Search Result in All

The government formation in India\\\'s New Delhi State seems impossible for the time being, as differences remain. The Bharatiya Janata Party, the BJP and the Congress have NOT agreed to 18 conditions set by the Aam Aadmi Party --- also known as the Common Man\\\'s party --- which led Delhi assembly elections last week. The BJP and the Congress Party came second and third in the elections. The Aam Aadmi Party is demanding unconditional support by the two other parties. Its leader Arvind Kejriwal says that the BJP and the Congress Party must back his election manifesto, which includes a campaign against corruption. The BJP has rejected that it offered support to the Aam Aadmi Party. The Congress Party has also criticized the Aam Aadmi Party\\\'s leader for setting conditions. If no political solution is found in the coming days analysts say Delhi could soon be heading for President\\\'s rule with a Lt Governor taking all decisions till the state goes in for a fresh poll again in the coming months.

A security pact between the United States and Afghanistan seems to be far from being finalized due to substantive disagreements.

Will the United States lift its illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran? Well, it seems like it won\'t unless Washington stops listening to Israel. But who is mainly affected by the sanctions? Reports from Iran\'s health sector show cancer patients and hemophiliacs are hurt far more than the country\'s nuclear program. The sanctions have hindered Iran\'s international financial transactions. And that has made the importation of vital medicines extremely difficult. The country\'s pharmaceutical industry is also unable to produce those medicines because of a shortage of raw materials. But after the latest round of nuclear talks with Iran, the United States hinted that it\'s ready to ease the pressure. However, Washington is under immense pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia not to lift its illegal embargo, which is hurting ordinary Iranian citizens.

A territorial dispute between China and Japan seems to be far from over. In the latest development, Beijing has sent four coastguard vessels to the disputed islands in the East China Sea. The move follows Beijing\'s mention of war after Tokyo approved a plan to shoot down Chinese drones if they fly over Japan\'s airspace. China has threatened to take firm countermeasures, if Japan fires on its drones. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has accused China of trying to change the status quo in the region by force, adding that\'s why Tokyo is expected to take a leadership role over regional security issues. The relations between the two Asian powerhouses have been strained particularly over a group of disputed islands-- known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Both countries claim sovereignty rights over the uninhabited resource-rich islands that are currently under Tokyo\'s control.

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday, Following is the full text of the interview: Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President. President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness? President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else. Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example. President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces. Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria? President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir. Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel. President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference? President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else. Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command? President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance. Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance? President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now? President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak? President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change. Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game? President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan. Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do? President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons. Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles? President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis? President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names. Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups? President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves. Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month? President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend. Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options. President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see. Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions? President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear. Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term? President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government. Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014? President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk. Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League? President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League. Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations? President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them. Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted? President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house. Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel? President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world. Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon. Al-Manar: Thank you.

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday, Following is the full text of the interview: Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President. President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness? President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else. Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example. President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces. Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria? President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir. Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel. President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference? President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else. Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command? President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance. Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance? President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now? President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak? President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change. Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game? President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan. Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do? President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons. Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles? President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis? President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names. Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups? President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves. Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month? President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend. Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options. President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see. Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions? President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear. Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term? President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government. Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014? President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk. Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League? President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League. Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations? President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them. Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted? President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house. Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel? President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world. Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon. Al-Manar: Thank you.

The decision to ban George Galloway from Canada seems odd but now it emerges that the Jewish Defence League JDL pressured the Canadian Government to so the action takes on sinister connotations for Canada. Because the Jewish Defence League are according to the FBI a Terrorist Group. In its report Terrorism 2000 2001 the FBI referred to the JDL as a violent extremist Jewish organization. This violent extremist Jewish organization now it seems has power and influence over the Canadian Government.

Look forward to watching this. From the trailer it seems that the argument is not a nostalgia for the past. It is deeper. I liked the fact that the documentary seeks to bring in the larger historical and social context in the picture. Compare that to documentaries like Consuming Kids that focus mostly on hyper-consumerism. Hyper-consumerism I believe is a manifestation of something much larger and deeply pervasive what may be referred to as MATERIALISM. Now how to define and trace the source of materialism are challenging questions. The documentary seems inclined on the rise of capitalism. But it does hint toward renaissance and the transformation in cultural outlook. Would be interested to see how material and cultural are combined in the narrative of this book and movie.

Look forward to watching this. From the trailer it seems that the argument is not a nostalgia for the past. It is deeper. I liked the fact that the documentary seeks to bring in the larger historical and social context in the picture. Compare that to documentaries like Consuming Kids that focus mostly on hyper-consumerism. Hyper-consumerism I believe is a manifestation of something much larger and deeply pervasive what may be referred to as MATERIALISM. Now how to define and trace the source of materialism are challenging questions. The documentary seems inclined on the rise of capitalism. But it does hint toward renaissance and the transformation in cultural outlook. Would be interested to see how material and cultural are combined in the narrative of this book and movie.

[24 May 2012] Egypt's historic presidential election - Middle East Today - English Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi seems to be leading in the latest count of the polls in the first round of the first popular presidential election in Egypt since the former dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. The next and the final round will most probably be a face-off between Morsi and former Prime minister of Mubarak's regime, Ahmed Shafiq, who seems to be coming in second according to the Muslim Brotherhood's counts. In any case observers believe this is the first step to real popular representation in Egypt.

[14 June 2012] David Cameron & Leveson Inquiry - Comment - English On Thursday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron appeared before the Leveson Inquiry. There was no point of hiding his close friendships with the News International family, so instead he tried to make it all out to be part of the job as it was revealed even in opposition he met with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks 44 times. News International paid for David Cameron to meet Murdoch in the Greek Island of Santorini in 2008. That year his friendship with Rebekah Brooks also flourished. They were neighbors and Brook's millionaire husband went to the same elite school as Cameron. Cameron denied ever making any overt or covert deals with News International. He was questioned over why he hired news international editor Andy Coulson as his media chief. Meanwhile three more people, including a sun journalist and police officer were arrested over the scandal. You could say David Cameron sailed through his day at the Leveson inquiry. But then he wasn't really given a rough ride. And what could have easily been a storm seems to have just passed him by. But he did admit his close friendships with the Murdoch's and brooks, at the same time admitting such close relationships were wrong. So it seems even if he just survives, he is a very much a damaged prime minister.

