The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...
2589
The Global Intelligence Files

### Index pages

List of Releases

### by Date of Document

unspecified
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

### by Date of Release

2001-03-13
2010-03-10
2011-03-05
2011-03-15
2012-01-29
2012-02-27
2012-02-28
2012-02-29
2012-03-01
2012-03-02
2012-03-03
2012-03-04
2012-03-05
2012-03-06
2012-03-07
2012-03-08
2012-03-09
2012-03-10
2012-03-11
2012-03-12
2012-03-13
2012-03-14
2012-03-15
2012-03-16
2012-03-17
2012-03-19
2012-03-20
2012-03-23
2012-03-25
2012-03-26
2012-03-27
2012-04-01
2012-04-02
2012-04-24
2012-04-26
2012-04-30
2012-05-10
2012-06-18
2012-06-20
2012-07-01
2012-07-24
2012-07-28
2012-07-29
2012-07-30
2012-07-31
2012-08-01
2012-08-02
2012-08-05
2012-08-06
2012-08-07
2012-08-08
2012-08-09
2012-08-10
2012-08-11
2012-08-12
2012-08-13
2012-08-14
2012-08-15
2012-08-16
2012-08-17
2012-08-18
2012-08-19
2012-08-20
2012-08-21
2012-08-22
2012-08-23
2012-08-24
2012-08-25
2012-08-26
2012-08-27
2012-08-29
2012-08-30
2012-08-31
2012-09-01
2012-09-02
2012-09-03
2012-09-04
2012-09-05
2012-09-06
2012-09-07
2012-09-09
2012-09-10
2012-09-11
2012-09-12
2012-09-13

### Our Partners

ABC Color - Paraguay
Al Akhbar - Lebanon
Al Masry Al Youm - Egypt
Asia Sentinel - Hong Kong
Bivol - Bulgaria
Carta Capital - Brazil
CIPER - Chile
Dawn Media - Pakistan
L'Espresso - Italy
La Repubblica - Italy
La Jornada - Mexico
La Nacion - Costa Rica
Malaysia Today - Malaysia
McClatchy - United States
Nawaat - Tunisia
NDR/ARD - Germany
Owni - France
Pagina 12 - Argentina
Philip Dorling - Fairfax media contributor - Australia
Plaza Publica - Guatemala
Publica - Brazil
Publico.es - Spain
Rolling Stone - United States
Russian Reporter - Russia
Ta Nea - Greece
Taraf - Turkey
The Hindu - India
The Yes Men - Bhopal Activists
Sunday Star-Times - New Zealand

### Community resources

Supporters Support Wikileaks Follow us on Twitter Twitter this Follow us on Facebook

courage is contagious

# The Global Intelligence Files

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

## AFGHANISTAN/AFRICA/LATAM/EAST ASIA/FSU/MESA - Lebanese Hezbollah chief raps USA, hails Syria in lengthy TV interview - IRAN/US/RUSSIA/CHINA/KSA/ISRAEL/AFGHANISTAN/LEBANON/OMAN/SYRIA/QATAR/IRAQ/EGYPT/BAHRAIN/LIBYA/YEMEN/TUNISIA/UK

Released on 2012-08-22 09:00 GMT

Email-ID | 730304
Date | 2011-10-26 11:23:13
From | nobody@stratfor.com
To | translations@stratfor.com
List-Name | translations@stratfor.com

