[02 Feb 2014] Iran taking UK company to High Court over non-delivered...
Iran is taking a government-owned British company to the High Court over purchased weaponry that was never delivered.
According to a report by The...
Iran is taking a government-owned British company to the High Court over purchased weaponry that was never delivered.
According to a report by The Independent, Tehran is pushing for six hundred fifty seven million dollars in compensation. The dispute goes back to 35 years ago when the deposed Shah of Iran paid the International Military Services 1 billion dollars for Chieftain battle tanks and repair vehicles. The arsenal was, however, not fully delivered, as a result of the 19-79 Islamic Revolution. A spokesman for the British Ministry of Defense has said that they hope a settlement could be reached before legal proceedings begin. He also said no money will be paid to Iran while the EU sanctions remain in place. The European Union Council has already suspended part of the sanctions following the interim nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers in November 2013.
5m:39s
5062
[82] Hadith Explanation by Imam Khamenei | Taking Lessons & Warnings...
[82] Hadith Explanation by Imam Khamenei | Taking Lessons & Warnings
Ayatollah Khamenei explains a hadith of Prophet Muhammad (S)...
[82] Hadith Explanation by Imam Khamenei | Taking Lessons & Warnings
Ayatollah Khamenei explains a hadith of Prophet Muhammad (S) regarding taking lessons, warnings, and admonitions. He explains why these are important and how essential it is to analyze the factor(s) triggering success or failure.
6m:0s
7647
Video Tags:
Qomtv,
Qomtv
Productions,
hadith,
explanation,
imam
khamenei,
taking
lessons,
warnings,
ayatollah,
prophet
muhammad,
admonitions,
essential,
analyze,
factor,
success,
failure
[19 June 2012] P5 Plus 1 must stop taking orders from Israel - English
[19 June 2012] P5 Plus 1 must stop taking orders from Israel - English
Iran says it will seek a three-step strategy in the ongoing round of talks...
[19 June 2012] P5 Plus 1 must stop taking orders from Israel - English
Iran says it will seek a three-step strategy in the ongoing round of talks with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) in Moscow.
A member of the Iranian negotiating delegation, speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Monday that during the first phase of the Moscow talks, the Iranian delegation will criticize the other party for squandering chances after the negotiations in Baghdad and refusing to hold deputy-level talks. He said the P5+1 has thus dealt a blow to the talks in Moscow.
The Iranian diplomat said Tehran will also give clear and well-documented responses based on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Press TV has conducted an interview with Hamid Reza Emadi, a political commentator in Tehran, to further shed light on the issue
4m:31s
7221
[29 Oct 2013] In Egypt, daily unrest is taking toll after president...
Egypt\'s political situation is out on a limb: although there is an interim government in place, it seems as if the most populous Arab country is...
Egypt\'s political situation is out on a limb: although there is an interim government in place, it seems as if the most populous Arab country is left without an effective ruler. Democratically-elected President Mohamed Morsi was ousted by the military in July but protests for and against him continue nearly on a daily basis. The daily unrest is taking the toll on the country.
3m:1s
4943
[30 Oct 2013] In Iran, Robotic games are getting more focused on...
Robotics is picking up in Iran and more and more events are taking place in the country to showcase robots\' different uses. Press TV\'s Pedram...
Robotics is picking up in Iran and more and more events are taking place in the country to showcase robots\' different uses. Press TV\'s Pedram Khodadadi visited one such event in the capital Tehran.
2m:46s
5739
[25 Nov 2013] British foreign secretary urges israel not to undermine...
Britain calls on israel to avoid taking any action that would disrupt the nuclear deal with Iran.
Hague urged Tel Aviv and others opposing the...
Britain calls on israel to avoid taking any action that would disrupt the nuclear deal with Iran.
Hague urged Tel Aviv and others opposing the deal to confine their criticism to rhetoric. He told parliament he hoped a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Tehran could be reached within a year. His remarks come after Israel denounced the agreement as a historic mistake.
0m:39s
4630
[28 Nov 2013] A nuclear movie hits theatres in Iran - English
A different look at Iran\'s nuclear talks --- taking things to a personal level. All Alone is a movie about an Iranian boy called Ranger who...
A different look at Iran\'s nuclear talks --- taking things to a personal level. All Alone is a movie about an Iranian boy called Ranger who becomes friends with a Russian boy whose father works at the Bushehr nuclear power plant.
2m:34s
6547
[02 Dec 2013] Bahrain sentenced 16 Shia activists to 7 years in prison -...
A Bahraini court has sentenced 16 Shia activists to seven years in prison each for taking part in anti-government protests.
This is the latest...
A Bahraini court has sentenced 16 Shia activists to seven years in prison each for taking part in anti-government protests.
