Search Result in All

'Saudi royals suppressing citizens' - PressTV Global News - English

[22 Jan 2013] Indian army brutally suppressing Kashmir uprising - English

[25 Dec 2014] Andaz-e-Jahan | انداز جہاں | Brutally suppressing the people in eastern Saudi Arabia - Urdu

[23rd September 2016] Amnesty slams Bahrain for suppressing dissent | Press TV English

Unplugging our minds from the false ideas that have kept us asleep from the divine realities, Sayyid Haydar Hasanayn eloquently walks us through one of the significant principles of Islam: controlling ones anger, as elaborated upon by Imam Khamenei in the extraordinary book, “An Outline of Islamic Thought In the Quran”. #Unplugged #Islam #Quran #Ahlulbayt #ImamKhamenei #KhameneiTheGreat

Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan 22/02/2013 The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with the people of East Azerbaijan. The meeting was held on the anniversary of the uprising by the people of Tabriz on the 29th of Bahman of 1356. ‌ In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful I welcome all you dear brothers and sisters and the dear youth. In particular, I welcome the dear families of martyrs, religious scholars and government officials who have come here from distant places, brought a valuable gift of affection from the dear people of Azerbaijan on this occasion and delivered their message of resistance. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows great blessings and infinite mercy on all of you. I would tell you dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz including religious men and women that the presence of the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz has truly played a determining role in the movement of the Iranian nation throughout all the eras in our history - from 100, 150 years ago until today. And today nothing has changed. It is you who have managed to protect the dignity of our country and our nation against the enemies with your firm determination, your pride and your faith. And Azerbaijan has played an increasingly significant role in different arenas. Thirty-five years have passed since the 29th of Bahman of 1356. Today, in terms of faith, resistance and wisdom, Azerbaijan is even better than it was during those important and fateful times. There have been so many vicious plots to separate the people in different parts of the country. But these plots have backfired. It is you who have always managed to play a leading role. In fact, it is you who are the anchor of peace in this country. As you said in the poem you recited: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You are the peace in the heart of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Audience shout in the Azeri language, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are prepared to lay down our lives. We are Khamenei\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s soldiers.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"] One can clearly see that the dear people of Azerbaijan have a specific characteristic. This characteristic exists in other parts of the country, but in Azerbaijan it is more visible. This characteristic is that the political activities and the proud movement of the people of Azerbaijan in different eras - in the case of the Constitutional Movement, the military occupation of Azerbaijan and different other issues - were based on religion and religious faith. And they played a leading role in many of these issues. Despite the fact that the leftist intellectual movement and the movement which was dependent on the west were active in Azerbaijan since after the introduction of the unhealthy intellectual movement into our country and despite the fact that they were trying to separate the people from religion, the movement of the people was based on religion. If you take a look at the movements which were started in Azerbaijan - many of these movements were national movements, and the people of Azerbaijan were pioneers - you can see that despite the efforts of those leftist movements, the people and the leaders of these popular movements in Azerbaijan expressed their commitment to religious issues more openly than the people in other cities. In Tabriz, Sattar Khan used to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The fatwa of the ulama of Najaf is in my pocket\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That is to say, this great and brave man used to coordinate with the marja taqlids of Najaf. What he did was exactly the opposite of what eastern and western intellectual movements wanted to achieve at that time in the country. Today nothing has changed and nothing will change in the future either. The Iranian nation considers religious faith as the standard. I cited Azerbaijan as an example of this religious faith, but people throughout the country are, more or less, like this. The movement of the Iranian nation is one that is accompanied by pride, courage and a sense of responsibility. But it is based on religious teachings and religious faith. This is very valuable. That is why the dangers caused by global powers, which other nations are usually faced with and which make them waver, did not threaten the people of Iran and did not make them waver. When the enemies wanted to impose sanctions and exert pressures they said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We want to impose crippling sanctions on the people of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And they did this. Two, three days before the 22nd of Bahman, they put a new round of sanctions into the equation. Besides, a few months ago, in Mordad of this year, they did the same thing. That is to say, they increased their so-called pressures on the people before the 22nd of Bahman of this year. What do they hope to achieve? They do these things in the hope of weakening the people. What was the response of the people? The people of Iran responded by participating in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman more enthusiastically. All the people participated. People from different parts of the country participated. They participated with great spirit and with a smile on their faces. The people of Iran are such people. