Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

President al-Assad interview with al-Manar TV

President al-Assad: Terrorists are the true tool of the Israeli aggression, and confronting Israel requires confronting its tools first

In an interview given to al-Manar TV, President al-Assad said the essence of the crisis in Syria is foreign interference, and once this interference ceases in all its forms, then it would be possible to say that the crisis is in its final stages, because then confronting terrorism would be easier.
His Excellency said that so far, there is no suitable environment or essential elements for the political track to succeed in reaching a solution for the crisis, noting that the states that support terrorism are imposing figures in any dialogue that represent these states and not the Syrian state.
President al-Assad-interview-al-Manar TV 5
President al-Assad said that the United States doesn’t want terrorism to triumph, and at the same time doesn’t want to become weak to the point that stability is achieved in the region; rather the United States wants matters to continue moving towards chaos and wakening all states, adding that the crisis proved that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a mere puppet with dreams, the last of these dreams being the buffer zone, but he can’t move in this direction without the approval of his U.S. master.
He stressed that defending the homeland isn’t just by bearing arms; rather defending the homeland is done by all things that make it stronger and more resilient in the face of attacks, adding that the Syrians’ hope for victory is the incentive for confronting terrorists and the plot devised for Syria.
President al-Assad said that if any international envoy were completely impartial, then the west wouldn’t have approved them, and so the biased statements of envoys are part of their role. He also reiterated that any initiative must respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and leave the decision to the Syrian people while prioritizing counterterrorism.
Following is the full interview:
Syrians’ hope for victory is the incentive for confronting terrorists and the plot
In response to a question on Syria’s confidence in emerging victorious from the terrorist war waged on it and what this confidence is based on, President al-Assad said that if there hadn’t been hope of victory among the citizens, then Syria wouldn’t have persevered for four and a half year.
“This hope is the incentive for confronting terrorists and confronting the plot devised for Syria and applied in it like it was applied in a number of other Arab countries,” he said.
“We rely firstly on people, of course after relying on God, but if you don’t have public support then you cannot withstand. If you don’t have public support then there is no value for any political or national direction you adopt as a president or official or state. First, you rely on the people, and second on friends who stand firm alongside Syria and support in the region and in the world,” His Excellency said.


