Search Result in All

What kinds of friend should we make? How should we react to criticism? What does criticism do for our spiritual development? And what is the ultimate purpose of our lives? And what does Allah say in the holy Qur\\\'an after He takes an oath in the name of the heavens and the earth, and the moon and the sun? Finally, who is the most beloved kind of person per a tradition from Imam Sadiq? In this Scholar Clip, Shaykh Salim Yusufali speaks to us about a very important quality that every single one of us needs to inculcate in our selves and we find out what kind of friends we should all be looking for. #ScholarClips #Islam #Ahlulbayt #IslamicPulse #Quran #IslamicRevolution #Ethics #Akhlaq #Friends #Criticism #ImamSadiq

[28 Jan 2015] Israeli authorities under criticism over war on Gaza - English

[28 Jan 2015] Israel under mounting criticism over their 50-day offensive on Gaza - English

New Anti-Semitism. Political Ploy to Silence Americans and Protect Israel from Criticism.

President Mohamed Morsi has appointed new governors for 17 provinces in the country. Seven of the new governors are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Army and police officials are also among the new appointees. Yet, the move has sparked criticism across the country ahead of the June thirtieth anniversary of Morsi\'s taking office. Opposition figure Amr Moussa and member of the National Salvation Front has heavily slammed the appointments saying that they further add to the tensions prior to the planned June 30th protests.

[30 Sept 2013] Netanyahu Visit to Washington Stirs Criticism - English

Fareed Zakaria host of Fareed Zakaria GPS explains his criticism of Gov Sarah Palin

US President Barack Obama calls on Senate to delay imposing new sanctions on Iran, rejecting criticism by senators that Washington has not been tough on Iran. White House spokesman Jay Carney says that Obama has met top Democrats and Republicans from the Senate Armed Services, Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees and urged them to delay any decision on new Iran sanctions. As Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany are slated to hold fresh round of nuclear talks in Geneva on Wednesday, Obama tell the senators that new sanctions should not be enacted during the current negotiations. Meanwhile, a group of senators wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry, calling on the administration to make a tougher line on anti-Iran sanctions. The senators warned that easing the sanctions would not force Iran to abandon its pursuit of an alleged nuclear weapon. Obama says the proposed deal would permit a modest lifting of the economic sanctions on Iran.

The US secretary of state is back in the Middle East for yet another round of shuttle diplomacy between Israelis and the Palestinian Authority. John Kerry visited Ramallah to hold a closed-door meeting with PA officials to discuss the so-called peace talks that suffered a heavy blow last week.

Criticism is ramping up against the military-backed government as anti-regime protests continued across Egypt for the fifth consecutive day. The demonstrations come as part of the \\\'week of rage\\\' rallies called for by the anti-coup alliance. Protesters chanted slogans against the army which ousted president Mohamed Morsi.T hey also demanded the release of their fellow students who were detained by security forces. On Tuesday, security forces took 16 student protesters to court over alleged accusations of protesting without permission.

The US administration is stepping up criticism of the Syrian government over the removal of its chemical weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry says all options are still on the table and that Syria could face consequences for failing to get rid of its stockpile of chemical weapons. Over the past two days, the US administration has repeatedly accused Damascus of deliberately stalling the international disarmament deal to remove its chemical weapons. But Russia has rejected Washington\'s charges that the Syrian government is dragging its feet in the effort to eliminate its chemical weapons stockpile. Moscow says a June 30 deadline to destroy Syria\'s arsenal of toxic agents remains viable, despite delays. The Kremlin says the delays are due to security problems on the road to the port of Latakia and insufficient technical support from the outside world.

Pierre Mosco-vici said the visit is QUOTE a bet on the future and not about doing business as usual. His comments came in response to the US Secretary of State\'s recent complaint. Only days ago, John Kerry said the French delegation\'s visit to Iran was not helpful in sending the message to Tehran that it\'s not business as usual. His remarks came after a one-hundred- sixteen member French delegation traveled to Iran for commercial opportunities. Among the group are multi-national companies such as Total, Lafarge and Peugeot. The delegation arrived in Tehran less than two weeks after the recent easing of sanctions against Iran.

[2nd September 2016] Iran Today - Criticism of new Iran oil contracts | Press TV English

EU\'s refugee policy attracts yet more criticism

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

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

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

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki speaks out against Western efforts that seek to dramatize the post-election unrest in the country. Washington and a slew of European powers, in recent days, have lashed out at governmental moves to restore security in the country. "We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people" The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching," said US President Barack Obama said in a Saturday statement. Britain, France and other European countries have also taken a similar stance on the Iranian elections. In a Sunday address to foreign reporters, Mottaki responded to "irresponsible and intrusive remarks" made by certain Western countries. He focused much of his criticism on France, Germany and Britain, advising them to "think twice before questioning the democratic process of the recent election." Mottaki criticized the British foreign secretary for his inappropriate and illogical comments on Iran's elections. He blamed Britain for causing insecurity in the Middle East by helping create the Zionist regime decades ago. The foreign minister also criticized France for what he called irresponsible remarks on Iran's elections and demanded an apology from Paris. Germany also came under criticism. Mottaki said Berlin's position on Iran indicated that German officials were intimidated by Israelis. He said policymakers in the West need to have "a clear picture" of the historic elections, which saw Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected for a second term in office. Presidential contenders Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi reject the result as fraudulent and demand a re-run. Their supporters have staged rallies, which have largely grabbed headlines in most media outlets. In response to recent claims of election irregularities, Mottaki said that the election process and the whole structure observing the polls is such that makes the possibility of vote rigging 'close to zero'. Mottaki, however, asserted that due to the government's respect for democracy, Iranian authorities would look into the protests lodged against the election results and present the findings by the end of the week.

