over the world is political support. There is no doubt about this. As you can see, there are popular movements in Islamic and even non-Islamic countries. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the world will witness the loud and great voice of the people of Iran on Quds Day. God willing, on Quds Day, the people of Iran will show how motivated they are about Palestine. Of course, some people wanted to show the opposite of this with the slogan \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"neither Gaza nor Lebanon\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". They are wrong. The people of Iran believe in defending the oppressed: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Be an enemy of the oppressor and helper of the oppressed\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 47]. This is what the people of Iran want and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, it will be shown. This is one perspective about the issue of Gaza. This is important and great emphasis should be placed on it. Today, western imperialist powers - that is to say, a few large, rich and powerful western powers which are headed by America and malevolent England behind it - have stood firm in order to defend this usurping, oppressive and cold-hearted regime. This is a very important issue. They are supporting it openly. What are they supporting? They are supporting a creator of disasters and no ordinary and fair-minded person can accept any indifference towards these crimes. A small area and a piece of land named Gaza is being attacked by airplanes, missiles, armies and tanks. They have used all kinds of munitions on these people. This is really an astonishing event. So many children are being killed, so many houses are being destroyed and people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s lives are being accompanied by so much bitterness, cruelty and torture. This is while these so-called gentlemen are supporting it. With what reason do they support this regime? They support it with the stupid reason that the President of America gives. He says, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Israel has the right to ensure its own security\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Well, do the Palestinians not have the right to ensure their security? Is it acceptable for a government to threaten the lives of a people who have been cruelly besieged by it and who show no reaction? Does anyone accept this? How will history judge this reason? The officials of these arrogant countries do not understand what they are doing - with these kinds of support - to their dignity and the dignity of their countries and regimes in history. They stand up with complete shamelessness and say that they support Israel. They do not at all point to the events that are happening in the region and to the disasters that this destructive and dangerous element is creating. This shows that today, the logic of liberal democracy - the logic and the intellectual system on the basis of which western countries are ruled and controlled - does not benefit from the slightest moral value. There is not any moral value and humane feeling in it. In fact, they are disgracing themselves. They are disgracing themselves in the face of the critical look of nations throughout the world, whether those who live in the present time or those who will live in the future. We should preserve this as an important experience for ourselves and we should know America. This is liberal democracy. This will and should influence our actions, our judgment and our behavior. This is the camp - that is to say, the government of the United States of America and its followers - that has stood up against the Islamic Republic today and that has challenged the Islamic Republic in different events. This is the truth about them. The truth about them is this: not only do they not show any sensitivity about the massacre of human beings and defenseless people but they also defend and support oppressors and perpetrators of appalling and great crimes - such as what is happening in Gaza today. This should be a standard for us. The people of Iran, our intellectual apparatus, our students and our broad-minded personalities should not forget this. This is America. This is western power and its intellectual basis - which is liberal democracy. Today, it is this intellectual basis that is confronting the Islamic system. Today, the politicians who are most indifferent to human rights are those who are in charge of managing these countries. They do not at all believe in human beings, human rights and human principles. Their behavior in Gaza and other such events is proving this. They do not at all believe in human rights, human dignity and respect, people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s votes and anything else. The only thing that they believe in is money and bullying. There is no other reason for their behavior. In my opinion, whatever comes out of their mouths about the issue of freedom, human rights and other such things is a travesty of freedom and human rights. Well, we are not saying this as a piece of advice to America, the President of America and American politicians. It is clear [that they do not listen]. We are saying this for ourselves so that when we want to carry out an analysis, make a judgment and adopt a measure, we understand who we are dealing with and who the people we are faced with are. We are saying this so that we know what exists at the bottom of their thoughts. We should determine our responsibilities. What is important is that we should have a correct analysis of the west\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s behavior in the present time. Their confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic movement and Awakening is part of their major polices. The major policy of global arrogance is enslaving nations and dominating their fate without paying the least attention to their interests and requests. This is the major policy of arrogance and we should pay attention to it. Anti-American, anti-western and anti-arrogance slogans in our country reflect this truth. Some people should not immediately jump to the conclusion that a biased or completely unreasonable task is being carried out as soon as they hear an anti-western or anti-American slogan. They should not think like this because this is not the case. This anti-western and anti-American outlook in the Islamic Revolution is based on a correct experience, outlook and calculation. On that day, I said to the executive officials and decision-makers of the country that the main goal of the enemy is to create disruption in our calculation system. When one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s calculation system is disrupted, it produces wrong outputs out of correct inputs. That is to say, experiences will no longer be useful to it. When our calculation system does not function properly and correctly and when calculation is not carried out in the right way, experiences will no longer be beneficial. Notice how westerners and the leaders of the current western civilization have treated our country during the past 80, 90, 100 years. We have a long experience of receiving blows from the west. There are some people in the country - some western-oriented, westernized and westoxicated individuals - who witness these experiences