On the opinions that imply that the crisis in Syria is currently in its last quarter, President al-Assad said “I can’t say that we have reached the last quarter until the cessation of the basis of the problem in Syria which seems complicated and has many details and intertwined elements. But the essence of this problem is foreign interference, the paying of funds, and sending weapons and terrorists to Syria.
“When we reach the stage where the countries involved in conspiring on Syria and in shedding Syrian blood stop supporting terrorism, then we can say that we are in the last quarter, because other details that are called a political solution or a political track or anything similar become simple details and of little value, and when we say ‘of little value’ this means that they aren’t essential in resolving the crisis, and they become details on which an agreement can be reached.”
His Excellency asserted that once foreign support stops, combating terrorists becomes much easier, and until now that point hasn’t been reached, adding “the general atmosphere may show a shift, true, that shift exists, but a shift is one thing and reaching the end of the crisis is something else. It might be close; I’m not making things out to be melancholic or showing pessimism, but sometimes before reaching the last quarter, you witness a massive escalation. The escalation may be an indicator of reaching the last quarter, but we’re not there yet.”
On how everyone should interpret President al-Assad’s talk of a political solution, President al-Assad said that he doesn’t use the term “political solution” but rather the term “political track,” as the solution is the solution of a problem, and a solution consists of various sides including combating terrorism and a political side based on what was proposed during the beginning of the problem.
“It was proposed that the crisis had political causes. This is incorrect. As I said before, the cause is foreign interference, but we went along with all that was proposed. They said the problem is about the constitution, so we amended the constitution. They said the problem is about the laws, so we changed the laws. They said the problem is about the economic track of the state’s economic policies, so we changed many of those policies at that time. We may be wrong, and they may be right, but at the same time we wanted to prove to others that those proposals were untrue,” President al-Assad explained.
For political track to have an effect, it must be between Syrian independent  political forces
“Now, they propose that there must be dialogue with political forces to reach a solution for the crisis, and we say there’s no reason not to do so; let those forces that present themselves as representatives of the Syrian people come and prove that they represent them or have influence, and we would hold dialogue with them without hesitation. This is what is called the political track.
“But in fact, for this political track to have an effect, it must be between Syrian independent  political forces that belong to the Syrian people and have their roots in Syria and Syria alone, unlike what we see now in several of the forces we hold dialogue with that are bound financially and politically to foreign sides,” His Excellency said.
President al-Assad said that the political dialogue and track are essential not just to resolve the crisis, but also to develop Syria. However, the elements or environment necessary to have this dialogue reach final results haven’t coalesced yet, and this is accompanied by the continuing support for terrorism, which constitutes a huge obstacle hindering any actual and productive political effort on the ground.
Oman has important role in dealing with various points of tension in region and cooling them down
On the recent involvement of Oman and the visit paid to it by Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign and Expatriates Minister Walid al-Moallem and how that may be one of the keys for solution, President al-Assad said that Oman has an important role in dealing with various points of tension in the region and cooling them down, leading to a solution, and it’s self-evident that the Foreign Minister’s visit is in the context of resolving the crisis, and it’s also self-evident that the Omani role is to help resolve the crisis.
His Excellency said that these meetings aimed to inform the Omani side about the Syrian vision of how to reach a solution, and at the same time they are assessing the regional and international conditions through their relations to achieve a specific thing, adding that it’s still too early to talk about the role Oman could play, as we should wait for this dialogue to proceed to see where things are going.
Regarding the repeated Israeli aggressions on Syrian territories that took place recently and how to deal with them, and if the Zionist enemy could create a different status quo in Syria or in the occupied Syrian Golan, President al-Assad said “if we look at Lebanon’s experience during the past few decades, what emboldened Israel against the Lebanese? It was the fact that some of the Lebanese were connected to foreign sides. Some of them were connected to Israel. Some called and begged for foreign interference in its various forms,” stressing that that gave an image and weakness, and thus the Israeli enemy was emboldened against Lebanon.
President al-Assad-interview-al-Manar TV 2
He said that the same thing applies to Syria, as when there are Syrian groups that accept to deal with enemies, whether Israel or other enemies, and call them to interfere in Syria, then this would embolden others against Syria.
If we want to confront Israel, we have to face its tools, the terrorists, within Syria
“Today, the main Israeli tool that is more important than that aggression are the terrorists in Syria, meaning that what they do is much more dangerous than what Israel does from time to time to support them. They are the basis of the problem. So, if we want to confront Israel, first we have to face its tools within Syria. You cannot confront an external enemy when you have an internal enemy. This matter must be resolved within Syria, and then things will be back to the way they were, and no-one would dare act against Syria; not Israel nor anyone else,” President al-Assad asserted.
On whether Israel’s awareness that Syria’s priority is fighting Takfiri terrorists made it rush into committing those aggression, President al-Assad said this could be a contributing factor, but the main factor is that there are those who are ready to cooperate with the Israeli enemy, who are prepared to receive treatment in its hospitals, and who are audacious enough to praise Israel for attacking their homeland on social media.
The President stressed that the strength of a country is primarily based on the unity of the people before relying on its army or political system, and the greater part of the people are unified, but when there are elements of treason, extremism, and terrorism, then these points constitute weak points that cannot be ignored, and must be dealt with when other elements become secondary.
Regarding the change in the rules of engagement with the Israeli enemy, something which Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, had mentioned, President al-Assad said “Of course, taking into account the difference between Syria and Lebanon; the geographic difference and demographic difference in terms of borders. On the borders between the resistance and Israel, there is the Lebanese resistance on the Lebanese side, but on the borders between us and Israel, there are agents of Israel, ones that are similar to the Lahad army and Saad Haddad army in the past, therefore this issue must be dealt with before the geographic or political issues that follow.”
On the confusion regarding the interpretations of some of the things said by President al-Assad in his latest speech, specifically regarding the army and its influence and regarding “giving the country to Iran and Hezbollah,” His Excellency said “regarding the first point, I was clear and candid. There is no doubt that times of war lead to more army desertion cases. I said that clearly in the speech; I didn’t deny it and I speak transparently with the Syrian citizen. We don’t care what the malicious media says. This has a negative impact in any battle and in any army, and this happened even to the United States during the Vietnam War and to all armies. However, when this war is of a special type and you’re finding an enemy with limitless resources – particularly in terms of manpower – then its effect becomes stronger.”
On the issue of retreating from some areas, President al-Assad reiterated that retreating and advances have occurred in the same areas in less than a month, which is natural in wars, and he focused on that point in his speech to motivate youths to join the armed forces.
Defending homeland isn’t just by bearing arms, but also by making it more resilient
Regarding the second point, which was raised when he said that “the homeland is for those who defend it,” President al-Assad said that this is correct, but defending the homeland isn’t done just by bearing arms, explaining “for example, adversaries and enemies want Syria to fall, or, in one of the stages if that isn’t possible, they want it to be paralyzed in all aspects of life to prepare for its fall. Everyone who stands against this paralysis is defending the homeland, everyone who is doing their daily work. Employees, businessmen, doctors treating patients, those who help the poor, those who try to spread patriotic values and high morals; all of those are defending the homeland.”
President al-Assad noted that there are those who are living abroad but defend Syria in whatever way they can based on their positions and resources, and all those are patriotic people, while at the same time there are people living in Syria who are wishing for NATO airstrikes or maybe foreign forces to enter on land, adding “I don’t mean presence in the literal meaning, nor defense in the literal meaning of carrying a gun; I mean everyone who is defending the homeland by making it more resilient and strengthening the elements that keep it standing in the face of attacks, and here I’m only talking about Syrians.”
Was de Mistura impartial, the US and the West wouldn’t have brought him
On the evaluation of the work done by UN Special Envoy on Syria Staffan de Mistura, who continues to make accusations against the Syrian state in his statements, President al-Assad said “we’re used to this. It’s difficult for some to come with the approval of the United States and the West for the reason that they’re impartial. If that person was impartial, they wouldn’t have brought that person.
“Now we see those biased statements. He talks about deaths among terrorists. Of coruse, for them, everyone who is killed is an innocent civilian as if there are no terrorists and as if they aren’t bearing arms. And at the same time, when there are civilian martyrs due to terrorists’ shelling of Damascus or Aleppo or any other area in Syria with rockets, we hear no statements from them. This is the role they’re required to play, and if they don’t, they will have no place, and someone else will come instead. This is the truth.”
On whether de Mistura has a chance of steering the crisis towards a solution or if he’s just performing a role, President al-Assad said that when the envoy proposed the issue of reconciliation in Aleppo, the Syrian government supported it directly without hesitation, adding that in practice, issues in international relations aren’t based on trust because things change all the time; rather relations are based on mechanisms, and it isn’t an issue of personal relations, because relations among states or with organizations or figures representing states or organizations or the UN, then the relation is based on mechanisms.
We won’t support any proposal by UN mediators if it doesn’t suit our national interests
“In order to say that we can proceed with de Mistura in his initiative, we have to wait to see which initiative is logical and what the suitable mechanisms to implement this initiative are. The Aleppo initiative was good, but there were no mechanisms and he wasn’t allowed to implement or propose mechanisms, therefore we weren’t able to support him because the initiative was stillborn,” President al-Assad explained, adding that this has been a recurring theme with mediators, adding “if they don’t propose something that suits us and suits our national interests, we won’t support them and we won’t proceed with them.”
President al-Assad addressed a question regarding the manipulations of statements in the media, particularly regarding the Russian position, where while Moscow asserts the strength of its relations with Syria and that it hasn’t abandoned it, U.S. President Obama comes up and claims that Russia and Iran believe that the situation isn’t in President al-Assad’s favor, with His Excellency saying that to figure out which is the more correct statement, one must look at the political course or performance of a state. Regarding Russia, the President said that evaluating it requires looking at its behavior for decades, how it treats states, peoples, friends, and opponents, and contrasting that behavior to the behavior of the U.S., at which point one would see where the truth lies.
US has backstabbing policy, Russia’s policy is based on principles
“The United States, throughout its history, has been elusive with its statements, and of course as time went on, this quality for the United States became the basis of policy. This means that what one official says, another official will contradict within days, and what one official says in the morning in a speech or a statement, they will say the opposite on the next day. This is one of the qualities of U.S. policies; abandoning allies, abandoning friends, backstabbing,” he said.
His Excellency said that on the other hand, Russia’s policy  was never like that, not during the days of the Soviet Union and not now, asserting that Russia’s policy is based on principles and growing more so, and therefore when the Russian Foreign Minister makes several statements and other officials make statements in the same context, it becomes obvious that Russia’s policy is concrete.
The President asserted that Russia doesn’t support individuals or a specific president, saying that this would be unacceptable and would constitute interference in internal affairs; rather Russia supports specific principles which are the sovereignty of state and people.
We have great trust in the Russians, they aim at pushing for dialogue to cut off calls for war
On Russian efforts now that Geneva 3 is looming, President al-Assad said “We have great trust in the Russians, and they have proved throughout this crisis for four years now that they are honest and transparent with us in relations and that they are principled. These are important points. So, when they meet various sides, we don’t feel concern that these sides might distort the true image for the Russians. The Russians have close relations with Syria and are capable of finding out about all that is happening accurately. We believe the goal of the Russians is to bring political sides towards dialogue to cut off calls for war.
“This is the goal, but in the end there won’t be an agreement over anything unless we the Syrians sit with each other and hold dialogue with each other. It won’t be the Russians who impose any solution, so we encourage them to meet all forces and we are relieved when a Russian official meets any figure, without exception.”
His Excellency went on to say that these meetings seek to pave the way towards either Geneva 3 or Moscow 3, and this naturally depends on the international climate and not just Russia, as there are various forces involved with the United States at their forefront.
On whether these forces would go towards Geneva or Moscow, the President said that the difference is that Moscow 3 would work towards finding common denominators and therefore would make Geneva 3 easier and less likely to fail, which would avoid repeating the Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 scenarios that failed to achieve anything.
Syria’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, decision of its people and combating terrorism are the principles when dealing with any initiative 
On the principles that set Syria’s position regarding any initiative, President al-Assad said that first among those is Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the decision of the Syrian people, which means that there can be no dictations from any side and that any decision must be purely Syrian.
“Practically, there must be basis of any initiative, one that begins at and is based on combating terrorism. Any initiative that doesn’t contain an article on fighting terrorism as a priority has no value,” he asserted.
Regarding some proposals that suggest things like revising the constitution or holding elections under international supervision, His Excellency said that things like revising the constitution aren’t a problem as long as they result from a Syrian decision and from national dialogue and accord, but elections under international supervision are unacceptable as they constitute interference in sovereignty, wondering “which international side is authorized to give us a certificate of good behavior? We don’t accept that.”