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the people of Iran deal a blow to the enemies. They strike the enemies and the opponents like an avalanche. This avalanche struck them this year too. I deem it necessary to express my gratitude again - even if one expresses his gratitude 100 times, one is not overdoing it - to the people of Iran for their glorious and impressive presence [in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman]. One should bow before such insight. The people of Iran are such people. I would tell you that in these conditions, the enemies have taken a passive role. Despite the fact that they pretend to be active, they are not active. The enemy has taken a passive role in the face of the Iranian nation. Enjoying firm determination, wisdom and faith, our people know what they want and they know the way to achieve their goals. They endure the hardships with great courage. Different political, military and economic weapons do not work on our nation. Therefore, the enemy has taken a passive role and for this reason, they make irrational moves. I would tell you that American politicians are irrational people. They make irrational statements. They act in an irrational and thuggish way. They expect other countries to give in to their unreasonable demands and their bullying. Well, some people give in to their demands. Some governments and some political personalities in certain countries give in to their bullying. But the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic will not give in. The Islamic Republic of Iran has many things to say. It has logical reasons. It has power and authority. For this reason, the Islamic Republic does not give in to irrational statements and actions. In what ways are they irrational? The sign of their irrationality is the contradictions between their words and actions. Their words are not in line with their actions. No other piece of evidence can show their irrationality more clearly. A reasonable person makes a convincing comment and then he sticks by it. These men, American politicians and their western followers, are not such people. They say a certain thing and make a certain claim, but they do exactly the opposite of what they have claimed or said. I would like to give a number of examples: They claim that they are committed to human rights. The Americans have raised the flag of human rights. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are committed to human rights not only in our country, America, but also in the entire world.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Well, this is a claim. What have they done in practice? In practice, they inflict the most serious harm on human rights and they hurl the biggest insult at human rights in different countries. Their secret prisons throughout the world, such as their prisons in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib and their attack on civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in different areas are examples of the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' claim to support human rights. Based on the news that is reported every day from Afghanistan and Pakistan, their drones both spy for them and pressure the people. Of course, as an American journal said a few days ago, these drones will be a source of trouble for them in the future. They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their pretext for attacking Iraq 11 years ago was that the regime of Saddam wanted to build nuclear weapons in Iraq. Of course, they went there and they did not find anything. It became clear that it was a lie. They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is while they support an evil government - the Zionist government - which has nuclear weapons and which threatens to use them. That is what they say and this is how they act. They say that they are committed to establishment of democracy in the world - I do not want to speak about the kind of democracy America itself has. Under this claim, they constantly confront the Islamic Republic which has the most genuine democracy in the region. This is while they shamelessly support countries in the region which do not know the first thing about democracy and in which the people have not seen ballot boxes even once. This is their commitment to democracy. Notice how different their words and actions are. They say that they want to resolve their issues with Iran. They have said this many times. Recently, they are speaking about it even more than before. They say that they want to negotiate and resolve their issues with Iran. This is what they say. But in practice, they resort to imposing sanctions and broadcasting negative propaganda. They publish inappropriate and false things about the Islamic Republic and the people of Iran. A few days ago the President of America delivered a speech about the nuclear issue of Iran. He spoke as if the conflict between Iran and America is over Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to build nuclear weapons. He said that they will do everything in their power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If we wanted to build nuclear weapons, how would you stop us? If Iran had decided to build nuclear weapons, America would not be able to stop it in any way. We do not want to build nuclear weapons and this is not because this will upset America, rather it is because of our beliefs. We believe that building nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity and they should not be built. Besides, we believe that the existing nuclear weapons should be destroyed. This is our belief. It has nothing to do with you [Americans]. If we did not have this belief and if we decided to build nuclear weapons, no power could stop us, as they could not stop other countries. They could not do this in India, Pakistan and North Korea. The Americans were opposed to development of nuclear weapons in these countries, but they built nuclear weapons. The Americans claim, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will not let Iran build nuclear weapons.