[14 June 2012] David Cameron & Leveson Inquiry - Comment - English On Thursday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron appeared before the Leveson Inquiry. There was no point of hiding his close friendships with the News International family, so instead he tried to make it all out to be part of the job as it was revealed even in opposition he met with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks 44 times. News International paid for David Cameron to meet Murdoch in the Greek Island of Santorini in 2008. That year his friendship with Rebekah Brooks also flourished. They were neighbors and Brook's millionaire husband went to the same elite school as Cameron. Cameron denied ever making any overt or covert deals with News International. He was questioned over why he hired news international editor Andy Coulson as his media chief. Meanwhile three more people, including a sun journalist and police officer were arrested over the scandal. You could say David Cameron sailed through his day at the Leveson inquiry. But then he wasn't really given a rough ride. And what could have easily been a storm seems to have just passed him by. But he did admit his close friendships with the Murdoch's and brooks, at the same time admitting such close relationships were wrong. So it seems even if he just survives, he is a very much a damaged prime minister.

The Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran will not back down an iota from its rights and will never give in to pressure. Ayatollah Khamenei said the rights of the nation including its nuclear rights must be recognized. The leader expressed his support for the Iranian government and officials including the nuclear negotiating team. Ayatollah Khamenei also said he will not get involved with the details of the negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. But he said there are red lines and limitations that the Iranian negotiators will have to heed. Ayatollah Khamenei made the remarks in an address to commanders and members of the Basij volunteer force in Tehran. Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech in Meeting with Basij Commanders Print 20/11/2013 Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech in Meeting with Basij CommandersThe following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 20, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with fifty thousand Basij commanders. The meeting was held at the Musalah in Tehran. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-al Qassem al-Mustafa Muhammad and upon his immaculate, pure and chosen household, especially the one remaining with Allah on earth. Greetings be upon you Abi Abdullah and upon those who laid down their lives for you. I will send you God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s eternal greetings as long as I live and as long as night and day prevail. May God not make this prayer my last covenant with you. Greetings be upon Hussein, upon Ali ibn al-Hussein, upon the children of Hussein and upon the companions of Hussein - those who laid down their lives for Hussein (a.s.). This meeting is a very important meeting. Basij is the manifestation of the greatness of our nation and the domestic capability of our country. This meeting is the meeting of commanders. You tens of thousands of commanders of Basij have gathered in this place and one can guess from this large gathering how glorious Basij is. You are a source of satisfaction, hope and trust for the supporters of the Islamic Republic, the Revolution and the country and you are a source of intimidation and fear for the ill-wishers, enemies and those who bear a grudge [against the Revolution and the Islamic Republic]. The coincidence of Basij Week with these days, which are the days of the great epic of the history of Islam, is a good and valuable occasion. What I mean by this great epic is the epic created by Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) which complements the epic of Ashura. The epic that Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) created revived and preserved the epic of Ashura. The greatness of what Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) did, cannot be compared to other great events in history. It should only be compared to the event of Ashura itself and truly, these two events complete one another. This great personality and this great lady of Islam and all of humanity managed to stand firm in the face of the great mountain of hardships and there was not even a tremble in her voice because of all these events. She stood firm like a glorious mountain peak both in the face of enemies and in the face of hardships and bitter events. She became a lesson, a role model, a leader and a pioneer. At the bazaar of Kufa, while she was held captive, she made this astonishing speech: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Oh people of Kufa, who are treacherous and disloyal, do you cry for us? May your tears not dry and may your moans not stop. You are like a woman who loosens her threads after she pulls them together\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [al-Ihtijaj, Volume 2, page 303]. The words are as firm as steel and the meaning flows like a river and it influences hearts and souls. In such conditions, Zaynab al-Kubra delivered a speech, which was like the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.), and she shook hearts and souls and she shook history with these words. This speech became eternal in history. It was delivered in front of the people while she was held captive. After that, she delivered a speech in front of Ibn Ziad in Kufa and a few weeks later, she spoke in front of Yazid with such strength that it both humiliated the enemy and the hardships which the enemy had imposed. She said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Do you foolishly think that you can defeat, suppress and humiliate the household of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.)?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Honor belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the believers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 63: 8]. Zaynab al-Kubra is the manifestation of dignity, as Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) was the manifestation of dignity in Karbala on the day of Ashura. The way she looks at events is different from the way other people look at those events. Despite all those hardships, when the enemy wants to taunt her, she says, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I did not see anything except for beauty\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Lohuf, page 160]. She said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"What I saw was beautiful. It was martyrdom. Although it was difficult, it was in the way of God and it was done for preserving Islam. It was the creation of an epic in history so that Islamic Ummah knows what it should do and how it should move forward and stand firm\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". This is a great achievement made by the epic of Zaynab (s.a.). This is the dignity of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s saint. Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) is one of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s saints. Her dignity is the dignity of Islam and she made Islam and the Holy Quran valuable. Of course, we are not as aspirational and determined as Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) and therefore we cannot say that the behavior of this great lady is our model. We are too inferior to say such things, but anyway, our movement should be in line with the movement of Zaynab (s.a.). Our efforts should be focused on bringing dignity for Islam, the Islamic community and the entire humanity. This is the same responsibility that Allah the Exalted has entrusted to prophets through Islamic obligations and rules. In the first part of my speech, what I want to briefly discuss with you dear basijis and dear youth is that one of the factors which brought about this spirit and this patience in Zaynab al-Kubra (s.a.) and other divine saints - who moved forward with such spirit and patience - is sincerity and honesty. It is very important to honor our promises to Allah the Exalted and to devote our hearts to the path of God in a sincere way. In the Holy Quran, this sincerity is necessary for divine prophets as well: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And remember We took from the prophets their covenant, as We did from you, from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn covenant, that (Allah) may question the custodians of Truth concerning the Truth they (were charged with)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 7-8]. God says that this covenant is very firm and serious. In the phrase \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Leyasala\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" lam signifies results and consequences. The result of this covenant is that these great prophets will be questioned about their sincerity in this covenant. That is to say, our Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and other great prophets should prove before God the level of their sincerity concerning the conditions of this covenant. This part is related to prophets. God also says to ordinary people and believers: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah: of them some have completed their vow (fully), and some (still) wait: but they have never changed (their determination) in the least, that Allah may reward the men