Search Result in All

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.

[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.

Kids Program - Song About Taking Pictures and Saving it - Farsi

Kids Program - Kids song about taking pictures - Farsi

[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

[04 August 13] Andaz-e-Jahan - Oath taking ceremony of President Rohani | صدر روحانی کی حلف برداری - Urdu

[06 August 13] Andaz-e-Jahan - Oath taking ceremony of President Rohaniصدر روحانی کی حلف برداری Urdu

[07 Oct 2013] In Saudi Arabia people are taking to social networks to express their frustrations - English

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.

[23 Aug 2014] Misrata militants claim taking Tripoli Airport after fighting nationalists in Libya - English

[04 June 2015] Why didn\'t US stop ISIL taking over Ramadi? - George Galloway - Comment - English

[03 Sep 2015] 50,000 volunteer forces taking part in drill in Tehran - English

PressTv Report

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[09] Hadith Explanation by Imam Khamenei | Taking Lessons and Receiving Admonition

Ayatullah Khamenei explains in the light of a lesson-taking narration that a believer can never be stung from the same hole twice.

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.

التفصيل بين أخذ الزمان قيداً للفعل أو ظرفاً له - استصحاب عدم الغاية الشك في بقاء الحكم بعد الغاية لاحتمال تعدد المطلوب 12/11/2020 No knowledge, respect or position is claimed by the speaker. و اللہ العالم Not for fame or any worldy benefit. Only for the sake of Allah. رب زدنی علما

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.