He noted that in the last presidential elections, a number of states sent observers in the context of cooperation, not in the context of supervision, and in this context there can be cooperation with friends to assert that what is happening in Syria is a proper and democratic political process.
“However, bringing in international organizations… international organizations need certificates of good behavior showing that they are impartial, and they are in no position to give us certificates,” the President added.
On the relation between the crisis in Syria and the nuclear Iranian deal, and whether Syria could be a victim in this regard or was an offering that provided gains, President al-Assad asserted that Syria is certainly not a victim, simply because it wasn’t a part of the nuclear negotiations, despite the fact that western forces tried to coerce Iran to involve the Syrian issue as a part of the nuclear issue in order to get concessions from Iran regarding its support for Syria, but Iran was adamant and refused this completely, which was a correct, objective, and smart decision.
“Was Syria presented as an offering? Certainly not, but we could say that Syria made offerings,” the President elaborated, saying that when one’s allies are strong, that makes you strong, and when they are weakened, you are weakened as well, but saying that Syria’s steadfastness led to the nuclear deal is an oversimplification as the deal is the result of a long process that was started by the Iranian people a long time ago, with Iran withstanding pressure for 12 years and holding fast to its principles throughout the negotiations during the past two years.
“In this context, the steadfastness and unity of the Iranian people regarding the nuclear issue are the two most important factors that led to this achievement. As for the Syrian factor, perhaps I can’t be certain; the Iranians are best suited to specify this point, but it could have been one of the contributing factors,” he added.
In answer to a question on whether the world is heading toward a new form of coalition, with Syria possibly being closer to a coalition with Iran than with anyone else, President al-Assad said that the alliance between Syria and Iran is 35 years old, and so being allied to Iran and vice versa is nothing new, noting that when Iran was subjected to an unjust war, Syria stood by its side, and now that Syria is subjected to an unjust war, Iran is standing by its side.
Iran’s strength will strengthen Syria, and Syria’s victory will be a victory for Iran
Regarding the political scene after Syria emerges victorious and Iran’s potential role in it, President al-Assad said that what would change is probably the influence of the Syrian-Iranian alliance on the international arena, because Iran now has more prospects to play a bigger role in it, and Iran’s strength will strengthen Syria, and in the same way Syria’s victory will be a victory for Iran.
His Excellency said that Syria and Iran share viewpoints and have mutual principles, and they form the axis of resistance, and so the principles will not change; only some tactics may change, or maybe some results on the ground.
In response to a question on the disillusionment of Syrians over the state of the Arab nation and whether he excuses that feeling, President al-Assad said “Excusing it doesn’t mean that we all pursue that direction. We excuse them because conditions promoted citizens to turn against Arabism, and this is a fact for most citizens. This promoted them to make no distinction between true, genuine Arabism and those who hide behind Arabism while in fact their hearts, minds, sentiments, and interests lie elsewhere that is completely outside the region.
“This is similar to what has happened in the past, maybe in several areas, but less than before; confusing those who exploit Islam like the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist and terrorist organizations with true Islam. There was confusion; they believed that all those who use the word Islam or Muslim are true Muslim. This confusion happens constantly.
“I would like to say to everyone who doubts or confuses the two issues that Arabism is an identity we cannot abandon. You belong to a family, and maybe one person or more from that family would treat you wrong, but even if you change your surname, you will continue to belong to that family in your upbringing, identity, nature, and everything about you. You cannot emerge from the identity. The Arab identity isn’t a choice; to belong to a religion and a nationality is your identity, and when you would reach this point, this is what the enemies want: for us to disavow ourselves of our identity. The essence of the cause now and the wars that are happening isn’t about toppling regimes; rather this is a stage and a tool, nor is it about undermining states and economy. All those are tools. The final goal is undermining the identity, and when we would reach that point preemptively, we will be giving the enemies a free present that precludes their need later for military intervention or for using terrorists.”
Iraqis are aware the enemy is one, unifying the battle gives better results
On the effect of the political activity in Iraq on the coordination between Syria and Iraq, the President asserted that coordination with Iraq hasn’t been affected negatively, as Iraqis are aware that they are embroiled in the same battle against a mutual enemy, and that what happens in Syria will reflect on Iraq and vice versa, so by unifying the battle, like what is happening between Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, there are better results in less time and at a lower cost.
Regarding what the difference is between the presence of Hezbollah fighters in Syria and the other side having foreign fighters, the President said that  the difference lies in legitimacy, stressing that Hezbollah entered Syria through agreement with the Syrian state which is the legitimate, elected representative of the Syrian people and is supported by their majority, so the state has the right to invite forces to defend the Syrian people, while the other forces are terrorists who came to murder Syrians and against the will of the people and the state.
The relationship with Nasrallah is one of a resistant state and a true resistant figure
On the President’s relation with Nasrallah, His Excellency said that this relation is strong and dates back to more than 20 years ago, and any observer can see that this is a relation characterized by honesty and transparency, as Nasrallah is absolutely honest, transparent, principled, and loyal to his principles and his associates and friends to the extreme.
“The relationship is one of a resistant state and a true resistant figure who gave his son in defense of Lebanon,” President al-Assad said, adding that evaluating a relationship requires a third person to observe it and talk about it.
When asked about how the Syrian Armed Forces commit to ceasefire orders when they receive them, and who has the decision to uphold a ceasefire on the other side, President al-Assad said that this very issue was discussed with envoys who talked about ceasefire, noting that he rejects this term because ceasefire is between states and armies, not between a state and terrorist groups, so terms like “ceasing operations” or “appeasement” are preferred.
“However, we asked envoys the same thing; if you want a ceasefire, then which is the group and who is the leader? Who will commit to you? What are their numbers? They used to say that they estimate the presence of hundreds, or more than a thousand, some said 1,200, groups. Maybe after mergers now they’re in the hundreds. But you make a good point; there is no-one who can vouch for all those groups, although we know that they are subservient to other forces. So, we can’t say that these forces can hold those groups to a decision, because those groups are also involved in acts of robbery, theft, corruption, and immorality, and only commit to decisions when it suits them. Therefore, no group or state or side can make those sides comply with any appeasement or cessation of combat activity, even for a brief time,” the President said.
Any alliance or act or dialogue that leads to stopping bloodshed is a priority
On how Syria can be a part of a coalition to fight terrorism alongside those it accuses of supporting terrorism, President al-Assad said that politics is about achieving goals, and goals must be in the interest of the Syrian people, so any alliance or act or step or dialogue that leads to stopping the shedding of Syrian blood must be a priority and must be pursued without hesitation.
“What concerns us is the result on the ground. Logically, as you said, it’s impossible for states that supported terrorism to fight terrorism, but there remains a slight chance that those states want to atone or they realized that they were moving in the wrong direction, or maybe they have purely self-serving reasons and are worried over terrorism spreading to their countries, so they decided to fight terrorism. So, there is no objection. What matters is to manage to form an alliance that fights terrorism. The Syrian Foreign Minister said this would be a miracle… but what if it happened? Would we reject it? Of course we wouldn’t reject it, we would pursue it,” His Excellency said.
On the escalation by Saudi Arabia against Syria, specifically the statements of the Saudi Foreign Minister following reports of Syrian-Saudi meetings, President al-Assad said that media escalation is of no concern, as what matters is actual practices of states, so when a state supports terrorism, then what value does media escalation or media appeasement have?
The Saudi state supports terrorists in Syria, this is a fact everyone knows
“This is what concerns us, and in the end the result is the same, meaning that with and without escalation, the Saudi state supports terrorists in Syria, this is a fact that everyone knows, so escalation here is meaningless,” he said, adding that in terms of the verbal escalation, then Syria could respond in a similar manner and ask what one would expect from a group that hasn’t entered human civilization?
“Would one expect them discourse that is moral, objective, has a political dimension, or is wise? We shouldn’t expect any of those. If we do expect that, then the problem lies with us, not with them,” he said.
On the President’s statements in his last speech on opposition and how some observers said the opposition is treated as an incidental situation and not a deep-rooted situation capable of influencing public opinion, His Excellency reiterated that if dialogue is to produce results, it must be among patriotic Syrians whose roots are in Syria.
“But in dealing with reality, the most important question is who has influence? Meaning that if we hold an in-depth dialogue with patriotic figures that have no influence, and we reached results and said let’s apply these results and they say we have no influence on the ground, then what good is that dialogue? We would be wasting time,” he said.
President al-Assad stressed that dialogue must be with patriotic and influential figures, and while some have various levels of influence, the major problem is that most of those with whom dialogue is held aren’t patriotic, and this is something imposed by the states that support terrorism and interfere in dialogue, as those states want figures to represent them, not the Syrian people. Therefore, both patriotism and influence on the ground are the essential criteria, especially since terrorists have openly refused to deal with the so-called foreign opposition.
If Washington’s training for Syrian opposition figures was embarrassing or confusing to the Syrian accounts or not, President al-Assad said this is an episode in a long series, so if we were to worry, we have to worry about the series… This series is a continued conspiring one against Syria that will not stop at this crisis… this episode, in itself, would not change anything in the context of terrorism in Syria because if it wouldn’t train those, there are other countries that train others and there are other countries which support, send weapons and money… the track of events in Syria wouldn’t stop at this group… there is another thing which is bigger and more dangerous that we would worry about, it is the West’s disregard, on top the US, of the danger of terrorism in the whole region.
On the US stance and if it inclines into more strictness or into imposing recognition of fait accompli that wouldn’t come in the interest of the US administration, the President said “strictness or leniency is a feature of the US stance which doesn’t embody the reality of the US policy… strictness or leniency sometimes aims at a psychological war, sometimes sending messages to the lobbies inside the US, so reading those stances wouldn’t give the real image of the US stance.
As for the truth about equation being raised that “Syria is in return for Yemen,” President al-Assad said that this is proposed in media, but in reality, we didn’t hear it from any friendly country, like Russia or Iran, and maybe Iran would be more concerned in this issue as it is located in the Gulf, but this issue was not proposed to us.
Erdogan is a puppet with big dreams, the latest is “the buffer zone”
Answering a question about to any extent the Turkish talk on the “buffer zone” and the possibility of implementing that is taken seriously, the President said “Erdogan has dreams… big dreams to be a leader, to be a Muslim brotherhood sultan… he wants to combine between the experiment of Sultanate and that of the new Muslim brotherhood on which he has built great aspirations… those dreams have collapsed now… what remains is his aspirations that his masters respond to him as Erdogan and Davutoglu have proven in this crisis that they are mere puppets that have a big dream in Syria; which is the dream of ‘buffer zone’, and it is the last dream after all their previous dreams in Syria were doomed.”
On Jordan’s talk about a “buffer zone” and the presence of a joint military and security operations room, President al-Assad said “Is Jordan talking about a Jordanian decision or an American decision? this is the question. When a country or an official says something, we have to ask to what extent this official or that country is independent to give their opinion.”
Answering a question on what the Jordanian king seeks through his involvement in the crisis in Syria, the President said “We go back to the same question, ‘Is Jordan independent in its polices so that to ask for its vision or the vision of its officials…When it proves it is independent, then we can discuss. Until now, the majority of the Arab countries are directed by the US’s steering wheel and have no role.”
We want Egypt to play the brotherly country and not act as launching pad against other Arab countries
On the Syrian-Egyptian relations and the responsibility of Egypt for the delay of their return, President al-Assad said “We definitely care for the relationship with Egypt…Communication between Syria and Egypt did not break even under Morsi…There are a number of institutions in Egypt that rejected to sever the relations and continued to communicate with Syria, and we listened to national and pan-Arab discourse from them.
“What we want, at the first stage, is that Egypt not act as a launching pad against Syria or against any other Arab country, but at the next stage, we want Egypt to play the role of the important country…the brotherly important influential country that helps the other Arab countries.”
On the possibility of Egypt making use of the Syrian experience in combating terrorism that is spreading in its land, the President said “What I said about communication, we said it through direct communication between us and them on the level of important officials, mainly security officials from Syria and Egypt in the past few weeks…they have a vision on how to benefit from Syria and we now have a vision on how to benefit from Egypt. We will definitely reach that point through this communication… the important thing is that we have now deep experience in this issue gained through the past four years and few months and before that through our struggle with the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in the late 1970s and early 1980s.”
The President said the relations between “Syria and Egypt are the ones that achieve balance in the Arab arena… Syria believes that it stands in the same trench with the Egyptian army and with the Egyptian people against terrorists” who continuously change their names; taking once the name of Muslim Brotherhood and the name of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in other times.
Asked about any possible additional measures to ease the Syrian citizens’ living conditions, President al-Assad referred to the reconstruction project that has kicked off and is moving forward with steady steps, referring also to the relaunching of several production projects.
“In spite of all conditions, we still have the ability to get the economy to take off gain” no matter how slowly or not much effectively at this stage, said the President, referring also to continued efforts towards administrative reform, combating corruption and providing more financial and tax-related facilitations.
Damascus, SANA  