of Truth for their Truth, and punish the Hypocrites if that be His Will\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 23-24]. When addressing great prophets, God referred to unbelievers as the opposite of honest individuals: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And He has prepared for the unbelievers a grievous Penalty\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 8]. And when addressing these believers, He referred to hypocrites as the opposite of honest individuals and there are important points in this comparison. You and I will be questioned about our promise to God. We have a covenant with God. In the holy ayah \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", the pledge that believers made to God and that was honored by them is the same as another ayah in this holy sura: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And yet they had already covenanted with Allah not to turn their backs\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 33: 15]. All of us should pay attention to such points. Believers promised Allah the Exalted not to escape in the face of the enemy and not to turn their backs. The Holy Quran stresses that abandoning one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s positions and retreating in the face of the enemy are among the things which should not be done. One should stand up against the enemy in any military, political and economic war and in any arena which is a test of strength. Your determination should overcome the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s determination. Your willpower should overcome the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s willpower. This can be done and this is possible. From the viewpoint of the Holy Quran and Islam, running away and retreating from the enemy are forbidden in any arena of jihad and confrontation. When we used the phrase \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"heroic flexibility\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", some people defined it as abandoning the ideals and the goals of the Islamic Republic. Some of the enemies too used it to accuse the Islamic Republic of betraying its principles. These interpretations were wrong and they misunderstood this phrase. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Heroic flexibility\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" means an artful maneuver for reaching one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s goal. It means that the followers of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s path - any divine path - should utilize different methods, in any way possible, in order to reach their goal and this should be done whenever they move towards the different ideals of Islam. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 8: 16]. Like the arena of war, any movement - whether forward or backward - should be launched in order to reach one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s predetermined goals. There are certain goals and at each stage, the Islamic government pursues one of these goals in order to make progress, achieve transcendence and create the great Islamic civilization. The Islamic government should try to achieve this goal at this stage. Of course, there are certain stages and phases to reach these goals. Experts, intellectuals and officials in charge of this are identifying these phases and goals and, as a result, our collective movement will begin. Everyone should try to make any movement, at any stage, reach its goal. This is a proper system which is based on logical and rational measures. All activists in the arena of politics and macromanagement of the country should always keep this in mind. All the people and you dear basijis too - who are activists in the arena of Basij - should always keep this in mind. Well, when we say that we want to move forward, does this mean that the Islamic government is warmongering? Does this mean that the Islamic government wants to confront all nations and all countries in the world? Sometimes one hears that the enemies of the Iranian nation - specifically the najis-mouthed dirty dog of the region, the Zionist regime - move their jaws to say that Iran is a threat for the entire world. This is the claim of the enemy, but this is exactly the opposite of Islamic principles. On the contrary, those evil and malevolent forces - including the fake Zionist regime and some of its supporters - that show nothing except for malevolence, are a threat for the entire world. The lesson that the Islamic government learned from the Holy Quran, the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.w.a.) and the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) is a different lesson: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Allah commands justice and the doing of good\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 16: 90]. Allah the Exalted invites us to administer justice and do good. The commander of the Faithful (a.s.) said that we should be kind to everyone because \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those who have the same religion as you have, they are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than that of yours, they are human beings like you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 53]. People are either your Islamic brothers or human beings like you. This is the logic of Islam. We want to render services and show kindness to everyone. We want to establish a friendly and kind relationship with all human beings and all nations. We even have no enmity with the American people despite the fact that the government of America is an arrogant, hostile and evil government which bears a grudge against the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic. The American people are like other peoples. What the Islamic Republic is opposed to is arrogance. The hostility of the Islamic Republic is oriented towards global arrogance. We are opposed to and fight against arrogance. Arrogance is a Quranic word and it has been used in the Holy Quran to refer to people like Pharaoh and the groups of people who are ill-wishers and who are opposed to truth. Arrogance existed in the past as well and it has continued to prevail until the present time. In all eras, arrogance has had the same structure. Of course, it has used different methods and tactics in different eras. There is arrogance today as well and it is led by the United States of America. We should know arrogance and its characteristics. We should know the methods and the orientation of arrogance so that we can organize our behavior in the face of arrogance. We are opposed to unreasonable behavior in all arenas. We believe that we should move forward with wisdom and acumen in all arenas, in all collective and individual orientations and in all plans. If we do not know the scene, if we do not know our friends and our enemies, if we do not know imperialism and arrogance in the present time, then how can we move forward with wisdom and acumen? How can we make accurate plans? Therefore, we should know these things. What I am saying about arrogance is a few examples regarding the behavior of today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s global arrogance in the world. In many of these examples and cases, today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s arrogance shares the characteristics of arrogance in previous centuries and previous eras. One of the characteristics of arrogance is egotism. When arrogant groups - those people who have taken everything in their hands as the highest-ranking individuals in a country, in a group of countries or in a global system - consider themselves to be superior to other people, when they regard themselves as the pivot, when they place everyone, except for themselves, on the periphery, then a wrong and dangerous equation will be formed in global interactions. When arrogance views itself as superior and as the pivot and core [of everything], then the result will be that it grants itself the right to interfere in the affairs of other people and other nations. If arrogance considers something to be a value and if other people do not, this will grant it the right to interfere in their affairs and bully and pressure them. This egotism makes them claim to be the guardian of nations and to be responsible for global management. It also makes them consider themselves to be the boss of all the people in the world. As you can hear, American officials and politicians speak about the government of America as if it were the leader of all countries. They say that they cannot let this be done. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We cannot allow this person to be or not to be in charge\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". They speak about our region in a way that it seems they are the owners of this region. They speak about the Zionist regime in a way that it seems regional nations have to accept this imposed and fake regime. They behave towards independent nations and governments as if they did not have the right to live. This egotism and this attitude of considering oneself to have a special position among all people, all nations and all human beings is the main foundation on which arrogance has been built and this is its biggest problem. This egotism will lead to another characteristic and another criterion for arrogance which is the tendency to ignore other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s rights. They neither accept truth nor the rights of other nations. They do not at all acknowledge other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s rights. In international negotiations, someone says something which is right, but America does not accept it. It tries to deny such rights with different methods and it does not accept truth. This has happened many times. In the present time, one of the examples of this behavior is our current issues related to nuclear activities and industries. Imagine that someone says something which is true. If one is fair, reasonable and rational, he should give up when he faces the truth. But arrogance does not give up. It hears the truth, but it does not accept it. This is one of its characteristics. It does not acknowledge the rights of other nations either. It does not acknowledge the right of a people to choose, to do what they want and to adopt those economic and political measures which they want. They believe in imposing things on other nations. Another characteristic of colonialism and arrogance is that it condones crimes against nations and the entire humanity and that it is indifferent towards such crimes. This is one of the greatest disasters of arrogance in modern times. Modern times means the era of scientific progress and the era of the emergence of dangerous weapons. When these weapons became available to arrogant powers, they created a disaster for all nations. They do not attach any value on the lives of individuals - those individuals who do not follow, obey and surrender to them. There are many examples in this regard. One example is the behavior of arrogant powers towards Native Americans - those people whose financial and natural resources, whose geography and whose entire properties are in the hands of non-natives now. Well, there were native people in America. Their behavior towards these Native Americans was so violent and so disgusting that it is one of the darkest points in the history of modern America. The Americans themselves have written many things about the massacres that took place and the pressures that they exerted. The same thing was done by the English in Australia. The English hunted people, for pleasure, like animals and like kangaroos. They did not attach any value on the lives of human beings. This is only one example. There are hundreds of examples which have been recorded in their own history books. Another example is the nuclear bombardment that was launched in the year 1945 of the Christian calendar - that it to say, the year 1324 of the Hijri calendar - when the Americans destroyed two Japanese cities and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Over the course of time, the number of people who suffered from deformities and different diseases because of nuclear radiations was several times larger than this and these problems have persisted until the present time. They did not have any cogent reason for this - I will refer to this later on. They easily dropped these bombs. Until now, atomic bombs have been used twice and both times, they were used by the Americans who consider themselves to be the main responsible party for the nuclear issues of other countries. They like to forget these events, but it is not forgettable. All these lives were destroyed, but it was not at all important to them. For arrogance, the lives of human beings have no value and it is easy for arrogant regimes to commit crimes. They massacred the people in Vietnam. In Iraq, their security services and their mercenary security agencies - such as Blackwater which I referred to in the year 1390 - committed certain crimes. They are still committing crimes in Pakistan with their drones. In Afghanistan, they conduct a number of bombardments and they commit crimes. They are not afraid of committing crimes in each area they can get their hands on and in each area their interests dictate. These crimes include murder and torture. The Guantanamo prison - which belongs to the Americans - still has prisoners. It is 10, 11 years now that they have been arresting a number of people from different countries and putting them in this prison on different charges. They have been keeping them in this prison without any trial and with extremely difficult conditions and they have been torturing them. In Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prison was one of the American prisons. In this prison, they used to torture and set dogs on prisoners. Looting the vital resources of other nations is easy for them. Capturing and enslaving Africans is one of the tragic events in history which American imperialism and other such regimes do not like to be reviewed. They do not like the issue of enslaving the people of Africa to be reflected on. They used to sail ships from the Atlantic Ocean and anchor them on the coast of West African countries such as Gambia and other countries in this continent. Then, they used to go and capture hundreds of thousands of men and women and old and young people with guns and other weapons which were not available to people at that time. While these people were in difficult conditions, they were taken to America on such ships for slavery. They captivated free people who were living in their houses and in their own cities. In the present time, the black people who live in America are the descendents of those slaves. For several centuries, the Americans exerted such an eccentric pressure and there are many books in this regard such as the book \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Roots\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" written by Alexander Haley. This book is a very valuable book for showing part of these crimes. How can today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s modern man forget such events? Despite all these crimes, the white people continue to discriminate against blacks in America. Another characteristic of arrogance is deception and hypocritical behavior. You should pay attention to this issue. They try to justify the crimes which were referred to and they try to show that they were rendering services by committing these crimes. Global arrogance, which intends to dominate all nations, is frequently using this method in its entire life: the method of justifying crimes and taking on the appearance of rendering services. When the Americans want to apologize for their attack on Japan - that is to say, the two bombs which exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Although tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the two bombs that we dropped on these two cities, this was the cost of ending World War II. If we the Americans had not dropped these bombs, the war would have continued. If we had not done this, then two million people - instead of the 200 thousand people who were killed as a result of these bombs - would have been killed. Therefore, we rendered a service by dropping these bombs\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Notice that this is a statement which the Americans make in their official propaganda. Now, around 65 years have passed from that day, but they have repeatedly said this. This is one of the deceptive and hypocritical statements and one of the elaborate lies that is not made and told by anyone except arrogant regimes. These bombs were dropped on and exploded in these two cities in the summer of the year 1945 of the Christian calendar and this crime was committed in that year. This was while four months before that - that is to say, in the early spring of 1945 - Hitler, who was the primary warmonger, had committed suicide. Moreover, Mussolini - the president of Italy at that time, who was the second important element in the war - had been arrested and the war was practically over. Japan too, which was the third important element in the war, had announced that it was ready to surrender. Therefore, there was practically no war, but these bombs were dropped anyway. Why? It is because these bombs had been built and they must have been tested somewhere. Certain weapons had been built and they must have been tested somewhere. Where should they test them now? The best option was to drop these bombs on the innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the excuse of war so that it becomes clear whether these bombs work properly or not. Such is their deceit. They claim to be the supporters of human rights, but they target the Iranian passenger plane in the air and they kill about three hundred passengers who are unaware of this. Moreover, they do not apologize and they award a medal to the person who commits this crime. You have heard that in recent weeks, the Americans - from the President to lower-ranking politicians - have created uproar about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. They accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons. I do not want to judge who has used these weapons. Of course, evidence shows that terrorist groups have used them, but anyway, they said that the Syrian government has used such weapons. They created uproar about this and they said that the use of chemical weapons is our red line. American officials said this 10 times or more. But not only did the government and the regime of the United States of America not express any opposition to Saddam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s use of chemical weapons during its criminal attacks on Iran, but it also provided him with 500 tons of hazardous and lethal chemicals which could be turned into mustard gas. Many of our dear youth of those times are still suffering from the effects of those chemicals and it is several years that they have been suffering from various diseases. The Americans helped