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

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

The following is the full text of the speech delivered on September 5, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with the chairman and members of the Assembly of Experts.The meeting was held on the occasion of the 14th Congress of the Assembly of Experts which was held on the 12th and 13th of Shahrivar. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful I would like to welcome the honorable gentlemen and the ulama and seminary scholars who are outstanding personalities from throughout the country and who have thankfully gathered in this meeting. Although the responsibilities of the Assembly of Experts have been defined in the Constitution, the arrangement of this meeting has resulted in the generation of different discussions about different arenas of the country and the expression of different opinions by the gentlemen. Well, executive officials are also present in this meeting. Fortunately, the esteemed President and a number of other honorable officials are also members of this assembly and this has boosted the hope that the opinions of the gentlemen in this meeting will receive more attention. I hope that this will be done and we too will help, within the scope of our capabilities and responsibilities, for the gentlemen to achieve the stated matters. I deem it necessary to point out that your participation in the funeral procession of the [unknown war] martyrs - which was held in the beginning of this congress - was very valuable and constructive. When the people see that honorable and great personalities, such as the esteemed chairman of the Assembly of Experts and other personalities, pay their respects to the bodies and graves of martyrs - whom they do not know - and participate in their funeral procession because of the fact that they are the martyrs of the path of the Revolution and the path of righteousness, this will be a lesson for our society. And I will say that our country and our society will be in need of keeping the memory of the martyrs alive and preserving their path for a very long time. The point that I would like to make is that on different levels of decision- making for the Islamic Republic, it is our responsibility to adopt a comprehensive outlook towards the issues of the country. It is obvious that different events - on regional, international and domestic levels - occur which are beyond our power to prevent. The Islamic Republic, the officials, the people and those who protect the foundations of the Islamic Republic have certain responsibilities. These responsibilities cannot be defined on the basis of the events which occur. That is to say, when something happens, we cannot make a certain move and adopt a certain position in an inactive way. This should not be done. This means that the Islamic Republic is being dragged into different events. It is necessary to preserve our comprehensive outlook towards the issues of the country and we should adopt positions and identify events with this comprehensive outlook. Thankfully, this comprehensive outlook has dominated the country until today. It is not the case that officials have ignored this issue since the beginning of the Revolution until today. The Islamic Republic was formed amid a whirlwind of events. This has been repeatedly mentioned, but we should not forget that the heart of this statement is the preservation of God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s religion in people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s lives, in society and in our country. The heart of this statement is the formation of our social lives on the basis of sharia, the divine religion and the divine values and rules. The formation of such a government in a world which was quickly moving towards materialism was like a miracle and this miracle happened. When the Islamic Republic was formed, there was an opposition to the issue of reliance on Islam. We should not say that their opposition and enmity was because of our independence or because our policy of fighting against global arrogance. Of course, this is true and this is one reason for their enmity, but fighting against global arrogance grew out of the heart of Islam. Our democracy grew out of the heart of Islam as well. It has been said many times that when we speak about religious democracy, this does not mean an unusual combination between democracy and religion. This is not the case. Our democracy has originated from religion and Islam has shown us this path. We managed to form the Islamic Republic with the guidance of Islam. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, it will be the same in the future. As a result of this belief in Islam, the enemies have focused their attention on Islam. If they can take Islam away from the Islamic Republic, the products of Islam will naturally be destroyed and undermined. Issues should be analyzed by adopting this outlook. There are certain deployments in the world and we are always one side of things in many of these deployments. We should see who and what our opposing side is. We should see why it shows hostility towards us and why we put up a resistance against it. We should take a look at these things with a comprehensive outlook. Allah the Exalted says, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Is then one who walks headlong, with his face groveling, better guided- or one who walks evenly on a straight path?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [The Holy Quran, 67: 22] The meaning of \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"walks evenly on a straight path\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is that we should see - with open eyes, with wisdom and foresight and by considering all aspects - what the goal is, how we should achieve it and what the existing realities are. We should make a decision and move forward by paying attention to these things. Today, you can see that different events are happening in our region. For several years up until today, global arrogance has chosen West Asia as a place where it can launch its attacks. But despite the presence of arrogant powers in the region and despite their activities, Islamic Awakening has emerged. And I will tell you that Islamic Awakening has not come to an end. It is not the case that we can think Islamic Awakening has been destroyed by the events which have taken place in a number of countries. Islamic Awakening is not like a mere political event or a coup d\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'état. It is not like a process in which power is transferred from one individual to another. Islamic Awakening means the emergence of a kind of awareness and self-confidence which is based on Islam. Under certain circumstances, this Islamic Awakening created certain events in North Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and, before these countries, in Sudan. In other countries too, there is an enormous potential for such events. We should not think that Islamic Awakening has been destroyed. Islamic Awakening is a reality which is hidden beneath the outer layers of Islamic societies. This is why the people in any country which claims to be oriented towards Islam vote for an Islamic government. This is a sign of people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s orientation towards and attention to Islam. Therefore, Islamic Awakening is a very great event and despite the efforts of global arrogance, this event has taken place. It was not what global arrogance wanted. Therefore, it is natural for the opposing side to react to it. Today, we are witnessing the reactions of the camp of the enemies. These reactions and responses can be seen in East Asia - that is to say, in Pakistan and Afghanistan - and the farthest corners of West Asia such as Syria and Lebanon. Arrogant powers - the government of the United States of America being the outstanding power among these arrogant powers - have defined certain interests for themselves based on their colonial outlook. This outlook is the same as the colonial outlook which they adopted in the 19th century, but it has a different form. And they are trying to solve all the regional issues by promoting the interests which they have defined for themselves. They are doing the same thing in Syria and Bahrain. The presence of global arrogance in the region is one which is based on transgression, oppression and greed and which wants to destroy every