President's Interview with Foreign Affairs Magazine

President al-Assad to Foreign Affairs Magazine: Israel is supporting terrorist organizations in Syria (Full Text)



President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to the American magazine Foreign Affairs published on Monday, 26th January 2015.


Following is the full text of the interview:

Question 1: I would like to start by asking you about the war. It has now been going on for almost four years, and you know the statistics: more than two hundred thousand people have been killed, a million wounded, and more than three million Syrians have fled the country, according to the UN. Your forces have also suffered heavy casualties. The war cannot go on forever. How do you see the war ending?

President Assad: All Wars, anywhere in the world have in the past ended with a political solution because war itself is not the solution; war is one of the instruments of politics. So you end with a political solution. That’s how we see it. That is the headline.

Question 2: You don’t think that this war will end militarily?

President Assad: No. Any war ends with a political solution.

Question 3: Your country is increasingly divided into three mini-states, you could say: one is controlled by the government, one is controlled by ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, one is controlled by the more secular Sunni and Kurdish opposition. How will you ever put Syria back together again?

President Assad: First of all, this image is not accurate because you cannot talk about mini-states with out talking about the people who live within those states. The Syrian people are still with the unity of Syria; they still support the government. The factions you refer to control some areas, but they move from one place to another; they are not stable, and there are no clear lines of separation between different forces. Sometimes they mingle with each other and they move. But the main issue is about the population. The population still supports the state regardless of whether they support it politically or not; I mean they support the state as the representative of the unity of Syria. This is what I mean by supporting the state. So as long as you have the Syrian people believing in unity, any government and any official can unify Syria. If the people are divided into two, three, or four groups, no one can unify this country. That’s how we see it.