The Leader of Iran\\\\\\\'s Islamic Revolution has said Iranian youths were more than three decades ahead of their time when they called the former US embassy in Tehran the nest of espionage. Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei was speaking to a group of school and university students on the occasion of Student Day in Iran. The Leader referred to the fallout from US spying activities on other countries. He said the term is now being applied by Washington\\\\\\\'s closest allies to refer to US diplomatic missions on their soil. Ayatollah Khamenei further spoke of the talks between Iran and the UN Security Council\\\\\\\'s permanent members plus Germany. The Leader defended the Iranian negotiating team against criticism inside Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian negotiators are shouldering a tough responsibility, and advised against criticism that undermines officials on duty. The Leader however reiterated his skepticism of US intentions, adding a smiling enemy cannot be trusted. Ayatollah Khamenei said American officials claim they are willing to negotiate with Iran but at the same time they say all options are on the table.

The Leader of Iran\\\\\\\'s Islamic Revolution has said Iranian youths were more than three decades ahead of their time when they called the former US embassy in Tehran the nest of espionage. Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei was speaking to a group of school and university students on the occasion of Student Day in Iran. The Leader referred to the fallout from US spying activities on other countries. He said the term is now being applied by Washington\\\\\\\'s closest allies to refer to US diplomatic missions on their soil. Ayatollah Khamenei further spoke of the talks between Iran and the UN Security Council\\\\\\\'s permanent members plus Germany. The Leader defended the Iranian negotiating team against criticism inside Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian negotiators are shouldering a tough responsibility, and advised against criticism that undermines officials on duty. The Leader however reiterated his skepticism of US intentions, adding a smiling enemy cannot be trusted. Ayatollah Khamenei said American officials claim they are willing to negotiate with Iran but at the same time they say all options are on the table.

The Leader of Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Islamic Revolution has said Iranian youths were more than three decades ahead of their time when they called the former US embassy in Tehran the nest of espionage. Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei was speaking to a group of school and university students on the occasion of Student Day in Iran. The Leader referred to the fallout from US spying activities on other countries. He said the term is now being applied by Washington\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s closest allies to refer to US diplomatic missions on their soil. Ayatollah Khamenei further spoke of the talks between Iran and the UN Security Council\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s permanent members plus Germany. The Leader defended the Iranian negotiating team against criticism inside Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian negotiators are shouldering a tough responsibility, and advised against criticism that undermines officials on duty. The Leader however reiterated his skepticism of US intentions, adding a smiling enemy cannot be trusted. Ayatollah Khamenei said American officials claim they are willing to negotiate with Iran but at the same time they say all options are on the table.

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.

Judith Butler describes the circumstances of the Lebanese war and political-legal maneuvering by international peace keeping bodies. Inquires into the politics surrounding UN resolutions and their implementation. Sheds light on the strategic aims of Israeli War on Lebanon in 2006. Finally she argues that criticizing the Israeli entity is not anti-semitism. That a true understanding of Jewish teachings makes the criticism of Israel not only possible but also obligatory.

Iran hails world financial crisis as 'end of capitalism' Oct 15, 2008 TEHRAN (AFP) — Iranian leaders say the world financial crisis indicates the end of capitalism, the failure of liberal democracy and divine punishment -- marking the superiority of the Islamic republic's political model. "The school of Marxism has collapsed and the sound of the West's cracking liberal democracy is now being heard," supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday, recalling the fate of the Soviet Union. Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is backed by Khamenei, said on Tuesday that "it is the end of capitalism." Such convictions can be traced back to the ideals of the 1979 Islamic revolution, which Ahmadinejad has sought to revive since he rose to power in 2005. The firebrand president, who has not missed a chance to denounce Western "decadence" since his election, has exploited the scale of the global crisis to play up his argument. He benefits from the luxury that the Tehran stock market has been unaffected by the losses that bourses in neighbouring Gulf states have suffered. That stability is attributable to the absence of foreign investors and to the government's firm grip on economic activity. Several Iranian newspapers, regardless of their reformist or conservative leanings, have also blamed the global economic crisis on excessive liberalism. And some officials, such as the head of Iran's electoral watchdog body, have come up with less conventional theories and branded the turmoil as "divine punishment." "These people see the outcome of their bad deeds. This problem has spread to Europe now which makes us happy. The unhappier they are the happier we become," Ayatollah Ali Janati, who heads the Guardians Council, said in last Friday's prayer sermon. Ahmadinejad has recently echoed that, saying "the reason of their defeat is that they have forgotten God and piety." The financial crisis should be a divine sign that "the oppressors and the corrupt will be replaced by the pious and believers," he said, adding that "an Islamic banking system will help us survive the current economic crisis." Ahmadinejad's administration favours such a system, based on interest-free lending, but the system has not been widely implemented and faces criticism by economists. Elected on a justice campaign, the president has gone on a spending spree to "bring the oil money to the tables" of Iranian people. But the cash injection to the economy has fuelled inflation, which has risen from around 10 percent at the time of his election to nearly 30 percent. For Iran's supreme leader, the crisis particularly signifies the superiority of the Islamic republic's political structure, which combines elements of democracy with those of a theocracy. Khamenei hailed the "victory of the Islamic revolution" in the face of Marxist and liberal ideologies. "Now there is no sign of Marxism in the world and even liberalism is declining," the all powerful leader said. The Iranian regime deems the concepts of democracy and human rights as "imperialist" tools to dominate other nations. The Islamic republic thus defends its electoral practice of vetting candidates running for public office according to their religious adherence and its judicial system, which resorts to the death penalty for serious crimes more than any country in the world except for China