resistance which is put up against arrogant powers. Of course, thankfully, they have not managed and will not manage to do this. This region has enormous wealth and it has a very important geographical and natural location. Therefore, it is natural for them to pay attention to this region. If one takes a look at what they say and what they have already done, he will see that their goal is to possess and establish their domination over the region by making the Zionist regime play a pivotal role. They are after achieving this goal. As you can see, on the issue of the latest events in Syria, the excuse which they have recently made for their interference is the use of chemical weapons in this country. Of course, with sophistry and clever use of reasons, they are trying to pretend that they want to interfere on humanitarian grounds. Who in the world does not know that this is a false claim? Undoubtedly, what is not important at all for American politicians is humanitarian needs. These are the people who kept, for many years, thousands of prisoners in Guantanamo prisons and, before that, in Abu Ghraib in Iraq while there were not any trials for these prisoners. They were imprisoned just because of certain allegations. A number of them are still in prison. Well, is this humanitarian? These are the people who saw the heavy bombardment [with chemical weapons] of the region - whether what happened in Iraq\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Halabja or what happened in our cities such as Sardasht and other cities - which was conducted by Saddam, but who did not at all react. Not only did they not react, but they also helped Saddam. Given that the Americans did not help Saddam by giving him chemical weapons - of course, westerners gave him chemical weapons and there is no doubt about this because we have the information which is related to this issue - they at least saw what happened. They became aware of this, but they did not express any opposition. This is the way they show their humanitarian support. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, they fire a volley of bullets at wedding caravans and kill many people. In Iraq, they killed hundreds of thousands of people with oppressive measures. Today too, their agents are still doing the same things, but they behave in an indifferent way. No one in the world believes that the Americans care about humanitarian issues. Of course, they use sophistry and give clever reasons, but they say such things to justify their own moves. We believe that they are doing is a mistake. On this issue, they will receive a serious blow and they will feel it. They will definitely suffer a loss in this regard and there is no doubt about this. Well, this is the condition of the region. The Islamic Republic was formed amid a whirlwind of events. At that time, it stood up against different hostile groups for many years. Not only was the Islamic Republic and its slogans not weakened and undermined, but it also became stronger, in the real sense of the word, on a daily basis. Today, the Islamic Republic is completely different - in terms of power, influence and domestic capabilities - from the Islamic Republic which existed 25, 30 years ago and today, its slogans are firm. Therefore, it should know what it wants to do by taking a look at its miraculous background and paying attention to the plots of the enemy in the region. Our responsibility, the responsibility of all the officials of the country and the responsibility of the Islamic Republic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s government is to pay attention to three great criteria for all decisions and actions: The first criterion is the ideals and goals of the Islamic Republic. These ideals and goals should never be ignored. We can refer to one of the most important ideals of the Islamic Republic in a short phrase: ‘Creating an Islamic civilization\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'. Islamic civilization means an environment in which we can achieve growth in spiritual and material areas and in which we can attain the ultimate goal for which Allah the Exalted has created us. It means living a good and dignified life. Islamic civilization means building a dignified, powerful, confident and innovative individual who can improve the natural world. This is the goal and ideal of the Islamic Republic. The second criterion is the methods and guidelines which help us achieve these goals. These are general guidelines and they should be identified. These guidelines are relying on Islam and taking care not to become the oppressor or the oppressed in different interactions. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Be an enemy of tyrants and oppressors and be a friend and helper of those who are oppressed and tyrannized.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 47] This is a responsibility. This is a general guideline. Reliance on the votes of the people and reliance on what helps us establish democracy and other such things constitute the main policies and the major guidelines of the Islamic Republic for achieving ideals. Other guidelines are communal work, communal effort, communal innovation, national unity and other such things. And the third criterion is taking realities into consideration. We should see realities. In a meeting which was held in the auspicious month of Ramadan, I said to officials of the Islamic Republic that what we need is a kind of idealism which takes realities into consideration. We should gain a proper understanding of realities. We should take a look at realities and see what our weak and strong points are and we should know what prevents us from moving forward. We should gain a proper understanding of realities. In that meeting, I referred to a number of sweet realities which exist in our country. We should not always take a look at our weak points and shortcomings. The emergence of outstanding ideas and thoughts, the existence of active and innovative elements, the promotion of religious teachings and spiritual concepts among many youth, the preservation of religious and Islamic slogans, and the increasing influence of the Islamic Republic in the region and in the entire world constitute a number of the existing realities. These realities should be seen. Of course, besides these sweet realities, there are a number of bitter realities. This is similar to our [personal] lives which is a combination of sweetness and bitterness. By relying on and strengthening sweet realities, we should try to decrease bitter realities or make them fade away. These three elements should receive attention. Ideals and the guidelines which are necessary to achieve these ideals should not be ignored. Of course, realities should be taken into consideration as well. If we do not take realities into consideration, we will not tread our path in the right way. However, realities should not prevent us from treading our path. If the existence of a rock makes us turn back from our path, we have made a mistake. Also, if the existence of this rock is ignored and if we tread the path in a careless way, we have made another mistake. But if we take a look and see what ways we can find around this rock or how we can take the rock away from our path, make a hole in it or find an alternative path, then we have adopted the right outlook on realities. This is what our magnanimous Imam did in the first chapter of the Revolution - that is to say during the first 10 years of the Revolution which were very fateful and sensitive years. Our magnanimous Imam did not close his eyes to realities, but he did not back down and did not forget about the guidelines either. You should take a look at Imam\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s life and slogans. Our magnanimous Imam was a person who was not afraid of anyone on the issue of the Zionist regime. The idea that the Zionist regime is a cancer and should be destroyed was expressed by Imam. He was not afraid of anyone on the issue of the evil, arrogant and meddling moves of America. It was Imam who said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"America is the Great Satan.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" It was Imam who said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The attack of Muslim youth and Muslim students on the U.S. embassy and taking their documents and tools - which were used for spying - is like conducting a second revolution and is perhaps better and more important than the first revolution\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". These are the methods of Imam. One the issue of the war, he said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We fight until we end the fitna.