in front of their eyes, but who do not learn a lesson from them. Well, they saw that westerners brought Reza Khan to power and helped him dominate the country. As a result of this, a bizarre Reza Khani dictatorship was established in the country by the English. They helped a thuggish and unreasonable person who was completely indifferent to the principles of the country. Afterwards during the 1320s, the same powers came and occupied Iran. In fact, they divided it among themselves in one sense. The same powers looted our oil and imposed cruel contracts on this country. The same powers launched the coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état of the 28th of Mordad and overthrew and destroyed a national government which originated from the votes of the people despite all its flaws. The same powers made our national oil movement deviate from its path and consequently, they once more dominated our natural and material sources. The same powers established Mohammad Reza\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s dictatorship in the country for a long time and they supported it with all their power. During the 30-plus-year rule of Mohammad Reza over the country, our material and spiritual sources of wealth were looted. They created a disastrous situation for our people. They kept them in poverty and ignorance, they promoted public corruption in all bases of the country and they truly destroyed the culture of the country, the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s religion and everything. This was done with the support of the same western governments. They created as many obstacles as they could during their confrontation with the Iranian peoples\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' Revolution and great movement. They supported and defended Saddam Hussein although they did not approve of him. Because Saddam was against the Islamic Republic, they helped him as much as they could. Westerners, England, America and France provided him with chemical bombs and different kinds of military weapons. Well, these are our experiences. Westoxicated intellectuals do not benefit from these experiences and they do not analyze them correctly because their calculation system has been disrupted. One of the most important services of the Islamic Revolution was reviving true logic and reason in the country. The fact that you young students analyze regional issues, look at different events with complete precision, identify the enemy, analyze regional events and stand firm shows the reasonable life of a country. It was the Revolution that offered this to us, but today, some people still want to go back to prior conditions. The same westernized orientations - the ones that love the west, that humiliate our people and our achievements and that humiliate national culture and identity to the advantage of western powers - want the same powers to come again and to define and introduce standards for the affairs, culture and orientation of the country. Those who are working against the Islamic Republic under the flag of the bloody enemies of the people of Iran are people who are after dominating the same ignorance - calculational ignorance - and the same satanic temptation that once existed opposed to the rationality of this country. I advise the dear students to strengthen their studies - both on the issue of religious and political areas - as well their scientific work. You should try to strengthen your power of analysis. Of course, when I take a look at students\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' statements today, I witness good and outstanding points. This really requires our gratitude. It really requires that we thank God, but you should work on this as much as you can. Today, we did not have the time to discuss different issues of the country. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, we will discuss these issues in the other meetings that we will hold with students or other groups of people. Students should provide people with analyses on different issues of the country including social, economic and political issues. The people should be able to benefit from students\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' analyses. Students\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' power of analysis should be like this. This depends on studying. Therefore, students should study. It should not be the case that students\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' outlook is a purely emotional one. Your intellectual products should not only be based on tabloid issues. You should deeply study, think about and discuss issues. Many of the statements that the friends in this meeting discussed are statements that should be resolved in student meetings and in free discussions. I have written this down. The free debates that we brought up and that requires free discussions in academic environments can resolve and clarify many of the issues that the friends discussed in this meeting. Students should be able to find the pros and cons of every issue in their student discussions. Another point that I want to discuss is that competitive discourse in academic environments is a good thing provided that it is accompanied by tolerating the opposing views. One should not become surprised, angry and intimidated at the existence of opponents. None of these three feelings is acceptable in the face of opponents. If we become surprised at the existence of opponents, this means that we are overconfident about ourselves. This is the reason why we are surprised when someone is opposed to us, but there is no room for surprise. Well, every individual, every thought, every movement and every orientation has certain opponents. And it is not the case that we think those opponents are necessarily wrong. This is not the case. There are certain weak points and these weak points make some people oppose us. Therefore, the existence of opponents should not make us surprised, as it should not provoke our anger. We should not become angry at their opposition. Opposition is understandable and acceptable. We should not be intimidated either. Being afraid of the existence of opponents shows that we are not confident about the power and strength of our position. This should not be the case. We have a reason. We should strengthen and build up the bases of our reason and then we should enter the arena of competitive discourse and engage in discussion. The spirit of students should be like this. Therefore, academic environments should continue working with the same spirit that they thankfully enjoy today. They should tolerate one another, they should speak to one another, they should discuss different issues with one another and they should strengthen the bases. In practical areas, the basis of their work should be piety and in intellectual areas, the basis of their work should be observing Islamic limits, knowing the enemy and knowing the methods that he uses for showing his enmity. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows success on all of you and preserves you youth for furthering the goals of the Revolution. I hope that He increases your achievements on a daily basis. I hope that by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you youth create a good future for your Revolution and for your country. Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.