This is the latest in a series of convictions the Bahraini regime has imposed against protesters - among them prominent rights activist Nabil Rajab. Rajab was arrested in late 2012 and is currently serving a two-year sentence. Rights groups have repeatedly called for his release but Bahraini authorities have refused to free him from jail. The arrests and trials come against the backdrop of unabated protests in the Persian Gulf Kingdom against the rule of the Al Khalifah monarchy.
0m:34s
6001
[06 Dec 2013] P5 1 talks with Iran cause of policy shift toward Syria:...
The Syrian army has been recently re-taking parts of Damascus from the hands of foreign-backed militants. We discussed that with retired army...
The Syrian army has been recently re-taking parts of Damascus from the hands of foreign-backed militants. We discussed that with retired army general Elias Hanna.
2m:0s
4882
[25 Dec 2013] Moscow exhibition highlights Syria conflict - English
The main aim of this exhibition is to tell the truth about the armed conflict in Syria. Several journalists, taking part in the event, have...
The main aim of this exhibition is to tell the truth about the armed conflict in Syria. Several journalists, taking part in the event, have recently visited the crisis-hit Arab nation and collected exclusive photographs and videos. They\'ve also brought back various objects with them which give the audience a feeling of being there.
Among them is this wrecked car. It was loaded with over a ton of explosives. It is part of the evidence of a suicide bomb attack carried out in Damascus on 21 February just outside the Russian Embassy in which dozens of people were killed. This car was travelling behind a truck which was exploded on that fateful day. Its driver got injured before he could detonate the explosives. The car itself was badly damaged but police managed to removed the explosives safely. The photographers also managed to visit areas targeted by chemical weapons. They saw ruined buildings - including hospitals, schools and churches. They weren\'t allowed to film the actual army operations against militants. However, their main aim was to capture its devastating impacts. The organizers of the exhibition say the people they met in Syria remain hopeful that the conflict will end soon. However, this unique exhibition allows people elsewhere to take a glimpse of deadly carnage and devastations in Syria.
2m:8s
5522
[10 Feb 2014] Millions of people taking to streets to mark anniv. of...
With only hours to the beginning of rallies marking the 35th anniversary of the victory of Iran\'s Islamic Revolution, celebrations start across...
With only hours to the beginning of rallies marking the 35th anniversary of the victory of Iran\'s Islamic Revolution, celebrations start across the country. As Saman Kojouri reports over 250 foreign reporters are to cover the national event on Tuesday.
2m:50s
4563
Video Tags:
Qom,
Tv,
QomTV,
Wilayat,
al-Faqih,
Reformism,
Ayatullah,
Ali,
Khamenei,
Leader,
Leader
of
Islam,
Leader
of
Muslims,
Ummah,
Agha,
Qasemi,
[15] Hadith Explanation by Imam Khamenei | Taking Lessons from...
Ayatullah Khamenei explains in the light of a lesson-taking narration that a believer can never be stung from the same hole twice.
Ayatullah Khamenei explains in the light of a lesson-taking narration that a believer can never be stung from the same hole twice.
4m:35s
11645
Video Tags:
Qom,
TV,
QomTV,
Leader
of
Islam,
Leader
of
Muslim,
Sayyid,
Ali,
Khamenei,
Rahabr,
Ayatullah,
Hadith,
Explanation,
Narration,
Lessons,
Occurence,
Social Etiquettes 10 | Etiquettes of Shaking Hands 3 | Farsi Sub English
This session:
- Quickly taking away our hand
- The method of Prophet (S)
- The result of shaking hands
- Two types of effects of...
This session:
- Quickly taking away our hand
- The method of Prophet (S)
- The result of shaking hands
- Two types of effects of shaking hands
- Treatment for enmity
Hujjatul Islam Haq Panah is a Howza teacher in Qom, Iran.
5m:10s
3693
Video Tags:
Qomtv,
QomtvProductions,
Iran,
hujjatul-islam,
haq
panah,
howza,
qom,
iran,
teacher,
Islamic
Etiquettes,
Adaab,
Series,
Shaking,
Hands,
Quickly,
taking,
method,
Prophet,
result,
effects,
Treatment,
enmity,
What is Ghusl (ritual bath) and How do we Perform it? |...
A video tutorial by Sayyid Samer L. Al-Hakim explaining the process of GHUSL. Ghusl becomes mandatory in certain circumstances and if one does not...
A video tutorial by Sayyid Samer L. Al-Hakim explaining the process of GHUSL. Ghusl becomes mandatory in certain circumstances and if one does not perform it, it will be a barrier between the Muslim and certain Islamic rituals that he/she must perform.
Skip to:
0:25 - for when Ghusl becomes obligatory
0:54 - Taking a shower is not necessarily the same as a Ghusl!