Lebanese Hezbollah chief raps USA, hails Syria in lengthy TV interview
Beirut Al-Manar Channel Television in Arabic at 1730 gmt on 24 October
carries live in its "Between Two Brackets" programme a three-hour
interview with Hasan Nasrallah, secretary-general of Lebanon's
Hezbollah, by anchorwoman Batul Ayyub Na'im. Place of interview is not
specified.
Arab uprisings
Asked about how Hezbollah views the recent and current Arab uprisings,
Nasrallah says: "Several months after the start of these Arab
revolutions, and as a result of our contacts and meetings and
information we have collected from reliable sources, facts have become
clearer. This confirms the opinion that we have expressed right from the
beginning that what happened in these countries was truly a national
movement. This means that what began in Tunisia and then in other Arab
countries was the result of popular national will and was not a US
scheme. It is illogical to say that what happened was a US scheme simply
because these regimes were pro-US."
He adds that the United States would not topple regimes loyal to it,
noting that "the Syrian regime is the only regime that cannot be
described as subject to the United States' will." He then says "the
Americans rode the wave in an attempt to hijack these revolutions and
derail them from their desired course and noble aims."
On how "to prevent the United States from achieving its aims and fortify
the revolutions," he says this can be done through "popular awareness
that the US administration is not their friend," noting that this
administration "might have exploited some of the difficult circumstances
in some countries and tried to present itself as a friend, defender and
helper although it was the protector and defender of these dictatorial
regimes and continues to be so."
When told that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said "the Arab
revolutions pose a threat to minorities," and asked if he is concerned
about the fate of minorities, Nasrallah says "the first threat in the
region lies in the existence of the state of Israel. This is a threat to
all peoples of the region." He adds: "The second threat is posed by the
US plan, especially during the last 10 years when the Americans came to
establish a new Middle East. This plan has failed but there is an
attempt now to revive it. It failed as a result of the steadfastness and
sacrifices of the resistance movements and opposition regimes. The
threat lies in the fact that the new Middle East they were talking about
is based on re-division of the region into rival countries established
on the basis of sectarian and ethnic principles. Israel would then
remain the strong and able state, like an oasis of democracy in a
volatile region, and this is a threat." He says this is a threat ! to
all Muslims and Christians and all peoples of the region without
exception. He adds that there is a third threat posed to all by the
"extremist takfiri movements [movements embracing ideas that accuse
other Muslims of being infidels] that adopt killing as a method," noting
that "there is no Sunni majority targeting the religious minorities in
the region and therefore, the Sunni majority poses no threat," adding
that this majority, just like other religious groups, is threatened by
Israel, by the USA's "divisive" plan, and the extremist and takfiri
movements that "falsely" call themselves jihadist. He concludes by
saying "we do not need an alliance of minorities against a Sunni
majority" but "a broad national Islamic-Christian alliance" to confront
the elements of fear.
Libya
Turning to the situation in Libya, the anchorwoman asks how Hezbollah
views the future of Libya. Responding, Nasrallah first expresses
satisfaction with the "victory of the Libyan people and the end of
fighting in Libya." He adds: "The Libyan people are today facing great
challenges. They do not only want to change the regime, but also to
rebuild Libya. They want to build a state and establish a new regime and
new institutions." He then calls for national reconciliation and
forgiveness and for "addressing the wounds", maintaining the sovereignty
and independence of Libya and preserving its natural wealth.
Asked if Hezbollah has obtained any new information about the fate of
Imam Musa al-Sadr and his two companions who went missing in Libya more
than three decades ago, he says "the Lebanese in general and the lovers
and students of Imam Al-Sadr in particular are today living in special
emotional days" but "there is still no accurate information to build on
but the search for them not yet been exhausted." He adds that "the
Lebanese government takes this issue seriously" and there is "intensive
and serious follow-up and there are friends helping with the matter." He
then hopes that the delegation sent to Libya will achieve results and
also expresses the hope that Libya's National Transitional Council will
give due attention to the issue.
The anchorwoman then asks him: "Last week, US President Barack Obama
suddenly announced the final withdrawal [of US troops] from Iraq at the
end of 2011. All were surprised by the timing of this announcement. How
does Hezbollah view this decision or announcement? In what context do
you view it? Is it in the context of failure of the US plan in Iraq or
the context of tactical US measures on the ground?" Responding,
Nasrallah says: "In our opinion and without any exaggeration, what
happened was a real victory for the Iraqi people and Iraqi resistance