Question 4: You think that the Sunnis and the Kurds still believe in a unified Syria?

President Assad: If you go to Damascus now you can see all the different, let’s say, colors of our society living together. So the divisions in Syria are not based on sectarian or ethnic grounds, and even in the Kurdish area you are talking about, we have two different colors; we have Arabs more than Kurds, so it’s not about the ethnicity; it’s about the factions that control certain areas militarily.

Question 5: A year ago, both the opposition and foreign governments were insisting that you step down as a precondition to talks. They no longer are. Diplomats are now looking for an interim settlement that would allow you to keep a role. Just today, the New York Times had an article that talked about increased U.S. support for the Russian and UN peace initiatives. The article refers to: “the West’s quiet retreat from its demands that Syria’s president step down immediately.” Given this shift in the Western attitude, are you now more open to a negotiated solution to the conflict that leads to a political transition?

President Assad: From the very beginning we were open. We engaged in dialogue with every party in Syria. Party doesn’t mean political party; it could be party, current, or some personality, it could be any political entity. We changed the constitution and we are open to anything. But when you want to do something, it’s not about the position or about the government, it’s about the Syrians; sometimes you might have a majority that doesn’t belong to any side. So when you want to make a change, as long as you’re talking about a national problem, every Syrian must have a say in it. When you have a dialogue, it’s not between the government and the opposition; it’s between the different Syrian parties and entities. That’s how we look at dialogue. This is first. Second, whatever solution you want to make, at the end you should go back to the people through a referendum, because you’re talking about the constitution; changing the political system, You have to go back to the Syrian people. So engaging in a dialogue is different from taking decisions, which is not done by the government or the opposition.

Question 6: So you’re saying that you would not agree to any kind of political transition unless there is a referendum that supports it?

President Assad: Exactly, the people should make the decision, not anyone else.

Question 7: Does that mean there’s no room for negotiations?

President Assad: No, we will go to Russia, we will go to these negotiations, but there is another question here: who do you negotiate with? As a government, we have institutions, we have an army, and we have influence, positive or negative, in any direction, at any time. Whereas the people we are going to negotiate with, who do they represent? That’s the question. When you talk about the opposition, it has to have meaning. The opposition in general has to have representatives in the local administration, in the parliament, in institutions, they have to have grassroots to represent. In the current crisis, you have to ask about the opposition’s influence on the ground. You have to go back to what the rebels announced publically, when they said many times that the opposition doesn’t represent us, they have no influence. If you want to talk about fruitful dialogue, it’s going to be between the government and those rebels. There is another point. Opposition means national, it means working for the interests of the Syrian people. It cannot be an opposition if it’s a puppet of Qatar or Saudi Arabia or any Western country, including the United States, paid from the outside. It should be Syrian. We have a national opposition, I’m not excluding it, I’m not saying every opposition is not legitimate. But you have to separate the national and the puppets. Not every dialogue is fruitful.

Question 8: Does that mean you would not want to meet with opposition forces that are backed by outside countries?

President Assad: We are going to meet with everyone. We don’t have conditions.

Journalist: No conditions?

President Assad: No conditions.

Journalist: You would meet with everyone?

President Assad: Yes, we’re going to meet with everyone. But you have to ask each one of them: who do you represent? That’s what I mean.

Question 9: If I’m correct, the deputy of UN representative Staffan de Mistura is in Syria now. They’re proposing as an interim measure a ceasefire and a freeze in Aleppo. Would you agree to that?

President Assad: Yes, of course. We implemented that before de Mistura was assigned to his mission. We implemented it in another city called Homs, another big city. We implemented it on smaller scales in different, let’s say, suburbs, villages, and so on, and it succeeded. So, the idea is very good, but it depends on the details. De Mistura came to Syria with headlines. We agreed upon certain headlines, and now we are waiting for him to bring a detailed plan or schedule – A to Z plan – let’s say. We are discussing this with his deputy.

Question 10: In the past, you insisted as a precondition for a ceasefire that the rebels lay down their weapons first, which obviously from their perspective was a non-starter. Is that still your precondition?

President Assad: We choose different scenarios or different reconciliations. In some areas, we allowed them to leave inhabited areas in order to prevent casualties among civilians. They left these areas with their armaments. In other areas, they give up their armaments and they left. It depends on what they offer and what you offer.

Question 11: I’m not clear on your answer. Would you insist that they lay down their weapons?

President Assad: No, no. That’s not what I mean. In some areas, they left the area with their armaments.

Question 12: Are you optimistic about the Moscow talks?

President Assad: What is going on in Moscow is not negotiations about the solution; it’s only preparations for the conference.

Journalist: So, talks about talks?

President Assad: Exactly, how to prepare for the talks. So, when you start talking about the conference, what are the principles of the conference? I’ll go back to the same point. Let me be frank: some of the groups are puppets, as I said, of other countries. They have to implement that agenda, and I know that many countries, like France for example, do not have any interest in making that conference succeed. So they will give them orders to make them fail. You have other personalities who only represent themselves, they don’t represent anyone in Syria. Some of them never lived in Syria and they know nothing about the country. Of course, you have some other personalities who work for the national interest. So when you talk about the opposition as one entity, who’s going to have influence on the other? That is the question. It’s not clear yet. So, optimism would be an exaggeration. I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic, I would say we have hope, in every action.

Question 13: It seems that in recent days the Americans have become more supportive of the Moscow talks. Initially, they were not. Yesterday, Secretary of State Kerry said something to suggest that the U.S. hopes that the talks go forward and that they are successful.

President Assad: They always say things, but it’s about what they’re going to do. And you know there’s mistrust between the Syrians and the U.S. So just wait till we see what will happen at the conference.

Question 14: So, what do you see as the best way to strike a deal between all of the different parties in Syria?

President Assad: It’s to deal directly with the rebels, but you have two different kinds of rebels. Now, the majority are al Qaeda, which is ISIS and al-Nusra, with other similar factions that belong to al Qaeda but are smaller. Now, what’s left, what Obama called a “fantasy” the moderate opposition. It’s not an opposition, they are rebels. Most of them joined al Qaeda, and some of them rejoined the army recently. During the last week, a lot of them left those groups and came to the army.

Question 15: Are these former defectors who came back?

President Assad: Yes, they came back to the army. They said, we don’t want to fight anymore. So what’s left of those is very little. At the end, can you negotiate with al Qaeda, and others? They are not ready to negotiate, they have their own plan. The reconciliation that we started and Mr. de Mistura is going to continue is the practical solution on the ground. This is the first point. Second, you have to implement the Security Council resolution No. 2170 on al-Nusra and ISIS which was issued a few months ago, and this resolution is very clear about preventing anyone from supporting these factions militarily, financially, or logistically, yet this is what Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are still doing. If it’s not implemented, we cannot talk about a real solution because there will be obstacles. So this is how we can start. Third, the Western countries should remove the umbrella, still refered to by some of supporting the moderate opposition. They know we have mainly al Qaeda, ISIS and al Nusra.

Question 16: Would you be prepared to take any confidence-building measures in advance of the talks? For example, prisoner exchanges, or ending the use of barrel bombs, or releasing political prisoners, in order to build confidence on the other side that you’re willing to negotiate in good faith?