Dozens of delegates have walked out of a United Nations conference on racism after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, described Israel as a "racist government". Ahmadinejad told delegates at the summit in Switzerland on Monday, that after the Second World War the United States and other nations had established a "cruel, oppressive and racist regime in occupied Palestine". "The UN security council has stabilised this occupation regime and supported it in the last 60 years giving them a free hand to continue their crimes," he told delegates at the Durban Review Conference hall in Geneva. Dozens of diplomats from countries including Britain and France left the hall in protest as he made the remarks. Ahmadinejad also asked the conference: "What were the root causes of the US attacks against Iraq or invasion of Afghanistan? "The Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses ... wasn't the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists ... in the US administration, in complicity with the arms manufacturing companies?". Many delegates who remained in the hall applauded Ahmadinejad's comments. At least three demonstrators, dressed as clowns and shouting "racist, racist," were expelled as Ahmadinejad began to speak. Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera's correspondent at the conference, said Ahmadinejad had reiterated his views on Israel, especially over its 22-day war on Gaza. He said: "At the time [of the offensive] he said what was going on in Gaza was a genocide ... this was an opportunity for him to say that at a world forum. "There are people in the hall who believe that what Ahmadinejad was saying is correct - that is why there is such a split here."

The opening of a United Nations conference in Switzerland on anti-racism was marred by chaotic scenes Monday as protests and a walkout by delegates disrupted a controversial address by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The presence of the Iranian leader at the conference had already prompted Israel to withdraw its ambassador from Switzerland, while several countries including the United States are also boycotting the gathering. Dozens of delegates walked out of the chamber as Ahmadinejad accused Israel and the West of making "an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering ... in order to establish a totally racist government." Video Watch delegates make their exit » He said Zionism, the Jewish national movement, "personifies racism," and accused Zionists of wielding economic and political resources to silence opponents. He also blasted the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan. Protesters in brightly colored wigs interrupted Ahmadinejad as he began to speak, shouting: "You're a racist!" in accented English. But some delegates cheered, while security officers dragged at least two protesters from the chamber. Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called Ambassador Ilan Elgar home to protest a meeting between the Swiss president and Ahmadinejad, Israel's foreign ministry said in a statement. "The meeting of a president of a democratic country with a notorious Holocaust denier such as the Iranian president, who has openly declared his intention of wiping Israel off the map, is not in keeping with the values represented by Switzerland," the ministry said. Netanyahu's office had earlier said the diplomatic move was a response to the presence of Ahmadinejad at the conference. Ahmadinejad has said that the Holocaust is a myth, and Iran hosted a conference in 2006 questioning the Holocaust, in which about 6 million Jews were killed. The United States, among others, is refusing to send envoys to the Durban Review Conference. The U.N. high commissioner for human rights said Sunday that she regrets -- and is "shocked" by -- the United States' decision to boycott. "I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States' decision not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide," High Commissioner Navi Pillay said in a written statement. "A handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to this issue, allowing them to outweigh the concerns of numerous groups of people that suffer racism and similar forms of intolerance... These are truly global issues, and it is essential that they are discussed at a global level, however sensitive and difficult they may be," she said. The U.S. State Department said Washington's decision was based in part on a conference document that "singles out" Israel in its criticism and conflicts with the United States' "commitment to unfettered free speech." President Barack Obama noted Sunday that the United States had previously warned it would not attend the conference if the document was not sufficiently altered in advance. According to the State Department, the document contains language that "prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians." The language reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Actions from the 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa, which the United States has said it won't support. Obama said the United States hopes to partner with other countries "to actually reduce discrimination around the globe, but this (conference) wasn't an opportunity to do it." Australia, Canada, Germany and Italy, among others, are also boycotting the conference. Poland announced Monday it too would pull out of the conference. Netanyahu on Monday praised the countries that refused to attend: "I congratulate the nations that boycotted the show of hate."