The Secret behind the Special Status of Hazrat Abu al-Fazl al-Abbas (\'a) Everything for Aba Abdullah al-Husayn (‘a) in Karbala was Abbas. Does a person become like this because his hand is cut off? No! Where a person is struck isn’t what makes a difference. A person’s body strength isn’t what makes a difference. What is it that separates Aba al-Fazl al-Abbas from the rest so much? Intention! “And I will fight with whoever fights with you.” He was thinking about the world. Do you know what Abbas’s intention was that he reached to this height? Saving the entire world! He didn’t want less than this. He was standing with Imam Husayn (‘a) and he saw 72 helpers, a few tents, and 30,000 enemies. But, he was thinking about the world, about humankind. He was big. It is not unlikely that on the day of Ashura he was thinking about Imam Mahdi’s (‘a.j.) reappearance. He wasn’t caught up with small problems. Look at a part of Aba al-Fazl al-Abbas’s intention. It is obvious that even if we are martyred we will not reach to this point. It is very difficult for a person to have worked on correcting his intention this much. The only person who asked Imam Husayn (‘a) in this way to enter the battlefield was Aba al-Fazl al-Abbas (‘a). He said, “My Master, I’m tired of these hypocrites. Give me permission to go and take revenge.” You should always have this intention of destroying the enemies of religion somewhere in your heart. Yah! If I could destroy them. Yah! I wish I could strike them hard, O God! Having this intention against them is very purifying and uplifting. See how much the Imam’s (‘a) enemies are cursed in the Ashura Supplication? Why should we just send our greetings upon the Imam (‘a) with much feeling? “And I will fight with whoever fights with you.” (Ashura Supplication) Do you know what Abal Fazl al-Abbas’s intention was that he reached this level? Saving the entire world. Hating the enemies. This should be a part of our intention. You have probably heard that tradition about Imam Javad (‘a). He would pound his fist on the ground and say, “I’ll kill and burn.” He was asked, “What? Who? What are you doing? Where are you now?” He said, “The one who came and burned the door of the house of our mother, Fatimah Zahra (‘a).” This means that our mother was pressed between the door and the wall, and thought, “My sad story will reach my children. The hatred of my enemies will enter their hearts, and they will grow.” What an expense was made for your luminous hearts between the door and the wall. Whoever comes to the Bani Hashim Alley and sees the burned door, won’t leave this alley anymore. A tradition says, “If a person doesn’t wish to kill the enemies (of Islam) with his sword someday, and he dies, he has died with a kind of hypocrisy.” “If a person is not in the battlefield, or he doesn’t read the tradition about holy war for himself, he will leave this world with a kind of hypocrisy.” (Sahih Muslim, vol. 3, p. 1,517)

Eye opening montage of news clips and photos that tell the truth about the events in Gaza. Courtesy -whatreallyhappened.com --Strategically speaking Israel does not have much time left in the ongoing conflict. Consider that it chose the timing of the current aggression very carefully-when the administration in the White House is in transition - the potentially most radical segment of the population in America - the students - are away from campuses and could not be mobilized easily and the general public in America - and elsewhere - are still recovering from the Christmas and New Year celebrations- and are also preoccupied with the economic recession. Still to the Israeli surprise regular protests with huge turn outs have been occurring in the US and around the world stripping off the deceptive cover of being so-called peaceful democratic and civilized from Israel-s face. The protests and alternative media sources deserve much credit in this regard. What is important to understand here is that if we are just demanding a ceasefire it is already part of Israel-s strategy in this conflict. There are good chances that Israel will end its aggression within a week before the new administration assumes office in the White House or the latest by the February 10 elections in Israel. Israel also knows that most people come out for protest only in reaction. Once the aggression ends the protests will subside and the new White House administration would not be pressed to issue a drastic statement. And that is only to the extent of issuing a statement- something on the line that Israel should observe RESTRAINT. The Bush administration did not bother to do even that much. Given the team of pro-Israel Hawkish-Pragmatists that Obama has assembled in his cabinet - if that is any indicator - chances are very slim that we will see a significant policy shift immediately.-- For more information see gazaawareness.blogspot.com

Koobideh Kabob Recipe: This is sister\'s Sameera and Sepeedeh\'s recipe I made some changes in the recipe on the video! 8 Servings Ingredients: 2 lb of the ground lamb or beef (my mom says it would be best if you have a mix of both types of meat) 2 onions grated and strained (mom says its really important to make sure there is no onion juice. Squeeze all the juice as much as possible before adding) 1 large egg (beaten) 5 medium tomatoes to be used for later when grilling or baking 1/2 teaspoon salt 1/4 teaspoon black pepper 1/4 teaspoon red pepper tablespoon (optional) 1/2 teaspoon garlic powder (optional, mom adds it in sometimes. Also if you wanna add fresh garlic, ground 2 cloves into meat mixture.) Directions: Mix meat, onions, egg, salt and pepper(s) wellz Make sure to massage it throughly. Leave in the refrigerator overnight (or for several hours but its best to leave it for longer). Press the meat around long, thick metal skewers. This is the difficult part. Make sure not to put too much meat on each skewer. It\'s taken lots of practice for my mom to perfect how much meat to put on each one. Make sure the skewers are thick as well. If they\'re too thin, the meat won\'t hold. Thread whole tomatoes on another skewer. Barbeque each side for about five minutes, turning frequently. If skewers are not available or barbequing is not possible, kabab-e koobideh can be shaped into long, thin portions on aluminum foil and grilled at high temperature in the oven. Serve with hot Saffron rice or on middle-eastern bread. If serving with rice, add a little sumac on top. This dish goes really well with the rice dish, so make sure you check out this link!

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.