President Assad: It’s not a personal relationship; it’s about mechanisms. In politics, you only talk about mechanisms. You don’t have to trust someone to do something. If you have a clear mechanism, you can reach a result. That is what the people want. So the question is, what is the mechanism that we can put in place? This takes us back to the same question: who are they, what do they represent, what’s their influence, what is the point of building trust with people with no influence?

Journalist: When two parties come together, it’s often very useful for one party to show the other that it’s really interested in making progress by taking steps unilaterally to try and bring down the temperature. The measures that I described would have that effect.

President Assad: You have something concrete, and that is reconciliation. People gave up their armaments, we gave them amnesty, they live normal lives. It is a real example. So this is a measure of confidence. On the other hand, what is the relation between that opposition and the prisoners? There’s no relation. They are not their prisoners anyway. So it is completely a different issue.

Question 17: So, have you offered amnesty to fighters?

President Assad: Yes, of course, and we did it many times.

Question 18: How many, do you have numbers?

President Assad: I don’t have the precise numbers, but it’s thousands, not hundreds, thousands of militants.

Question 19: And are you prepared to say to the entire opposition that if you lay down your weapons, you will be safe?

President Assad: Yes, I said it publically in one of my speeches.

Question 20: And how can you guarantee their safety? Because they have reasons to distrust your government.

President Assad: You cannot, but at the end, let’s say that if more than 50 percent succeed, more than 50 percent in such circumstances would be a success. So, that’s how. Nothing is absolute. You have to expect some negative aspects, but they are not the major aspects.

Question 21: Let me change the subject slightly. Hezbollah, Iran’s Quds force and Iranian-trained Shiite militias are all now playing significant roles in the fight against rebels here in Syria. Given this involvement, are you worried about Iran’s influence over the country? After all, Iraq or even Lebanon shows that once a foreign military power becomes established in a country, it can be very difficult to ask them to leave again.

President Assad: Iran is an important country in this region, and it was influential before the crisis. It’s influence is not related to the crisis, it’s related to its role, its political position in general. When you talk about influence, various factors make a particular country influential. In the Middle East, in our region, you have the same society, the same ideology, many similar things, the same tribes, going across borders. So those factors are crossing the borders. If you have influence on one factor, your influence will be crossing the border. This is part of our nature. It’s not related to the conflict. Of course, when there is conflict and anarchy, another country will be more influential in your country. When you don’t have the will to have a sovereign country, you will have that influence. Now, the answer to your question is, Iran doesn’t have any ambitions in Syria, and as a country, as Syria, we would never allow any country to have influence our sovereignty. We don’t accept and the Iranians don’t want it either. We allow cooperation. But if you allowed any country to have influence, why not allow the Americans to have influence in Syria? That’s the problem with the Americans and with the West: they want to have influence without cooperation.

Question 22: Let me just push you a little bit further. Last week, a commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, of their airspace command, Haji Zadeh, said in an interview that Iran’s Supreme Leader has ordered his forces to build and operate missile plants in Syria. That suggests that Iran is playing a greater role and doing it on its own.

President Assad: No, playing a role through cooperation is different from playing a role through hegemony.

Question 23: So everything that Iran is doing…?

President Assad: Of course, in full cooperation with the Syrian government, and that’s always the case.

Question 24: Now Iran is one thing to deal with because it’s a country. But you also have militias which are sub-state actors, and therefore more complicated. One problem with working with these groups is that, unlike a government, they may not be willing to cooperate and it’s not always clear who to talk to. Are you worried about your ability to control these forces and to rein them in if you need to? And, a related question, this week Israel attacked Hezbollah forces in the Golan, and the Israelis suggest that they attacked them because Hezbollah was planning an attack on Israel from Syrian territory. Doesn’t this also highlight the danger of allowing militias with their own agendas, not necessarily your agenda, to come into the war?

President Assad: Do you mean Syrian, or any other militias in general?

Journalist: I mean especially Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shi’a militias.

President Assad: It’s natural to say that only the institutions of the government, of the state, let’s say, are the guarantee for stability and order. Any other factor that would play a role in parallel with the government could be positive, could be good in certain circumstances, but it will always have side effects, negative side effects. That is a natural thing. And having militias who support the government is a side effect of the war. You have it, but you’re going to try to control this side effect. So, to have the way, if you ask any Syrian about that, he will give you a similar answer. Nobody will feel more comfortable than if they are dealing with government institutions, including the army and the police and so on. But talking about what happened in Quneitra is something completely different. Never has an operation against Israel happened through the Golan Heights since the ceasefire in 1974. It has never happened. So, for Israel to allege that there was a plan for an operation, that’s a far cry from reality, just an excuse, because they wanted to assassinate somebody from Hezbollah.

Question 25: But the Israelis have been very careful since the war began to not get involved except when they felt when their interests were directly threatened.

President Assad: That’s not true, because they’ve been attacking Syria now for nearly two years, without any reason.

Journalist: But in each case, they say it’s because Hezbollah was being given weapons from Iran through Syria.

President Assad: They attacked army positions. What is the relation between Hezbollah and the army?

Journalist: Those were cases where the army accidentally shelled-

President Assad: Those are false allegations.

Question 26: So what do you think Israel’s agenda is?

President Assad: They are supporting the rebels in Syria. It’s very clear. Because whenever we make advances in some place, they attack in order to undermine the army. It’s very clear. That’s why some in Syria joke, how can you say that al Qaeda doesn’t have an air force? They have the Israeli air force.

Question 27: To return to my question about militias, do you feel confident that you’ll be able to control them when this war end, because after all, any government, to have effective sovereignty, has to have what’s called a monopoly of force, and that’s very hard when you have these independent armed groups running around.

President Assad: That’s self-evident, the state cannot fulfill its commitment to society if it’s not the only master of order.

Journalist: But you see in Iraq how hard that is, because it is now very difficult for the government to control all these Shia militia which were empowered during the war.

President Assad: There’s a very important reason in Iraq: it’s because Paul Bremmer didn’t create a constitution for the state; he created one for factions. Whereas in Syria why did the army stand fast for four years in spite of this embargo, this war, tens of countries around the world attacking Syria and supporting the rebels? Because it has a real constitution, a real, secular constitution. That is the reason. In Iraq, it is sectarian. When you talk about a sectarian constitution, it’s not a constitution.

Question 28: But what will you do about these militias when the war ends?

President Assad: Things should go back to normal like before the war.

Question 29: And you’re confident-?

President Assad: Yes, we don’t have any other option. That is the role of the government. This is self-evident.

Question 30: What impact are falling oil prices having on the war in Syria? After all, your two closest allies and supporters, Iran and Russia, are very dependent on oil prices and they have suffered tremendous damage to their budgets in recent months as the price of oil has fallen. Do you worry about their ability to continue helping you?

President Assad: No, because they don’t give us money, so it has no effect on Syria. Even if they are going to help us, it would be in the forms of loans We’re like any other country, Sometimes we pay, sometimes we take loans.

Journalist: But their military support costs them money, and if they have less money to pay for their own militaries, won’t that become a problem?

President Assad: No, because when you pay for armaments or any other goods, you don’t have a problem.

Question 31: So you’re saying everything you’re getting from the Russians and Iranians…?

President Assad: So far we haven’t seen any changes, so what the influence is on them, I cannot answer.