2:19 - for the process of Ghusl itself
#MicroFiqh #Ahkam #Fiqh
5m:9s
2586
Video Tags:
islamicpulse,
production,
ghusl,
ritual
bath,
microfiqh,
sayyid
samer
al
hakim,
process,
perform
ritual
bath,
shia
fiqh,
ghusl
mandatory,
barriers,
muslim,
islamic
rituals,
taking
shower,
ahkam,
fiqh,
fiqh
e
jafariya,
Dars Kharij | Osool 15 | Taking time as a restriction in Istishaab...
ۧÙŰȘÙŰ”ÙÙ ŰšÙÙ ŰŁŰźŰ° ۧÙŰČÙ
Ű§Ù ÙÙŰŻŰ§Ù ÙÙÙŰčÙ ŰŁÙ ŰžŰ±ÙŰ§Ù ÙÙ - ۧ۳ŰȘŰ”Űۧۚ ŰčŰŻÙ
ۧÙŰșۧÙŰ©
ۧÙŰŽÙ ÙÙ ŰšÙۧۥ...
ۧÙŰȘÙŰ”ÙÙ ŰšÙÙ ŰŁŰźŰ° ۧÙŰČÙ
Ű§Ù ÙÙŰŻŰ§Ù ÙÙÙŰčÙ ŰŁÙ ŰžŰ±ÙŰ§Ù ÙÙ - ۧ۳ŰȘŰ”Űۧۚ ŰčŰŻÙ
ۧÙŰșۧÙŰ©
ۧÙŰŽÙ ÙÙ ŰšÙۧۥ ۧÙŰÙÙ
ŰšŰčŰŻ ۧÙŰșۧÙŰ© ÙۧŰŰȘÙ
Ű§Ù ŰȘŰčŰŻŰŻ ۧÙÙ
Ű·ÙÙŰš
12/11/2020
No knowledge, respect or position is claimed by the speaker. Ù Ű§ÙÙÛ Ű§ÙŰčۧÙÙ
Not for fame or any worldy benefit.
Only for the sake of Allah.
۱ۚ ŰČŰŻÙÛ ŰčÙÙ
ۧ
29m:45s
977
[26 May 2012] US accomplice to Bahrain regime crimes - English
The Bahraini regime forces backed by troops from Saudi Arabia have once again attacked protesters in the tiny Persian Gulf littoral state....
The Bahraini regime forces backed by troops from Saudi Arabia have once again attacked protesters in the tiny Persian Gulf littoral state.
Security forces on Friday fired teargas and sound grenades at the demonstrating crowds in several towns and villages around the Bahraini capital, Manama.
Clashes then erupted between government forces and the pro-democracy protesters demanding the ouster of the Al Khalifa regime. Several people were injured during the demonstrations. The protesters also voiced their anger at the US government for its support of the Manama regime.
Anti-American sentiments are high in Bahrain after Washington announced earlier this month that it would resume arms sales to Bahrain. However, Bahraini opposition groups and activists condemned the decision, saying it could encourage further human rights violations in the Persian Gulf country.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Kamel Wazni, political analyst, to hear his opinion on this issue. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.
Press TV: First of all we are hearing slogans on the streets in Bahrain against the United States now besides those slogans that were against the regime. People it seems are now very strongly and clearly saying that they want the United States to cut its support for the Manama regime, however we are seeing that support continue.
Do you think that these slogans are going to be heard by Washington?
Wazni: Obviously they will resonate in the White House and on the streets of America because this is the voice of the people and for very long time the Americans felt they are not mentioned on the streets and the Americans know sometimes this hostility that is taking place by the Bahrainis because they continue support of the Americans for the Bahraini regime and the approval of the Americans to sell weapons and arms to the Bahraini regime despite the crackdown that is taking place by the Bahraini regime against the civilian demonstrators of the country.
I think there is voice on the streets saying anyone who sided with the criminals who are committing crimes against humanity should be condemned and today because the Bahraini authority, the Bahraini monarchy is committing crime and America being accomplice to this crime, then you see the people are voicing their sentiment and making their voice to be heard across the world.
They are not intimidated, they are not afraid. They wanted democratic system and a country, that is the basic principle of human dignity to live free in his own or her own country where will be no discrimination, no crackdown, no torture.
This is the basic principle of any human wanted to live in peace and prosperity and the Americans by siding with the Bahraini regime preventing the aspiration of the Bahraini people to make this happen so the Americans should not be shocked by what they are hearing. That is what they actually worked on by helping the Bahraini authority and if Obama is listening and Mrs. Clinton should listen to the human rights when they actually condemn the torture that is taking place by the Bahraini government.
The systematic torture that is taking [place] day after day should be heard by the American administration.
There are a lot of committees being established by the UN bodies, by even the King and they all indicated there is a huge torture and killing taking place on the streets of Bahrain. So is anybody listening?