and for the political forces that held out firmly and did not yield to
the US will. What happened was a real victory for the resistance and
opposition axis in the region and all those who stood by the side of the
Iraqi people and prevented Iraq from turning into easy prey for the
Americans. This is a historic defeat of the Americans. This is not what
I am saying; this is what those who launched the war are saying. T! he
US Republican Party is now saying that this is a historic defeat of the
Americans and a victory for their enemies. They mentioned Iran at the
top of the list. This, of course, is a blessed historic achievement.
Congratulations to the Iraqi people." Continuing, Nasrallah says the
Americans would not have thought of leaving Iraq if they had felt secure
there, noting that "resistance turned Iraq into a scorched land under
the feet of the Americans, who realized that they would sustain
unbearable human, economic, financial, and psychological losses."
US-Iran ties
Commenting on US accusations that Iran was behind an attempt to
assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Nasrallah says the
Americans asked to open a hotline of direct contact with Iran, and named
a US general for this purpose and even mentioned the name of the Iranian
general they wanted to communicate with, but the Iranian leaders turned
down the offer. He adds: "The Americans need this hotline very urgently
. The reason for this line as they said and announced in the news media
was the situation in the Gulf region, but the real reason was discussing
the issue of Iraq and primarily the issue of Afghanistan, not to mention
the rest of the regional issues. They believe that Iran has influence in
Iraq and Afghanistan and they want to get out as they are defeated
there. They want to maintain some of their interests and find a certain
scenario for their withdrawal. The Iranian refusal angered the
Americans. So, they fabricated this issue to put pressure on! the
Iranians to come to talks. In my opinion, and according to my
information, the purpose of opening this fabricated issue is not
preparing for war on Iran. It could be imposing further sanctions in
order to put pressure on Iran. The aim is to bring Iran to the table of
direct negotiations with the Americans, but the Iranians continue to
reject this." He adds that this issue can be exploited by the Americans
to "impose new sanctions on Iran in order to subjugate it" and "to
increase tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
When told that some say these accusations are a prelude to military
action against Iran, Nasrallah says: "I do not think the Americans are
ready to fight a new war. Many strategic experts in the region say so,
too. The reason is the military and security defeat inflicted on US
troops in Iraq and the region, in addition to what is being inflicted on
it now in Afghanistan. This is in addition to the financial and economic
situation in the United States." He then says a Republican candidate has
called for a "halt to all US foreign aid, including aid to Israel,"
noting that this shows the "depth of the financial and economic crisis
in the United States."
Continuing, Nasrallah says: "I do not expect the United States under
this financial, economic, moral, and psychological situation to start a
new war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is exaggeration. I think
that this threat is over now or at its minimal level." He adds that "all
they want is to put pressure on Iran to make concessions, act in harmony
with them and both coexist and work in line with the US project and US
interests." He then hopes that "the brothers" in Saudi Arabia will not
believe these US accusations about the assassination attempt, noting
that "any Iranian-Saudi tension or tension between countries in the
region would not be in the interest of the countries or peoples of this
region but in the interest of their enemies."
Bahrain
Na'im says that in Bahrain, "the crisis is still open between the regime
and the Bahraini people." She adds that Bahrain "criticized you because
you are not with freedom or democracy, but the issue [for you] is a
sectarian issue." She then asks him whether Hezbollah has changed its
position on this issue, "this revolution."
Answering this question, Nasrallah says: "We usually do not interfere in
Arab affairs, considering this has always been our policy and tradition.
Even when the movement began in Tunisia, we were late in adopting a
position because we said that this is an internal matter. When we held a
celebration, we held it in solidarity with the Tunisian, Yemeni,
Egyptian, Libyan, and Bahraini people. Therefore, we did not express
solidarity with Shi'is or Sunnis or with the followers of a certain
sect, excluding the other. Developments in Syria did not begin at the
time. Syria's issue is a special issue, which has its own headline.
Therefore, we expressed solidarity with these peoples who rebelled
against regimes which have something in common; namely, they are regimes
that are loyal to the Americans, submit to the US project, and their
position and performance towards the Arab-Israeli conflict are
understood, in addition to the fact that they are tyrannical regimes,
provi! ding these peoples demand freedom and sovereignty and call for
the return of these homelands to the nation and its causes. We have
supported all sides. We did not support Bahrain or any certain people."