Saddam to be equipped with such chemicals. Of course, he had bought such chemicals from other countries as well, but it was America that provided Saddam with 500 tons of lethal chemicals - which could turn into mustard gas - and that helped him to use it. After that, when the United Nations Security Council decided to issue a resolution against Saddam, it was America that prevented this. This is the meaning of hypocritical behavior. On the issue of Syria, the use of chemical weapons is a red line, but on the issue of Iran, it can be allowed and supported. This is because on this issue, chemical weapons are used against an independent Islamic government and against a nation which does not want to give in to America. These are some of the characteristics of arrogance. Of course, the characteristics of arrogance are more than these. Arrogant powers wage wars, create discord and confront independent governments. They even confront their own people when the interests of specific groups dictate so. During the war that Saddam waged against Iran, they offered all kinds of help - which was possible for them - to Saddam. I referred to the case of chemicals, but they also gave him secret information about Iran. After the war, when the head of intelligence services of Saddam was interviewed, he said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I used to go to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad three times a week and they gave me a sealed package in which all satellite information about the movements of the Iranian Armed Forces existed and therefore, we knew where they were\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". They offered such kinds of help to Saddam. The Islamic government is opposed to such arrogance. The Islamic government is not opposed to people and nations. It is not opposed to human beings. Rather, it is opposed to arrogance. This opposition has existed since the time of Abraham - God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Friend - Noah, the Holy Prophet of Islam and other great prophets and it has continued until today. Since that time, the camp of right has confronted arrogance. Why is that? Why does today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Islamic government confront arrogance? It is because arrogance with the characteristics that I described cannot tolerate an Islamic government such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is because the Islamic Republic of Iran was formed on the basis of opposition to arrogance. The Revolution was carried out in Iran in opposition to arrogance and the agents of arrogance. It was formed on the basis of this opposition. It grew, it became strong and it challenged the logic of arrogance on the basis of this opposition. Arrogance cannot tolerate this unless it is frustrated. The Iranian people, the Iranian youth, the Iranian activists and those Iranians who believe in their homeland and their country for any reason - even if it may be a non-Islamic reason - should do something to make the enemy hopeless. The enemy should become hopeless. It is very difficult for global arrogance and for the government of the United States of America in the present time to see that in this sensitive region - in West Asia, which is the one of the most sensitive regions in the world in terms of politics and economy and which influences the entire world - a country, a government and a people have emerged who do not consider themselves to be dependent on and to be the followers of this self-proclaimed superpower. This Islamic government is independent and despite the strong opposition that it is faced with, it overcomes all problems and hardships. As the Americans themselves admit, this government is challenging the influence of America in the region and it is extending its own influence. This Islamic government is becoming a role model for regional nations and this is very difficult for the Americans to tolerate. The Americans want to say that the lives of all nations depend on America. Now a people have emerged who not only are not dependent on America, but who also have not been influenced by all these hostilities. From the first day, the Americans did whatever they could, but it was not effective. These people have achieved growth and they have become stronger on a daily basis. The hostilities that the government of the United States of America has shown against the Islamic Republic happened during the time of different presidents, but all of these hostilities are of the same nature. All of these hostilities are the same. Therefore, no one should say that such and such a plot was hatched during the time of such and such a president and this plot has not been hatched during the time of the current President of America. This is not the case. All of these presidents behave in the same way. First, they provoked ethnicities in Iran, then they launched a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état and after that, they made Iraq attack us. The next thing that they did was to help our enemy - which was the regime of Saddam - in his war against us and after the war, they imposed sanctions on us. Then, they provoked all media networks in the world and they made them align themselves against the Islamic Republic. All of these things have been done during the time of different presidents of America and now too, these things are being done. In the fitna of the year 1388 - during the term of the current President of America - one of the social networks, which could be used to further the goals of fitna and those who provoked the fitna, needed to fix some technical problems. The government of America asked this network to delay fixing these technical problems because they hoped to overthrow the Islamic Republic with the help of media activities and networks such as Facebook, Twitter and other such networks. They had these foolish delusions. Therefore, they did not let this network fix its technical problems and they said that it should delay it and attend to this task which is more important. They used all kinds of tools against the Islamic Republic and sanctions are one of these tools. From their viewpoint, this tool is enough for defeating the Islamic Republic. Their mistake is that they do not know the Iranian nation. Their mistake is that they do not know the element of faith and unity among our people. Their mistake is that they did not learn a lesson from their past mistakes. Therefore, they hope that they can bring the people of Iran to their knees by imposing sanctions, exerting pressures and other such measures. Of course, they are making a mistake. The permanent experience of the Islamic Republic during the past 35 years shows that the only way to get rid of the interference of the enemy is national power and national resistance. This is the only factor which can make the enemy retreat. Of course, the enemy is the enemy. He uses all kinds of tools. As I said, he has used and is using sanctions. We should know what it is that can help us achieve our goal. I would like to say a few things about Basij and after that, I would like to briefly speak about the current issues regarding our foreign policies. As I said, Basij is a source of dignity for the country and the Islamic Republic. Why? It is because the meaning of Basij is the presence of all the people in arenas of fundamental activities for the sake of the people and the country. Any government that has people by its side and any country in which the people show their presence and move towards a specific direction, will definitely achieve victory. This is completely clear. Countries receive a blow and they are defeated whenever the people are not present on the scene or whenever they do not have unity of action. Whenever the people are present on the scene and whenever there is unity among them, victory and progress will be certain. Basij is the example of such presence. Basij is the manifestation of the presence of the people on the scene and the unity of the people. We should adopt such an outlook towards Basij. On the issue of sincerity, which I referred to in the beginning of my speech, Basij has emerged victorious out of the test of sincerity. Basij was put to this test during the imposed war and the Sacred Defense Era which was a time when the country was in difficult conditions. Also, during the different events that took place after the Sacred Defense Era until the present time, Basij has emerged victorious out of the test of sincerity. The Basij organization has shown that it enjoys sincerity. Of course, in my opinion, Basij is not confined to this number of people who are active in the Basij organization. There are many people whose hearts are with you. They praise and respect you and they appreciate your value. These people are not active in the Basij organization, but they are basijis as well. In my opinion, those people who believe in and respect your values and who respect your efforts, your services and your jihad are basijis as well. Being present on the scene is one of the most important tasks. Moreover, the capabilities of Basij help us solve problems. Fortunately, today inside the organization of Basij, there are many scientific, artistic, social and political personalities and there are many social activists and people who can influence the people. Until today, Basij has represented a group of people who have been achieving growth and transcendence on a daily basis and it should act in the same way from now on too. What I recommend is that we should increase the capabilities of Basij. There are certain prerequisites for this: moral, behavioral and practical prerequisites. Moral prerequisites means that we should build and develop Islamic virtues in our hearts and souls. A number of these virtues are patience, forgiveness, fortitude, self-control and humility. We should strengthen these characteristics in ourselves. Behavioral prerequisites means that we should utilize these virtues when we interact with the people, the environment, society and human beings in general. Imam Sadiq (peace and greetings be upon him) used to say to his companions, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You should act in a way that whenever people see you, they say, ‘These people are the companions of Imam Sadiq. God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy be upon Imam Sadiq. You should make us be proud of you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [al-Kafi, Volume 2, page 233]. Each and every one of you dear basijis, you dear youth with your pure and enlightened hearts and souls should behave towards all the people - as I said, many of the people are basijis in the real sense of the word - in a way that they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"These people are students of the Islamic government. They are a source of respect for the Islamic government and the Islamic Republic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". And practical, jihadi and social prerequisites are the tasks that should be carried out. That is to say, we should strengthen these virtues in ourselves. It means that we should behave in a kind, diligent and praiseworthy way towards the [social] environment. It means that we should act in a serious way in all arenas including the arena of science, the arena of social services, the arena of work, the arena of politics and the arena of production. Wherever you are, you should work in a serious way without any feeling of tiredness and any laziness. We should work. This great group of basijis - tens of thousands of people from this great group are present in this meeting - can move the country towards positive paths in the real sense of word. This group of people can be a source of solidity and stability. It can be a source of grandeur for the Islamic Republic and thankfully it is playing such a role today. Today, Basij is a source of grandeur and honor for the Islamic Republic. I would like to raise a point about the recent contentions over the arena of foreign policies, our nuclear issues, the current negotiations and other such things. First of all, I insist on supporting the officials who are in charge of this. I support all administrations and all officials - whether officials in charge of domestic affairs or officials in charge of foreign affairs - and this is our responsibility. I myself have been an executive official. I have been in the middle of the arena and I felt with all my heart the difficulty of the work. I know that the responsibility of managing the country is difficult. Therefore, these officials need help and I help and support them. This is one part of the issue which is clear. On the other hand, I also insist on establishing the rights of the Iranian nation including the issue of our nuclear rights. We insist that these officials should not even take one step back on the rights of the Iranian nation. Of course, we do not interfere in the details of these negotiations. There are certain red lines and limits in this regard. These limits should be observed. We have said this to officials in charge and it is their responsibility to observe these limits. They should not be afraid of the fuss that the enemies and opponents make. They should show no fear in the face of such fuss and uproar. Everyone should know that primarily, the sanctions which have been imposed on the Iranian nation result from the arrogant grudge of America. The grudge that the Americans bear against us is like the grudge of a camel. They want to exert pressures on the Iranian nation in the hope that they can perhaps make the Iranian nation surrender. They are making a mistake because the Iranian nation will not surrender to anyone under pressure. You Americans have failed to know the people of Iran. They are a people who can, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, endure these pressures and who will turn these threats and pressures into an opportunity. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, the Iranian nation will do this. We have had certain weak points in the area of economic decisions and plans. These weak points have made the enemy feel that he can create a rift. This is an opportunity for us to know and eliminate these weak points and, by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, we will eliminate them. The Americans should know and I think they know that sanctions do not work. The reason why we say they themselves know that sanctions do not work is the military threats they issue. Well, if sanctions can serve the purpose, then why do they issue military threats? This shows that sanctions have not served the purpose and that they do not work. They have to issue military sanctions. Of course, the act of issuing military threats is a very disgusting and despicable act. Instead of issuing military threats against different countries, you Americans should go and improve your own devastated economy. You should do something so that your government will not be shut down for 15, 16 days. You should go and pay your debts. You should think of improving your own economy. As I said, the Americans should know that the Iranian nation behaves in a brotherly way towards all nations: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Those who have the same religion as you have, they are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than that of yours, they are human beings like you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". The people of Iran respect other nations, but they behave towards transgressors in a way that they become regretful. They slap transgressots across the face in a way that they will never forget. The Americans consider themselves responsible for saying something in support of the Zionist regime and the capitalist Zionists and this is a source of weakness and humiliation for them. In fact, the Zionist regime is a regime whose foundations are extremely shaky. The Zionist regime is doomed to destruction. It is a regime which is imposed [on regional nations] and it has been formed on the basis of bullying. Any phenomenon and any organism which has come into being by use of force cannot survive and this regime cannot survive either. The support of the Americans - who are indebted to Zionist capitalists - for the wretched Zionist regime is a source of disgrace for them. Unfortunately, a number of European countries flatter this regime. These Europeans go and flatter these creatures who do not deserve to be called human beings and they humiliate themselves and their people in front of these creatures. The leaders of the Zionist regime are really like wild animals and one cannot call them human beings. One day in Europe, the French nation gained a good political reputation because the president of France in those days did not allow England to enter the European Community due to the fact that England was dependent on America. This became a source of dignity for France. On that day, the dignity of the French government increased because it stood up against America and because it did not let England - which was dependent on America - enter the European Community. A people achieve dignity in such a way. Today, the politicians of this country [France] go and humble themselves not only before America, but also before these damned and dirty Zionists. This is a source of humiliation for the French nation. Of course, the people of France themselves should find a cure for this problem. I would like to speak to you dear youth about a few things. You youth should know that without a doubt, the bright and promising future of this country and the Islamic Republic belongs to you. You will manage to help your country and your people reach the peak of glory. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you will be able to build a perfect model of the modern Islamic civilization in this country. In order to carry out these great tasks, you should promote and strengthen - as much as you can - religion, piety, morality and purity of soul among yourselves. Today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s youth need religion, piety, science, enthusiasm, trustworthiness, morality, social services and physical exercise. These are the things which today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s youth need and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you dear basijis will succeed in doing this. Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), bestow Your blessings on these people and on all the basijis of our country. Dear God, make the Iranian nation conquer the peaks of honor on a daily basis. Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), make the immaculate soul of Imam satisfied with us and with these people. Dear God, make the pure souls of martyrs satisfied and pleased with us. Dear God, by the blessedness of Muhammad (s.w.a.) and his household (a.s.), make the holy heart of the Imam of the Age satisfied and pleased with us and hasten the re-appearance of this great Imam. Make us be among his companions and his accompanying mujahids and make us be martyrs by his side. Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings. Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1839&Itemid=4