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is deceptive talk. Is this an issue of nuclear weapons? Regarding Iran, the issue is not related to nuclear weapons. The issue is that you want to deny Iran its natural and inalienable right to enrich uranium and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes through using its domestic capacities. Of course, you cannot do this either and the Iranian nation will not renounce its right. American politicians make irrational statements. One cannot use logic when he speaks to an irrational person - after all, he is irrational. Irrational means thuggish. It means somebody who speaks nonsense. This is a fact which we have become aware of through our involvement in different global issues. We understand who our opposing side is and how he should be confronted. I have written down a few things to discuss with you dear brothers and sisters and the entire Iranian nation. Of course, these statements are addressed to the people of Iran. When they speak, when the American president speaks, when his companions and followers speak, they want to mislead public opinion -public opinion in the world, in the region or if they can, in our country. At the moment, I do not want to speak about public opinion in the world. The global media network, which is under the domination of the Zionists and the Americans, either does not reflect our statements or it reflects them in an incomplete or distorted way. Therefore, I speak to the people of Iran. The power of the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with public opinion in the world. The Islamic Republic has not gained its power and it has not achieved dignity and glory with the help of public opinion in the world. It has achieved these things with the help of the people of Iran. The firm and solid foundation which the Iranian nation has built and the news of which is quickly spreading throughout the world is based on the Iranian nation itself. I speak to the people of Iran. I will not address other nations, but they can listen if they want to. They can reflect on my statements or not reflect on them. But the people of Iran should know about these things. Therefore, the first point is that they are unreasonable. They speak without believing in what they say and their words and actions are different. The second point is that they have raised the issue of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Iranian officials should come to us so that we can sit and negotiate.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The same unreasonable behavior can be seen in their offer of negotiations. Their purpose is not to solve the problems and resolves the issues - I will explain this later. Their purpose is creating hype. They want to say to Muslim nations, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This was the Islamic Republic with all that intense determination and resistance. But finally, it had to negotiate with us. Even the Iranian nation ended up like this. What can you do?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They need negotiations in order to suppress countries which have just gained power, in which the breeze of Islamic Awakening has blown, countries which feel they have dignity because of Islam. They want to make these countries hopeless. Since the beginning of the Revolution, this was one of their goals. Since the beginning of the Revolution, one of their goals was to drag Iran to the negotiating table and make it deal with it. One of their goals was to gain the opportunity to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Did you see that finally Iran - which claimed to be independent and courageous and which claimed that it has stood up against us - was forced to come and sit at the negotiating table?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Today, they pursue the same goal. This is an important issue. When the purpose of negotiations is not resolving the main issues and when the purpose of negotiations is creating hype, it is clear that the opposing side, the Islamic Republic, is not naïve and it has not closed its eyes. It understands what your goal is. Therefore, it responds on the basis of your intentions. The third point is that in the eyes of the Americans and powers which seek domination, the true meaning of negotiations is accepting what they say at the negotiating table. This is their goal of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and talk so that you come to the conclusion that you should accept what you would not accept before.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They say in their propaganda about negotiations - you may have heard about it - that they should directly negotiate with Iran and they cause a stir and create hype about it. Even the statements they made today clearly conveyed the message that they want to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium and producing nuclear energy. This is their goal. They do not say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and negotiate so that Iran can give its own reasons and so that we stop pressuring them, imposing sanctions on them and interfering in political and security issues.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Rather, they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We should negotiate so that Iran accepts what we say.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This kind of negotiation does not serve any purpose. It will not reach any results. Even if Iran accepts to negotiate and even if our officials sit and negotiate with the Americans, what kind of negotiations is it when their goal is this [making Iran surrender]? It is obvious that Iran will not give up its rights. During negotiations, whenever they see that the opposing side speaks reasonably and they have nothing to say against Iran, they break off negotiations. Then, they say that Iran does not want to negotiate. Political networks as well as news networks are under their control and they broadcast propaganda. We have experienced this. During the past 15 years, two or three times the Americans sent a message about a specific issue. They insisted that there is a very important and a very critical issue and that we should sit and talk with them. Well, executive officials - usually one or two people - went to a certain place and spoke to them. As soon as these officials made their rational statements and the Americans found out that they have no response, the negotiations were broken off unilaterally. Of course, they achieved their propaganda purposes. This is our experience. Well, it is wrong to test something which has been already tested. The fourth point is that they pretend in their propaganda that if Iran sits at the negotiating table and negotiates with America, sanctions will be lifted. This is a lie too. Their goal is to make the people of Iran become eager to negotiate with America by promising to lift sanctions. They think that the people of Iran are exhausted by the sanctions and are frustrated. They think that everything is in a mess and that they can tell us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Well, come and negotiate with us so that we lift the sanctions.