He adds: "The truth is that when we talk about Bahrain I feel that the
Bahraini people have a special case of injustice. This is because at
many forums, even the forums of some Arab revolutions, when they talk
about Arab revolutions and the Arab spring, they mention all states, but
they do not mention Bahrain as if the Bahrainis are not Arab people, are
not Muslims, and are not a part of the Arab region, and as if there is a
democratic, elected, and free regime in Bahrain. All the issues that
caused the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen are also
there in Bahrain. This includes the nature of the regime, its regional
position, the system of which it is a part, and internal tyranny. In
addition, there is no elected government. Even the elected council -
half of it is appointed and its powers are limited. Therefore, we really
feel that this is unfair. They accuse us of using double standards
regarding our position towards Syria. We will talk about Sy! ria in
detail."
He then wonders about the standards of those who accuse him. He says: "I
can say I adopt a different position towards Syria. I say this frankly
and we will, God willing, try to clarify this issue tonight. Can they
tell us why they adopt a different position towards Bahrain and whether
this is because of the nature of the regime or the people? This is
despite the fact that what takes place in Bahrain is a very big popular
and national movement, which is confronted with repression."
Nasrallah says "as far as I know, the Bahraini opposition cannot even
have access to a satellite in the whole world," but "satellite channels
are open to the other Arab revolutions." He says: "I am not saying that
satellite channels should not be open to them, but I am saying that they
all should have access to satellite channels." He says that this is in
addition to the "peaceful movement" in Bahrain. He says: "Although many
sides have abandoned this wronged people, I believe that this people has
a strong faith in their right, they have clarity, insight, will,
courage, and patience. They can continue to demonstrate for one, two or
three years. Anyone who wagers on their exhaustion is wagering on a
mirage. Eventually, they want to achieve their goals."
Asked what do you have to say to the Bahraini youth, Nasrallah says: "I
do not want to say anything lest they come tomorrow to tell us this is
interference." He adds: "Just as we tell every country we tell them to
take care of internal cohesion, maintain unity, and unify their
movement, and to be in harmony with the enlightened, wise, and brave
leadership in the arena, the leadership that determines the nature of
the stage. I believe that eventually, this regime should meet this
people's will and demands."
Hamas
Asked about the prisoner swap deal between Hamas and Israel, Nasrallah
says: "We view the issue of Gil'ad Shalit and the swap deal, from
beginning to end, as a net achievement. They say net profit and we
consider this as a net achievement." He says that the capturing of this
soldier alive is a "great achievement in itself" because we are aware of
how difficult this issue is. He says that the most important thing is
that it "consolidates the culture of the resistance and the resistance
option."
Na'im says that some sides wonder about the timing of this deal and say
that it has come "because of the Hamas movement's difficult situation in
Syria and that Hamas began to come out of the Syrian-Iranian cloak into
Egyptian arms."
She then asks him how he reads this. Nasrallah says: "Let me also give
you some information and not analysis. It happens that we are close to
some of these files and we know something other than what is written in
the newspapers or said in the news media. First, all that is being said
to the effect that the Hamas leadership has an intention to leave
Damascus is not true. It is not true at all. It neither wants to leave
nor does anyone want it to leave. The Syrian government does not want
Hamas to leave and Hamas does not want to leave." As for the timing of
this issue, Nasrallah says that Hamas has been working on this deal for
years and before "the so-called Arab spring and before all these
developments."
After reviewing the facts surrounding this deal, Nasrallah says:
"Therefore, accomplishing a swap deal soon with the highest possible
ceiling is a required achievement, which has been made. We stress to you
and to the viewers, on behalf of the brothers in Hamas that it has been
accomplished away from any political considerations regarding its
timing. It has pure humanitarian considerations."
Asked about the two-state solution and "Mahmud Abbas' activity at the
United Nations," Nasrallah says: "The two-state solution will not pass
at the UN Security Council. The US veto is swayed, declared, and ready.
I wanted to say something before, but I had forgotten it; namely, that
all the United States' efforts to improve its image fail. The most
important reason behind this failure is its absolute commitment to
Israel on the security, political, financial, economic, and military
levels. Therefore, the falsity and hypocrisy of the entire US logic
regarding democracy, human rights, and respect for people and their will
become clear when the issue has to do with Palestine."
He adds: "As for the Palestine question in general, I believe that
current activity in the region has thus far been in favour of the
Palestine question. Today's Egypt is a different Egypt, Libya is
different, Tunisia is different, Yemen will be different, and Bahrain