So it seems like we have expectations from just about everybody. And on the other hand, it seems like everyone has expectations from us as well. Enough to make one go crazy. But the one thing that we largely overlook is what Allah the Almighty expects from us. So, what are \"The Two Traits Allah Expects From YOU\"? What does Imam Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir (A) say about \"The Two Traits Allah Expects From YOU\"? And finally, what is a direct result of implementing these two traits that Allah expects from every single one of us? Well, in this One Minute Wisdom, Sayyid Shahryar answers using the wise and holy words of the 5th divinely appointed Imam, Imam Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir (A), as we learn and hopefully implement, \"The Two Traits Allah Expects From YOU\" and me. So in the long list of the things that people expect from you, make sure to add \"The Two Traits Allah Expects From YOU\" right at the top. #IslamicPulse #OneMinuteWisdom #OMW #Akhlaq #Ethics #Morality #Spirituality #Islam #Allah #Quran #AhlulBayt #Muslim #Shia #ImamBaqir #Baqir #MuhammadIbnAli #5thImam #Gratitude #Blessings #Sin #Forgiveness #Worship #Good #Truth #Knowledge #Wisdom #Taqwa #Justice #Resistance #Control #Mahdi #IslamicAwareness #EndTimes

Beshara Doumani addresses the question WHY CANT THEY GET ALONG? The answer according to him - they cant along because of decades long dispossession of one group by another which has only intensified recently. Using a number of anecdotal examples he argues that the arrogance of Israelis is responsible for the violence - the failure of many international interventions for peace - and the ongoing plight of the Palestinian people. He seems to believe in the two state solution - and was subsequently questioned on that in the QnA session. The clip is from a Berkeley Teach-in organized in Sep 2006. Also see the Berkeley Teach-In QnA session on this site.