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They think this will cause the entire Iranian nation to ask them to negotiate. This is also one of their irrational and deceptive statements and it is a tool for bullying. First, as I said, when they ask us to negotiate with them, they do not really mean fair and rational negotiations. Negotiations mean that we should accept what they say and surrender so that they lift the sanctions. If the Iranian nation wanted to surrender, they would not have carried out a revolution. America was dominant over the issues of Iran and it did what it liked. The Iranian people carried out a revolution in order to free themselves from the yoke of America. Now should they surrender to you again? This is the first problem with their offer of negotiations. Another problem is that the sanctions will not be lifted with negotiations. I would tell you that the purpose of sanctions is something else. The purpose of sanctions is exhausting the people of Iran and separating them from the Islamic Republic. Even if negotiations are conducted but our people stay present on the scene and stand up for their rights, sanctions will continue. What will the Iranian nation do to counter this wrong idea that the enemies have? There is an idea in the minds of the opposing sides. Let us elaborate and analyze this idea. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic relies on the people. If we manage to separate the people from the Islamic Republic, the power to resist will be taken away from the Islamic Republic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is how the opposing side thinks. Well, this idea has two parts. The first part, that the Islamic Republic relies on the people, is accurate. There is no source of support for the Islamic Republic except the people. The people are the fortifications that protect the country and the Islamic Revolution. The second part, that they thought they can bring the people to their knees by imposing sanctions and bullying them on international, commercial and other such issues, is false. If they think that they can take away this source of support from the Islamic Republic, they are wrong. The Iranian nation will think of some ways to counter what the enemy wants to do. The Iranian nation is looking for economic blossoming, economic progress and complete prosperity. But it does not want to achieve this goal by being humiliated before the enemy. It wants to achieve this goal with its own capabilities, courage, advancements and with the capabilities of the youth. It does not want to achieve this with anything else. There is no doubt that sanctions exert pressures on the people and bother them. But there are two ways to approach these pressures. Weak nations surrender to the enemy when he exerts pressures and they bow and show regret before him. But a brave nation, like the Iranian nation, tries to use its own capabilities as soon as it sees that the enemy is exerting pressures and it tries to pass through the danger zone. And our nation will definitely do this. We have 30 years of experience in this regard. There are certain countries in the region which have been under the domination of America for more than 30 years. The governments in these countries have been servants of America. They have been obedient to America and they have been taking orders from it. What is their position? The Iranian nation has been putting up a resistance against America for more than 30 years. What is the position of the Iranian nation? In the face of 30 years of pressures by America, the Iranian nation has reached such a position - in terms of scientific, economic and cultural progress and in terms of international dignity, political influence and political power - that the people and government officials during the time of Pahlavi and Qajar regimes could not even dream of. We have experienced this. We have tested this. We have stood up against the pressures of America for 30 years. We have such a position. But there are nations which have been under the domination of America for 30 years and they are behind other countries to a great extent. We did not suffer a loss as a result of resisting. Resistance revives the inner strength of a nation. It makes it active. The sanctions which they impose will be helpful to the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, sanctions will help the Iranian nation achieve growth and blossoming. This is an important point. Well, you saw what the people did in the rallies. We cannot say that the people have no complaints about the high prices and the existing problems. Prices are high and there are certain economic problems and the people, particularly underprivileged people, feel them. But this did not make the people separate themselves from the Islamic Republic. The people know that the Islamic Republic, dear and powerful Islam and the officials who are committed to Islam, are the powerful hands which can solve the problems. They can solve the problems. Surrendering to the enemies will not solve any problems. The last point is that unlike American politicians, we are reasonable. Our officials are reasonable. Our people are reasonable. We accept rational statements and rational actions. If the Americans show that they will not bully us any more, if they show that they will not commit evil deeds, if they show that they will not say and do irrational things, if they show that they will respect the rights of the Iranian nation, if they show that they will not fuel the fire of discord in the country, if they show that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran - like the interference by supporting those who started the fitna in 1388 - then they will see that the Islamic Republic is benevolent and the people are reasonable. In the fitna of the year 1388, they supported those who started the fitna and they put social networks at the service of these people. In those days, a social network wanted to close down in order to fix some technical problems. They asked the network not to close down so that they could exert influence over the fitna. If they stop doing these things, then they will see that the Islamic Republic is well-wishing. The only way to establish relations with the Islamic Republic is this and there is no other way. They can establish relations with the Islamic Republic in such a way. The Americans should prove that they have good will. They should prove that they are not after bullying. If they prove this, then they will see that the Iranian nation will make an appropriate response. If they do not commit evil deeds, if they do not interfere, if they do not bully and if they acknowledge the rights of the Iranian nation, then an appropriate response will be given by the Iranian nation. I would like to say a few things about the internal issues of our country. This is an important issue. An event took place in the