Question 32: You’ve said in past interviews that you and your government have made mistakes in the course of the war. What are those mistakes? Is there anything that you regret?

President Assad: Every government, every person, makes mistakes, so that’s again self-evident, it’s a given. But if you want to talk about political mistakes, you have to ask yourself, what are the major decisions that you took since the crisis started? We took three main decisions: first of all, to be open to all dialogue. Second, we changed the constitution and the law according to what many in the opposition were saying, allegedly, that this is the reason of the crisis. Third, we took the decision to defend our country, to defend our self, to fight terrorists. So I don’t think those three decisions can be described as wrong or mistakes. If you want to talk about practice, any official in any place can make mistakes, but there’s a difference between practice mistakes and policy mistakes.

Question 33: Can you describe some of the practical mistakes?

President Assad: I would have to go back to officials on the ground, there’s nothing in my mind. I would rather talk about policies.

Question 34: Do you feel there have been any policy mistakes that you’re responsible for?

President Assad: I mentioned the major decisions.

Journalist: But you said those are not mistakes.

President Assad: To defend the country from terrorism? If I wanted to say that it’s a mistake, then to be correct would be to support the terrorists.

Journalist: I’m just wondering if there’s anything you did that you wish in retrospect you had done differently.

President Assad: Regarding these three main decisions, they were correct, and I am confident about this.

Question 35: In terms of lower-level practical mistakes, are people being held accountable, say, for human rights abuses, for the excessive use of force, or the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, those kinds of things?

President Assad: Yes. Some people were detained because they breached the law in that regard, and that happens of course in such circumstances.

Journalist: In terms of their treatment of civilians or protestors, is that what you’re referring to?

President Assad: Yes, during the protests at the very beginning, yes.

Question 36: Since the U.S. began its air campaign against the Islamic State, Syria and the U.S. have become strange kinds of partners and are effectively cooperating in that aspect of the fight. Do you see the potential for increased cooperation with the U.S.?

President Assad: The potential is definitely always there, because we’ve been talking about or asking for international cooperation against terrorism for 30 years, but this potential needs will. The question that we have is, how much will does the United States have to really fight terrorism on the ground? So far, we haven’t seen anything concrete in spite of the attacks on ISIS in northern Syria. There’s nothing concrete. What we’ve seen so far is just, let’s say, window dressing, nothing real. Since the beginning of these attacks, ISIS has gained more land in Syria and Iraq.

Question 37: What about the airstrikes on Kobani? Those have been effective in slowing ISIS.

President Assad: Kobani is a small city, with about 50,000 inhabitants. It’s been more than three months since the beginning of the attacks, and they haven’t finished. The Same areas, With the al Qaeda factions occupying them, the Syrian Army liberated in less than three weeks. It means they’re not serious about fighting terrorism.

Question 38: So are you saying you want a greater U.S. involvement in the war against ISIS?

President Assad: It’s not about greater involvement by the military, because it’s not only about the military, it’s about politics, it’s about how much the United States wants to influence the Turks, because if the terrorists can withstand the airstrikes for this period, it means that the Turks keep sending them armaments and money. Did the United States put any pressure on Turkey to stop the support of al Qaeda? They didn’t, they haven’t. So, it’s not only about military involvement. This is first. Second, if you want to talk about the military involvement, American officials publically acknowledge that without troops on the ground, they cannot achieve anything concrete. Which troops on the grounds are you depending on?

Question 39: So are you suggesting there should be U.S. troops on the ground?

President Assad: Not U.S. troops. I’m talking about the principle, the military principle, I’m not saying American troops. If you want to say I want to make war on terrorism, you have to have troops on the ground. The question you have to ask the Americans is: which troops are you going to depend on? Definitely, it has to be Syrian troops. This is our land, this is our country. We are responsible. We don’t ask for American troops at all.

Question 40: So, what would you like to see from the United States? You mentioned more pressure on Turkey …

President Assad: Pressure on Turkey, pressure on Saudi Arabia, pressure on Qatar to stop supporting the rebels. Second, to make legal cooperation with Syria and start by asking permission from our government to carry out such attacks. They didn’t, so it’s illegal.

Question 41: I’m sorry, I’m not clear on that point. You want them to make legal…?

President Assad: Of course, if you want to make any kind of action in another country, you ask their permission.

Question 42: I see. So, a formal agreement between Washington and Damascus to allow for airstrikes?

President Assad: The format we can discuss later, but you start with permission. Is it an agreement, is it a treaty? That’s another issue.

Question 43: And would you be willing to take steps to make cooperation easier with Washington?

President Assad: With any country that is serious about fighting terrorism, we are ready to make cooperation, if they’re serious.

Question 44: What steps would you be prepared to make to show Washington that you’re willing to cooperate?

President Assad: I think they are the ones who have to show the will. We are already fighting on the ground, we don’t have to show that.

Question 45: The U.S. is currently training 5,000 Syrian fighters who are scheduled to enter Syria in May. Now, U.S. General John Allen has been very careful to say that these troops will not be directed at the Syrian government, but will be focused on ISIS alone. What will you do when these troops enter the country? Will you allow them to enter? Will you attack them?

President Assad: Any troops that don’t work in cooperation with the Syrian Army are illegal and should be fought. That’s very clear.

Question 46: Even if this brings you into conflict with the U.S.?

President Assad: Without cooperation with Syrian troops, they are illegal, and are puppets of another country, so they are going to be fought like any other illegal militia fighting against the Syrian Army. But that brings another question, about those troops. Obama said that they are a fantasy. How did fantasy become reality?

Journalist: I think with kind of training program.

President Assad: But you can’t make extremism moderate.

Journalist: There are still some moderate members of the opposition. They are weaker and weaker all the time, but I think the U.S. government is trying very carefully to ensure that the fighters it trains are not radicals.

President Assad: But the question is why is the moderate opposition – if you call them opposition, we call them rebels – why are they weaker and weaker? They are still weaker because of developments in the Syrian crisis. Bringing 5,000 from the outside will make most of them defect and join ISIS and other groups which is what happened during the last year. So that’s why I said it’s still illusory. It is not the 5,000 that are illusory, but the idea itself.

Question 47: Part of what makes Washington so reluctant to cooperate with you more formally are the allegations of serious human rights abuses by your government. These allegations aren’t just from the U.S. government, they are also from the UN Human Rights Commission, the Independent Special Investigative Commission of the UN. You are familiar with these allegations, I’m sure. They include denying access for relief groups to refugee camps, indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, photo evidence provided by the defector code-named Cesar who made a presentation to the U.S. Congress showing terrible torture and abuse in Syrian prisons. Are you prepared to take action on these issues in order to make cooperation with the U.S. easier?

President Assad: The funny thing about this administration is that it’s the first one in history to build its evaluation and later decisions on social media. We call it a social media administration, which is not politics. None of these allegations you mentioned are concrete, all of them are allegations. You can bring photos from anyone and say this is torture. Who took the pictures? Who is he? Nobody knows. There is no verification of any of this evidence, so it’s all allegations without evidence.



Journalist: But Cesar’s photos have been looked at by independent European investigators.