will be different. Consequently, there is big activity in the region."
He says that neither America nor the West can prevent these peoples from
"expressing their convictions, opinion, and will regarding the
Arab-Israeli conflict." He adds: "The Israelis themselves admit this.
The so-called Israeli strategic environment in the region has changed in
a very significant and serious way and is not in favour of Israel. To be
added to this are the international changes. This includes the economic
and financial situation in America and the European states, taking into
consideration that Israel is a bogus state and entity and lives mainly
on aid and it is also a functional state. Therefore, the priorities ! of
the side that uses it have changed and it can no longer provide it with
strength or with the element of strength. I believe Israel will become
weaker and lose its options and consequently, there will be new, wide,
and positive doors, which will be open to the Palestinian people, God
willing, to regain their land and holy places."
Syria
On the situation in Syria, Nasrallah says: "On this issue, we will talk
with transparency, clarity, and responsibility. This is because some
sides try to say that there are double standards here." He adds: "We
said that our standard is as follows: First, is this regime, its
position, relationship, and place with regard the US-Israeli project in
the region. If there is a regime that is controlled by the US will and
that works to serve the US project in the region, there is also another
regime that is not a submissive or satellite regime and that does not
work to serve the US project. However, there is also a third regime,
which is like the second one and even better than it, which is an
opposition regime that rejects US conditions and stands against the
Israeli project in various forms. Therefore, there is first the regime's
position. No-one can ignore this point because he will be unfair.
Second, are the head of the regime and the leadership of the regime
read! y to make reforms? Are they going to make reforms or not? If there
is a regime that serves the US-Israeli project and is not ready to and
not serious about reforms and the people rise to confront it, we will be
with these people in a very natural way. By all standards and all
considerations, we cannot but be with them. Anyone who says that we
should not be with them has no logic or justifications."
He adds: "Is this regime an opposition regime? Yes, it is an opposition
regime. We are ready to discuss this with anyone who wants. We all
recall that, from 1982 in the minimum level, when the Americans came,
they had a project to liquidate the Palestine question, turn Lebanon
into another Israel, and impose a settlement on the region, Syria
confronted this and supported the resistance movement in Lebanon and
Palestine. We have managed to foil this project. Over the past 10 years,
there was also a US project, which is the new Middle East plan, and
Syria was one of the states that stood against this project and
contributed to foiling it. The foiling of the new Middle East plan was
not in the interest of the Syrian people only, but it was also in the
interest of all the region's peoples and the Arab and Islamic nation.
Syria's position was an advanced one."
Continuing on the Syrian position towards the "US project," Nasrallah
says "the only Arab president who used to talk about Iraq and the Iraqi
resistance was perhaps President Bashar al-Asad who did not accept all
these conditions and refused to succumb." He says that Syria "is a
partner in the victory of the resistance movements." He says that
President Al-Asad admitted that there are mistakes and that he "is
serious about reforms, can make reforms, and he began reforms." He adds:
"However, the confrontation took a different course and internal
confrontation and foreign pressures began to take place. Therefore, it
became clear that what is required in Syria is not reform and is not to
achieve democracy. What is required is to topple the resistance and
opposition regime. I say this with all responsibility and let all the
world hears me. Now, if President Bashar al-Asad goes to the Americans
and submits credentials of obedience, the issue in Syria will be solved!
."
He says that the "Americans continued to support Husni Mubarak until the
last moment, and tolerated Al-Qadhafi until the last moment, continued
to support Zine El Abidine Ben Ali until the last moment, and they still
support the regime in Bahrain. Even in Yemen, you can go and ask the
Yemeni opposition, which will tell you about the US position, which
supports the current Yemeni regime. Therefore, the problem for the
Americans has never been democracy, freedoms, or reforms."
Nasrallah wonders about the Syrian opposition's "rhetoric" regarding
Palestinian and pan-Arab issues. He says that it has no rhetoric because
"they do not want to upset the Americans." He adds: "Some of the leaders
of the opposition have relations and contacts with the Americans.
WikiLeaks talked about this before anyone else." He adds: "It has become
clear that the goal is not reform and no kind of reform will be accepted
from this regime because what is required is to change and topple the
regime."
On whether he supports the Syrian people or the Syrian regime, Nasrallah
says that the majority of the Syrian people are with the regime. He
adds: "The people stood with their leadership. Have President Bashar