Press TV: What you referred there to the United Nations also other human rights groups we know for instance that the UN Human Rights Council recently in Geneva started to discuss the situation in Bahrain. We know groups like Amnesty International and other human rights organizations in and outside of Bahrain have been saying they have documents and proved that these violations are taking place but does that mean that they are going to give any support to the Bahraini revolutionaries and do you think without that support on the ground the Bahraini revolution can get anywhere?
Wazni: Well obviously the public opinion on the international appeal is important but eventually the legwork has to be done by the people of Bahrain because the people of Bahrain made a pledge and they are determined to carry their own cause despite all the obstacles and all the atrocity that is committed by the Bahraini regime against the civilian in Bahrain.
But having the public support of the international community from the UN, from other bodies is actually attested to the reality that is taking place.
There is a crime taking place in Bahrain by the monarchy, by the royal family supported by the Americans and somebody has to listen but I do not think the Bahraini people are counting on the West or the Americans because they think the Americans are participant in what is taking place in Bahrain and despite all of that they have the will and the determination to carry their cause to the end.
They know the sacrifice and they are willing to take that sacrifice and we hear the leadership of the Bahraini talking, when we hear Sheikh Ghasem say this is the will of the people and they will carry their duty to bring honorable justice to Bahrain despite all the killing and torture [that] is committed by the Bahraini with the help of the Saudis.
The people will prevail in the end, will be costly process but you have to trust the people and the people will carry their duties.
6m:57s
10632
[English Translation] Interview Bashar Al-Asad - President Syria on...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the...
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 didnât take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesnât fall? What if President Assad doesnât 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 enemyâs 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 leadershipâs 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 Peopleâs 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 donât 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 didnât 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 peopleâs 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 â these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Letâs be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallahâs speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words âthe regime.â 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 âregime.â 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 âliberate Damascusâ 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 didnât. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why havenât 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 havenât 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 â even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir â 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 havenât 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 whatâs 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 Israelâs 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 Israelâs involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesnât want escalation or doesnât 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. Israelâs 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 Israelâs 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 didnât 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. Thatâs 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 Syriaâs 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 donât think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Donât 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 publicâs 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 armyâs 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 Netanyahuâs 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 donât 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 havenât actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I donât know who proposed the initiative; I donât care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. Youâll 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 â which doesnât 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 shouldnât 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: Letâs talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syriaâs 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 doesnât 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: Letâs 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 donât want a role for al-Assad in Syriaâs 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 donât know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, thatâs 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 shouldnât 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 Syriaâs 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 donât 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 whatâs 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. Letâs 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 hasnât; 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 hasnât. 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. Iâm not criticizing the Lebanese government - Iâm talking about general principles. I donât want it to be said that Iâm 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 Lebanonâs policy of dissociation, we donât believe this is realistically possible. When my neighborâs house is on fire, I cannot say that itâs 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 wouldnât have been able to succeed militarily if they hadnât 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 Lebanonâs strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a manâs 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 Lebanonâs weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanonâs strength lies in its strength. Lebanonâs 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 werenât so confident we wouldnât 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.
33m:34s
12408
[Arabic] ÙÙۧۥ ۟ۧ۔ Ù
Űč ۧÙ۱ۊÙŰł ۚێۧ۱ ۧÙۣ۳ۯ - Bashar...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the...
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 didnât take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesnât fall? What if President Assad doesnât 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 enemyâs 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 leadershipâs 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 Peopleâs 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 donât 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 didnât 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 peopleâs 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 â these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Letâs be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallahâs speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words âthe regime.â 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 âregime.â 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 âliberate Damascusâ 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 didnât. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why havenât 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 havenât 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 â even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir â 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 havenât 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 whatâs 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 Israelâs 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 Israelâs involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesnât want escalation or doesnât 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. Israelâs 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 Israelâs 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 didnât 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. Thatâs 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 Syriaâs 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 donât think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Donât 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 publicâs 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 armyâs 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 Netanyahuâs 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 donât 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 havenât actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I donât know who proposed the initiative; I donât care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. Youâll 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 â which doesnât 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 shouldnât 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: Letâs talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syriaâs 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 doesnât 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: Letâs 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 donât want a role for al-Assad in Syriaâs 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 donât know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, thatâs 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 shouldnât 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 Syriaâs 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 donât 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 whatâs 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. Letâs 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 hasnât; 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 hasnât. 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. Iâm not criticizing the Lebanese government - Iâm talking about general principles. I donât want it to be said that Iâm 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 Lebanonâs policy of dissociation, we donât believe this is realistically possible. When my neighborâs house is on fire, I cannot say that itâs 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 wouldnât have been able to succeed militarily if they hadnât 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 Lebanonâs strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a manâs 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 Lebanonâs weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanonâs strength lies in its strength. Lebanonâs 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 werenât so confident we wouldnât 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.
34m:40s
12973