Majlis. It was a bad and inappropriate event. It made both the people and our elites unhappy. I became upset for two reasons. The first is the fact that the event itself happened and the second is the fact that the people are unhappy about this issue. In this event, the head of a certain branch made an accusation against the other two branches on the basis of an unproven allegation which had not even been considered by a court of law. This course of action was bad and inappropriate. These acts are against sharia and the law and they are immoral. They violate the basic rights of the people. One of the basic rights of the people is living in peace and in psychological and moral security. If a person is accused of corruption, one cannot accuse other people on the basis of this accusation. Even if he is found guilty - let alone the current case in which the accused has not been found guilty, he has not been summoned by the court and he has not come to trial - one should not accuse others. Accusing other people, the Majlis and the judiciary branch on the basis of an accusation that has been leveled against another person is an appropriate course of action. It is a wrong course of action. For the time being, I offer a piece of advice. This behavior is not appropriate for the Islamic Republic. On the other hand, the questioning [of the minister] in the Majlis was a wrong course of action. Questioning should serve a certain purpose. What is the purpose of questioning a minister - a few months before the end of this administration\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s term - over an issue which is not related to the minister? Why did they do this? I have heard that inside the Majlis, a number of people said inappropriate things. This course of action was also wrong. All these events are inappropriate for the Islamic Republic. Neither that accusation, nor that behavior, nor that questioning was appropriate. The things which the honorable Speaker of the Majlis said in his own defense were excessive. It was not necessary to do that. We are all brothers. When there is a common enemy in front of us and when we see plots, what should we do? Until today, the officials have always stayed by one another\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s side. Now, too, they should act like this. They should always act like this. I have always supported the officials of the three branches and the officials of the country. I will continue to support each person who has a responsibility. I will help him. But I do not like these acts. This kind of behavior is not in line with the oaths they take and with the promises they make. Take a look at the greatness of the people. These people deserve to be treated in a different way. Today, the officials should focus all their efforts on solving economic problems. Three or four years ago, during a speech which I delivered in the beginning of the year, I explicitly said to the people and the officials that the plot of the enemies of the Iranian nation would be to focus - more than everything else - on our economic issues. Well, you see that the enemies did this. Both the executive branch and the Majlis should focus all their efforts and all their attention on pursuing accurate economic policies. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the heads of the three branches of government about combating economic corruption. You should combat economic corruption. This problem is not solved by speaking about it. You should combat economic corruption in practice. You repeatedly speak about economic corruption. When did you combat economic corruption? What was done in practice? What did you do in practice? These issues make one distressed. Now that the enemies have increased their hostility, I expect the officials to strengthen their friendship. Piety, piety, piety! We expect the officials to focus all their efforts on solving the problems of the people by exercising patience, by suppressing unrestrained emotions and by taking the issues of the country into consideration. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this benevolent piece of advice will draw the attention of the officials, particularly high-ranking officials. They should be committed to this issue. I should add another point. The things that I said today and the complaints I made against a number of officials should not make some people shout slogans against such and such people. I am against this course of action. Some people label a certain person as anti-wilayat, anti-insight and anti-whatever. Then they shout slogans against him and create disruption in the Majlis. I am against these moves. I would like to speak openly about these issues. I am against the kind of events which happened in Qom. I am against the kind of events which happened at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) holy shrine. I asked the officials many times to prevent these things. Those who do such things - if they are really hezbollahi and religious - should stop doing them. You can see that we consider these moves as harmful to the country. We do not benefit from them. It is not helpful to set out to shout slogans against such and such people by releasing emotions. These slogans will not solve any problems. Keep this anger and these emotions for the time when it is necessary to express them. During the Sacred Defense Era, if basijis had decided to act at will, then the country would have been destroyed. Discipline and social order are necessary and it is necessary to take certain things into consideration. If these people do not pay any attention to these principles, then they should be treated in a different way. But those who pay attention to these principles and who believe they should not move against sharia, should take care not to make such moves. Thankfully the people of Iran have insight. I would tell you dear youth that the day when we are gone and you are in charge, the situation of the Iranian nation will be much better in terms of material and spiritual prosperity. The Iranian nation is moving towards light. There are bright prospects for us. We should watch our behavior. We should ask Allah the Exalted to help us. We should ask the immaculate souls of our martyrs and the immaculate soul of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) to help us. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you and I will benefit from the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake). Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings. http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1744&Itemid=4