world is ruled by few banking families who want to create one world government in order to enslave the humanity that is seems to Dajjalic system

world is ruled by few banking families who want to create one world government in order to enslave the humanity that is seems to Dajjalic system

world is ruled by few banking families who want to create one world government in order to enslave the humanity that is seems to Dajjalic system

IT SEEMS THAT WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF BIGGEST STARVATION CRISIS IN HUMAN HISTORY - English and Urdu

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

McCain insists on demonizing Russia. It seems that he is not even listening to his own heroes.

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

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked the Judiciary chief to conduct a through investigation into the death of Neda Aqa-Soltan, an Iranian woman who was shot dead in Tehran's post-vote protests. In a letter to Iran's Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi on Monday, Ahmadinejad called for a serious probe into the "suspicious" death of Neda and recognizing elements behind her killing. "Neda Aqa-Soltan was shot dead in one of Tehran's streets on June 20 by unknown elements in a completely suspicious way," said the president. "Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran's internal affairs) for their political misuse," he added. Neda, 26, became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran and an international icon in recent days after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets. Her death first became suspicious after revelations that she was killed by a small caliber pistol -- a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces

On Monday, Feb. 15th, Cinema du Parc received an email insisting that CJPME's Photo Exposition, Human Drama in Gaza, be immediately removed from the Cinema. The email was from a legal representative of Gestion Redbourne PDP Inc., the owners of the building housing Cinema du Parc. The Cinema has hosted dozens of expositions in the past three years, and this is the first time that such action has been taken. This move on the part of Redbourne seems entirely political, to muzzle the message of Human Drama in Gaza. If you live outside Montreal, click here (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103051037264&s=16948&e=001lbx5DoOzK2lQ2AkszhAXAcw77yHdCXtCL8T0qJpd4L_1Nbb17CtbwXJvymCoHeOkYqGvkWUSWVEuH0gY0YTHWYo2RySXVSbYQdNd_gXJkkyFSlO25c9M2C6OBYbWHHnXJVQatP5EzstlidTU5Qk2fQ==) to protest this action. On Monday, Feb. 15th, the critically acclaimed Human Drama in Gaza Photo Exposition in Montreal was threatened with closure by Gestion Redbourne PDP Inc., the real estate management firm owning the property housing the Exposition. A legal representative of Redbourne, Lieba Shell, sent an email late in the day to the exposition host, Cinema du Parc, ordering the removal of the exposition and threatening legal action if the exposition were not taken down by evening. Cinema du Parc and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) – the producer of the exposition – asserted through their legal advisor, Mark H. Arnold, that such threats from Redbourne were not lawful. Human Drama in Gaza was launched in mid-January, and received very positive reviews in several media. Redbourne, however, demanded the removal of the exposition based on a paragraph in the lease that Cinema du Parc has with Redbourne relating to “purely cinemagraphic use” of the premises. Arnold, however, asserted that the cinema’s hosting of a photo exposition would very much constitute cinemagraphic use of the premises. Officials with Cinema du Parc also pointed out that the cinema has hosted dozens of photo expositions in the past several years, and has never had a complaint from Redbourne, the landlord. “This move on the part of Redbourne is clearly political,” declared Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “Cinema du Parc is known for its ongoing expositions which touch on important issues of social concern, and Redbourne never had an issue in the past.” Last week, both Cinema du Parc and Place du Parc (the shopping mall housing the cinema and owned by Redbourne) received emails and calls from individuals unhappy with the Human Drama in Gaza exposition. The complaints accused the exposition of being anti-Israel, but stopped short of questioning the credibility of the exposition content. “The suffering of the 1.5 million people of Gaza is an important social issue like any other,” asserted Woodley. “The fact that certain people wish to stifle open discussion on Gaza is even more a reason to bring the debate out into the open.” According to CJPME, the exposition itself seeks to put a human face to the misery of the people of Gaza, and the poignant resilience of a people facing severe adversity. The captions accompanying the photos cite statistics and legal analyses of Israel’s 22-day assault on Gaza of last winter. The legal advisor to CJPME pointed out that if security forces from Redbourne were to attempt to forcibly remove the exposition, they would be considered trespassers. As such, Arnold concluded, the “Cinema staff have been advised to immediately call the police.” About CJPME – Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is a non-profit and secular organization bringing together men and women of all backgrounds who labour to see justice and peace take root again in the Middle East. Its mission is to empower decision-makers to view all sides with fairness and to promote the equitable and sustainable development of the region. For more information, please contact Grace Batchoun at 514-745-8491or [email protected]. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East www.cjpme.org More Info CJPME's Human Drama in Gaza Photo Exposition features 44 photos, taken before, during and after last winter's 22-day assault on Gaza by professional photographers from Israel, Palestine, and the West. Produced by CJPME, and funded through private donations, the Montreal stop at Cinema du Parc is the first in a series of cross-Canada shows. The Montreal Exposition began on Friday, Jan. 15th and was originally scheduled to continue through through Sunday, February 28th. The Exposition is open from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays, and from 3:00 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on weekends. All the photos and captions used in the Exposition can be found here, and a video trailer introducing the Exposition can be found here. Cinema du Parc has been great partner in the hosting of the Exposition in Montreal, and is standing its ground in the face of Redbourne's action.

Rabbi slammed for promoting 'genocide' The chief Palestinian negotiator has urged worldwide condemnation of Israel's genocidal figures after a top Israeli clergyman wished all Palestinians dead. Referring to the Palestinians, the founder and spiritual leader of Israel's ultra-orthodox Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said on Saturday, "All these evil people should perish from this world," Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported. He especially desired the demise of acting Palestinian Authority (PA) Chief Mahmoud Abbas, referring to him by name. The remarks raised eyebrows partially as it came from a party partnering with Premier Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud in the ruling coalition. They also preceded upcoming direct peace talks between Israel and the PA. The Palestinian official, Saeb Erekat, called on the international community "to condemn incitement to genocide by public figures in Israel," AFP reported. Yosef "is literally calling for a genocide against Palestinians, and there seems to be no response from the Israeli government," he said in a statement. "He is particularly calling for the assassination of...Abbas who within a few days will be sitting face to face with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Is this how the Israeli government prepares its public for a peace agreement?" Erekat pointed out. He said Tel Aviv had "to do more about peace and stop spreading hatred." The Shas spiritual leader made similar comments in April 2001, calling for the annihilation of Arabs.

Fifty years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned United States citizens against the military industrial complex but it seems that warning was not taken to heart. Author Russ Baker says fifty years later, it is much worse than what Eisenhower warned against, it keeps us in a state of low grade panic all the time.