al-Asad and Syria stood fast over the most difficult past 10 years in
the face of a US onslaught to control the region without their people?
Therefore, the credit goes to this people regarding this regime's
steadfastness in the face of the US project. This people have also been
with their regime and supported the resistance in Lebanon during the
July 2006 wars. They have received tens of thousands [of Lebanese
citizens] in the minimum."
He says: "We are not for toppling an opposition and resistance regime
which is ready for reforms and which has began reforms. We do this in
the interest of the Syrian people because the alternative, which they,
the West and the other camp want in Syria, is either a regime that
submits to the US will and gives Israel what it wants, such as the
so-called moderate Arab regimes, providing this will not be in the
interest of the Syrian people or in the interest of Syria's position and
its regional and pan-Arab importance; a civil war in Syria; or
partition."
He adds: "Therefore, since I like the Syrian people and care about them,
I should say that it is forbidden to take the Syrian people to positions
that are not in the interest of their security, stability, political and
pan-Arab value, or national unity. This is because this people's
strength lies in their national unity. Consequently, what is required in
Syria, with all clarity, is calm, leaving the street, stopping any form
of clash and confrontation, going to the dialogue table, and cooperation
to make reforms. The nation's interests, the interests of the
resistance, the confrontation of the US-Israeli project, and the
interests of the Syrian people, in our opinion, lie in this. This is why
we have this clear and transparent position."
He says that some Arab satellite channels, which exaggerate the
situation in Syria. He adds: "The situation is normal. There is nothing
in most areas in Syria."
Asked whether Hezbollah "sends thousands of fighters" to defend the
regime of Bashar al-Asad, Nasrallah says: "These are clear lies and very
serious slander. I have previously commented on this. Very regrettably,
some people, who call themselves Muslims who fear God, insist on
levelling such accusations." He then asks these people to come up with
evidence on this. He notes: "This is completely baseless. We have not
sent thousands or even half a person. We do not interfere in this at
all. We have a political position, which we express, and we have a media
position through which we explain things and help make the picture in
Syria clear."
He says that the US ambassador in Lebanon has recently told the 14 March
team that the situation in Syria "will not be settled within weeks or
months, but she went back to speak about one and two years." He says
that the Syrian leadership is not that weak to the point of asking
Hezbollah or others to send fighters to Syria.
Popularity
Na'im says: "Have you begun to feel that Hezbollah's popularity has
began to reduce and that it has started paying the price for this in the
Arab and Islamic world because of these positions?"
Nasrallah says that one should abide by his principles "away from
whether the people understand this or not and whether his popularity
wanes or not, considering that this is not the goal." He adds: "For
example, we have won great respect in the Arab and Islamic world because
of our resistance and steadfastness, true. However, have we resisted for
winning respect? Have we stood fast to win respect? No, we have resisted
and fought to liberate our land, defend our homeland, and foil the
dangerous US project of imposing hegemony on the region."
Arab League
On the coming visit to Syria by an Arab League delegation and whether
"you wager on an Arab role in this crisis," Nasrallah says: "I prefer to
say let us wait for the meetings, which will be held in Damascus. This
is because, regrettably, a part of the Arab action is strongly pushing
towards toppling the regime and not towards making reforms." He adds:
"Some Arabs are proceeding strongly in this direction and they sometime
resort to political, sectarian, and religious incitement in this regard.
There were attempts at the Arab League to suspend Syria's membership and
to isolate it in the Arab world, but they have failed."
Asked whether "you put this move within the framework of recognizing the
Syrian National Council," Nasrallah says: "The Arab League has not made
such recognition. I believe that the structure of the committee and the
states participating in the committee include a kind of balance and
positive approach. Consequently, let me talk about the positive things
more than the negative things. God willing, we hope that our Arab
brothers will understand the situation and that they will help achieve
security, stability, and prosperity in Syria and support reforms in it."
Syria "strength"
Asked whether Syria "has passed the stage of danger," Nasrallah says:
"We can say yes in a very significant way. No-one can talk in a definite
and categorical way. Syria is still exposed to pressures. The popular
activity is at its lowest levels but a part of it has turned into an
armed action, providing this is dangerous, and it would have taken a
dangerous course in some areas had it not been for the accurate tackling
by the Syrian leadership.
The worst thing, however, is foreign pressure, which includes talk about
sanctions or siege. We have seen in the news a short while ago that the
Americans withdrew their ambassador for security reasons. Syria replied