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.

Iran strongly condemns remarks by Bahraini foreign minister that Tehran is interfering in the Arab kingdom\'s internal affairs. Iran\'s foreign ministry summoned the Bahraini charge d\'affaires in Tehran to protest the comments by Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said such remarks show the Manama officials\' confusion regarding the legal demands of the oppressed people of Bahrain. She also urged the small Persian Gulf state not to get support from foreign forces in suppressing anti-regime protests. Pro-democracy protesters have been holding rallies in Bahrain since 2011, calling for the Al Khalifa family to relinquish power. Scores of people have been killed and thousands arrested ever since.

[11 Mar 2014] The opposition in Bahrain calls for sweeping actions against the Manama regime - English

The Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution says the Daesh Takfiri terrorism is the product of the West\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s colonialist attitude. In a letter addressed to the youth who live in the West, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said certain powers, like the US, have been supporting terror in the Muslim world, and picking those who sponsor Takfiri terrorists as their allies. The leader said the West has thrown its weight behind its allies despite their backward political systems, while ruthlessly suppressing dynamic democracies in the region. He also indicated that recent terror attacks in Paris stemmed from wrong policies that have brought the West to an impasse. The leader added that Western mentality breeds violence with its deceitful policies, division of terrorism into good and bad, and giving priority to state interests over human values and ethics. Ayatollah Khamenei also touched on the plight of the Palestinian people slamming the West\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s double standard regarding Israel’s atrocities. Mike Harris Financial Editor, Veterans Today

What is the reaction of certain naive people whenever it is said that a certain incident was caused by a foreign enemy? And which spying agencies do these people try to defend? Furthermore, has the American President or the American House of Representatives ever supported violent rioters anywhere in the world? Additionally, is there any record of the American mass media supporting unruly rioters? But then, why are they supporting a handful rioters creating unrest in Iran? Why is the American capitalist mass media giving such vast coverage to the riots in Iran and overamplifying it and blowing it out of proportion with their mostly fraudulent reports? And why is there little to no coverage of protests taking place in other parts of the world, especially in France, where the police are brutally suppressing the protesters protesting against the skyrocketing living costs and economic crises? Moreover, do these so-called supporters of the rioters actually care about the death of a girl or is it just another one of their dirty tactics to attack the Islamic Republic? And finally, what is the hidden agenda behind all this media coverage and uproar? Imam Khamenei addresses the current events and openly states that there are foreign hands at play behind the scenes of these incidents.

- The tragedy of the Lady of Islam, Bibi Fatima, and the uncertainty about the location of her burial - The shrines of the Prophet\'s family and companions in Baqi were destroyed almost a century ago when the Wahhabis gained control of Medina - In stark contrast, the UN Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Miguel Angel Moratinos, who is in charge of the UN\'s Plan of Action to Safeguard Religious Sites, visited the Grand Ayatullah Sayyid ‘Ali Sistani. - They discussed promoting a culture of peaceful coexistence, rejecting violence and hatred, establishing values of harmoney that are based on genuine concern for rights and mutual respect among adherents of different religions - Our Grand Marja‘ pointed out that the tragidies suffered by many people of different ethnic & social groups in many parts of the world have been the result of three specific issues - Looking at the rise of extremist movements that use blind violence against the defenceless - For centuries, Muslim dynasties dominated the Middle Eastern area from north Africa and the Arab Middle East to Asia Minor and Eastern Europe – Umayyid, ‘Abbāsid, and Othmani – they didn’t have any agenda that whatever land they occupy and dominate, the first act to be done was to demolish the religious sites of other faiths. - It all started with the Saudis. Unfortunately, because of its oil, the West bows down to them and ignores their crimes in suppressing the minorities. - One passage from the speech of Bibi Fāṭimah (a) discussing 8 important pillars of our faith, and their positive effects Friday Juma Khutba - December 9th, 2022 Donate towards our programs today: https://jaffari.org/donate/ Jaffari Community Centre (JCC Live)