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is what Imam said. Other people used to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We should continue fighting until we can achieve victory.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" But Imam said that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We fight until we end the fitna.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" It was such resistance which strengthened the foundations of the Islamic Republic. You can see what happened to those people who did not know this path, who acted in a different way in their own countries and who compromised their principles and forgot about their main slogans in order to please arrogant powers. If the slogan of fighting against Israel had been advocated in Egypt and if they had not accepted the false promises of America and its agents, the situation would definitely not have been like this. Today, the dictator of the Egyptian people, who destroyed their dignity for 30 years, has been released from prison and those who had been elected with the votes of the people may be sentenced to death. If they had not done these things, such a situation would never have been brought about. If the elected officials had adopted proper positions, those who gathered around Tahrir Square and chanted slogans against the elected officials- half or more than half of them would have started to support these elected officials. That is to say, they were not the kind of people to confront and oppose the elected government, but when one stops adopting correct and appropriate positions, such things happen. These are things which should receive attention. What we feel we should do to solve problems is that we should strengthen the Islamic Republic from inside the country. It is not only in this era that problems exist. Problems have always existed. Problems exist in all countries. If anyone thinks that there are no problems in such and such an advanced country, or in such and such a wealthy European or western country which is densely or sparsely populated, then they are wrong. Problems exist everywhere. Naturally, each nation faces certain problems when it wants to do something. The officials in such a country should solve the problems and move forward. Now, some people may want to solve problems by asking for help, by relying on others, by bribing other people and by suffering humiliation. And a number of people may want to solve problems with their own power and with the capabilities which exist in their own country. We believe that we should strengthen the Islamic Republic from inside the country. This is the essence of our work. We should strengthen ourselves from the inside. It is possible to strengthen ourselves from inside the country by thinking rationally and adopting a wise outlook. It can be done by making scientific progress and by building economic infrastructures and managing economic issues in the right way. In my opinion, these are things which are possible. Today, you can see that when they exert pressures on our oil industry, we will face certain problems. What is the reason for this? This is because since the war ended until today, we have not managed to reduce our dependence on oil. If we had reduced our dependence on oil, such pressures would not have brought about this situation. Therefore, we should take a look at ourselves and we should want to solve problems with our willpower. Thankfully, there is a new administration in our country today. One of the advantages of the current condition is that a fresh administration has entered the arena. With new ideas and thoughts, with new innovations and with a competent group of people, it wants to carry out its responsibilities and move things forward. It wants to move towards the goals which it has highlighted. The honorable President is a cleric who is active and experienced in different revolutionary arenas. This is also one of the advantages which we enjoy today. Naturally, all of us should help the administration. I think it is my responsibility to help. As we helped and supported all administrations, we will definitely help and support this administration as well. And officials will do this too. Of course, my support for different administrations does not mean that I agree with all the things that they do. In different eras, there were different administrations. We both supported and criticized all these administrations. But, such criticisms should not make us think that the administration is an outsider and it should not make us withdraw the support that we should provide to all administrations. It is necessary to provide such support and help. It is also necessary to pray for all administrations and offer our advice to them. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Advice is necessary for all believers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [speaking in Arabic]. A friendly piece of advice may sometimes be offered in a harsh and severe way. I believe that if the officials who receive such a harsh and severe piece of advice think carefully, they will be happy to have received such advice. Even this harsh and severe piece of advice is to their advantage. Anyway, when I take a look at the current conditions in the country, I see that the future is very promising despite the problems which were referred to by the friends in this meeting - of course, they did not refer to many of the existing problems. I see that we have a clear path ahead of us and we have clear and definite ideals. We know what we want to do. Also, the path to achieving these ideals is clear and well-defined and there is no ambiguity and confusion in our guidelines and it is clear what should be done. During the recent years, it has become clear where alignments - on a regional and international level - lie. Of course, flexibility and clever maneuvers in all political arenas are good and acceptable, but such maneuvers should not make us cross certain red lines, stop pursuing the main guidelines and ignore ideals. These things should be observed. Of course, each administration and each individual uses specific methods and implements specific ideas and they move things forward with these ideas. I am completely optimistic and I believe that all the existing problems - including economic, political and security problems and cultural problems which are deeper and more important than economic problems although a number of economic problems have a higher priority - can be solved and the path to achieving this goal can be taken. I ask Allah the Exalted to help us do this. There is a certain point that I have written down to discuss. You should pay attention to the fact that one of the main methods used by the enemies of Islam, particularly the enemies of the Islamic Republic in the region, is to create sectarian and denominational discord between Shia and Sunni Muslims. You should pay attention to this issue. There are two groups of people who have turned into the agents and mercenaries of the enemy. The first group is made up of a number of Sunni Muslims and the second group is made of a number of Shia Muslims. The first group engages in takfirism and has deviated from the essence of religion and the second group is made up of people who work for the enemy. In the name of Shia, these people provoke the feelings of other Muslims, justify their enmity and fuel the fire of fitna. Each group, each institution and each government which is deceived by this great plot, which involves itself in this issue and which makes a mistake in this regard will certainly harm the Islamic movement and the Islamic government. Our country in particular will be harmed if this happens. I insist that outstanding ulama - whether Shia or Sunni ulama and whether those who live in Iran or those who live in other countries - should pay attention to the fact that differences between Islamic denominations should not make us create a new camp against ourselves. Such differences should not make us ignore the main enemy which is the enemy of the essence of Islam and the enemy of the independence and welfare of the people of the region. I hope that Allah the Exalted will help all of us and I hope that all of you and us benefit from the blessings and 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