President Assad: No, no. It’s funded by Qatar, and they say it’s an anonymous source. So nothing is clear or proven. The pictures are not clear which person they show. They’re just pictures of a head, for example, with some skulls. Who said this is done by the government, not by the rebels? Who said this is a Syrian victim, not someone else? For example, photos published at the beginning of the crisis were from Iraq and Yemen. Second, the United States in particular and the West in general are in no position to talk about human rights. They are responsible for most of the killings in the region, especially the United States after getting into Iraq, and the UK after invading Libya, and the situation in Yemen, and what happened in Egypt in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorism in Tunisia. All these problems happened because of the United States. They were the first ones to trample international law and Security Council resolutions, not us.

Journalist: That may or may not be true, but those are separate issues, and that does not absolve your government of responsibility.

President Assad: No, no. The United States accused, so we have to answer that part. I’m not saying if there’s any human rights breach or infringement, the government has no responsibility. That is another issue. The second part of your question is about the allegations, they’re still allegations. If you want me to answer, I have to answer about something that is concrete, proved, and verified.

Question 48: Are you prepared to categorically deny that there’s torture and abuse of prisoners in Syria?

President Assad: If there’s any unbiased and fair way to verify all those allegations, of course we are ready. That would be in our interest.

Question 49: What impact would a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal have on Syria?

President Assad: Nothing, because the crisis here was never part of the negotiations, and Iran refused to make it such, and that is correct because there is no link between the two.

Journalist: But many in the U.S. anticipate that if Iran and the U.S. strike a deal, it will make cooperation between the two countries much easier. People therefore wonder if Iran might decide to reduce its support for Syria as a favor to the U.S. government.

President Assad: We have never had any positive information about such a thing, never. I cannot discuss something which I don’t have any information about.

Question 50: Describe whether you think the war is going well from the government’s perspective. Independent analysts have suggested that your government currently controls 45 to 50 percent of the territory of Syria.

President Assad: First of all, if you want to describe the arena, it’s not a war between two countries, between two armies where you have an incursion and you lost some territory that you want to regain. It’s not like this. We’re talking about rebels that infiltrate areas inhabited by civilians. You have Syrian terrorists that support foreign terrorists to come and hide among civilians, they launch what you call guerrilla attacks. That is the shape of this war, so you cannot look at it as being about territory. Second, wherever the Syrian Army has wanted to go, it has succeeded, but the Syrian army cannot have a presence on every kilometer of Syrian territory. That’s impossible. We made some advances in the past two years. But if you want to ask me “is it going well,” I say that every war is bad, because you always lose, you always have destruction in a war. The main question is what have we won in this war? What we won in this war is that the Syrian people have rejected the terrorists, the Syrian people support their government more, the Syrian people support their army more. Before talking about winning territory, talk about winning the hearts and minds and the support of the Syrian people. That’s what we have won. What’s left is logistical, it’s technical. That is a matter of time. The war is moving in a positive way, but that doesn’t mean you’re not losing on the national level, because you lose lives, you lose infrastructure, the war itself has very bad social effects.



Question 51: Do you think you will eventually defeat the rebels militarily?

President Assad: If they don’t have external support, and supply and recruitment of new terrorists within Syria, there will be no problem defeating them. Even today we don’t have a problem militarily. The problem is that they still have this continuous supply, mainly from Turkey.

Question 52: So, Turkey seems to be the neighbor that you’re most concerned about?

President Assad: Exactly, logistically, and about terrorist financing from Saudi Arabia and Qatar but through Turkey.

Question 53: Do you blame Erdogan personally? This is a man you once had a fairly good relationship with.

President Assad: Exactly, because he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, which is the base of al Qaeda because it was the first political Islamic organization that promoted violent political Islam in the early 20th century. He belongs strongly and is a staunch believer in these values, he’s very fanatical, and that’s why he still supports ISIS. He is personally responsible for what happened.

Question 54: Do you see any other potential partners in the region? For example, General al-Sisi in Egypt?

President Assad: I wouldn’t talk about him personally, but as long as Egypt and the Egyptian army and the government are fighting the same kind of terrorists as in Iraq, of course, we can consider these countries eligible to cooperate with in fighting the same enemy.

Question 55: Two final questions, if I may. Can you imagine a scenario in which Syria returns to the status quo as it was before the fighting started almost four years ago?

President Assad: In what sense?

Journalist: In the sense that Syria is whole again, it is not divided, it controls its borders, it starts to rebuild, and it is at peace and a predominantly secular country.

President Assad: If you look at a military map now, the Syrian Army exists in every corner. Not every place; by every corner I mean north, south, east, west, and between. If you didn’t believe in a unified Syria, that Syria can go back to its previous position, you wouldn’t send the army there, as a government. If you don’t believe in this as a people, you would have seen people in Syria isolated in different ghettos, people isolated in different ghettos based on ethnic and sectarian or religious identity. As long as this is not the situation, the people live with each other, the army is everywhere, the army is made up of every color of Syrian society, or the Syrian fabric. This means that we all believe Syria should go back to the way it was. We don’t have any other option, because if it doesn’t go back to its previous position, that will affect every surrounding country. It’s one fabric, it’s a domino effect that will have influence from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Question 56: If you were able to deliver a message to President Obama today, what would it be?

President Assad: I think the normal thing that you ask any official in the world is to work for the interests of his people. And the question I would ask any American is: what do you get from supporting terrorists in our country, in our region? What did you get from supporting the Muslim Brotherhood a few years ago in Egypt and other countries? What did you get from supporting someone like Erdogan? One of the officials from your country asked me seven years ago in Syria at the end of a meeting: how do you think we can solve the problem in Afghanistan? I told him, you have to be able to deal with officials who are not puppets, who can tell you “no.” So, for the United States only looking for puppet officials and client states is not how you can serve the interests of your country. You are the greatest power in the world now, you have many things to disseminate around the world: knowledge, innovation, IT with its positive repercussions. How can you be the best in these fields yet the worst in the political field? This is a contradiction. That is what I think the American people should analyze and question. Why do you fail in every war? You can create war, you can create problems, but you cannot solve any problem. Twenty years of the peace process in Palestine and Israel and you cannot do anything with this in spite of the fact that you are a great country.

Question 57: But in the context of Syria, what would a better policy look like?

President Assad: One that preserves stability in the Middle East. Syria is the heart of the Middle East. Everybody knows that. If the Middle East is sick, the whole world will be unstable. In 1991, when we started the peace process, we had a lot of hope. Now, after over 20 years, things are not at square one; they’re much below that square. So the policy should be to help peace in the region, to fight terrorism, to promote secularism, to support this area economically, to help upgrade the mind and society like you did in your country. That is the supposed mission of the United States, not to launch wars. Launching war doesn’t make you a great power.

SOURCED FROM | http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=26278
---

"Been pointed out before and should be noted again: Ain’t no head of state in the world - apart from Russian Prez Vlad “The Bad” Putin - that handles the media quite like Syrian President Dr. Bashar al-Assad. His eloquence and defiance, as well as his confident yet humble demeanor, come across with every answer delivered, even when dealing with an arrogant, combative, disrespectful “journalist” like the Foreign Affairs correspondent who just interviewed him. When pressed on the matter of the illegitimate Israeli regime’s role in the conspiracy against Syria, the Syrian leader dropped a bomb on this imperialist mouthpiece: “They [the Zionists] are supporting the rebels in Syria. It’s very clear. Because whenever we make advances in some place, they attack in order to undermine the Syrian Arab Army. It’s very clear. That’s why some in Syria joke, how can you say that Al-Qaeda doesn’t have an air force? They have the Israeli Air Force.” Simply said, the man puts his Western and regional adversaries to shame. "
~ S. Abdallah