by withdrawing its ambassador from Washington for consultations. This
shows firmness and strength. They have not left their ambassador in
Washington, but they withdrew him for consultations. This is a sign of
strength and not a sign of weakness at all."
On repetition of the Libyan "scenario" in Syria, Nasrallah says: "I
believe that there is a big difference. First, the popular position in
Syria is different. In other words, the popular majority is with the
regime while we know that the popular majority was against the regime in
a very strong way." He adds: "I believe that the fact that Syria is
adjacent to the Israeli entity, the so-called state of Israel, makes the
Americans and NATO think twice, and I do not want to say prevent, before
taking any military action against Syria. This is not for the sake of
Syria or its people, for the sake of saving their blood, or for the sake
of freedoms, but out of fear that an attack on Syria would lead to
regional developments that might harm or hurt Israel or to large-scale
war in the region. Because the priority for America and NATO in the
region is Israel, first and foremost, I rule out, providing I do not
want to emphasize, military action against the regime in Syri! a."
Lebanon-Syria ties
Na'im asks: "Lebanon is not far from all these developments in Syria,
taking into consideration that some groups are involved in smuggling
weapons and in supporting and sympathizing with the Syrian opposition.
Do you expect that this will reflect negatively on relative stability in
Lebanon?"
Answering this question, Nasrallah says: "We all know that the security
of Lebanon and Syria is one. All Lebanese should admit this. Some sides,
however, still ignore this fact. Despite this, it goes without saying
that Lebanon's security is from Syria's security and Syria's security is
from Lebanon's security. What is taking place in Syria definitely
reflects on Lebanon in the same way that what was taking place in
Lebanon reflected negatively on Syria."
He adds: "There is no government in Lebanon that classified Syria as an
enemy. Some political forces classified it as an enemy. The official
position in Lebanon, however, has never classified Syria as an enemy,
but as a friend. Therefore, you [14 March Forces] are superimposing your
convictions on the state. They say that we impose our convictions on the
state. You oppose the state's convictions. The official institutions in
Lebanon say that Syria is a friend and is not an enemy. The official
institutions in Lebanon also say that Israel is an enemy and is not a
friend. Therefore, let us see what international law and norms say when
an enemy violates borders and when a friend violates borders. Let us
examine this as statesmen. Will they act as the 14 March team? No. When
the enemy makes violations, there will be a hue and cry and statements
will be issued, denunciations will be made, complaints lodged with the
UN Security Council and measures taken on the groun! d. The 14 March
forces ignore this issue completely. In my opinion, this is because deep
inside, they do not deal with Israel as an enemy. I do not want to say
they consider it a friend. I do not want to exaggerate the issue. Deep
inside, they do not consider Israel as an enemy. Therefore, the
confirmed and clear violations, which are endorsed by UNIFIL, do not
draw any reaction by the 14 March Forces."
He says: "When a state chases wanted people, for example, and crosses
borders, their representatives hold a meeting to solve the issue because
they are two friendly states. They, however, do not launch a media,
political, and propaganda campaign against the other state. This is what
the 14 March forces are asking the government of Prime Minister [Najib]
Miqati to do. This is unfair and incorrect." He adds: "In the same way
we ask the Lebanese government to tackle Syrian violations, if there is
any, we should also ask it to tackle Lebanese violations, which include
the smuggling of fighters and weapons, providing this is confirmed."
He says: "I call on every Lebanese, everyone of us, through his
friendships and relationships, and say that if we can push things in
Syria towards dialogue, negotiations, meeting, reconciliation, and
reform, this will be better for Lebanon and for all political forces in
Lebanon. Anyone who bases his calculations on toppling the regime in
Syria and says that this will be in the interest of Lebanon is mistaken,
confused, and adventurous. I hope this issue will be reconsidered."
"Hezbollah government"
Then, Nasrallah is asked to provide "a straightforward answer" and make
an assessment of the Miqati government's experience "almost four months
after the government came into being." She asks him whether the Miqati
government is a Hezbollah government. Responding to Na'im's remarks and
question, Nasrallah, laughingly, says: "Now, as for the question on a
Hezbollah government [is concerned], it goes without saying that we are
not affiliated with a Hezbollah government. This is also a straight
answer. However, unfortunately, since the first day of the government's
inception, the other team has tried to say that this is a Hezbollah
government. Nonetheless, it has failed to promote this for a long time;
and the issue has evaporated into thin air. Only a few are still using
this language." He adds that the other team also uses the phrase "the
ruling party" to characterize Hezbollah. Nasrallah goes on to say:
"Anywhere in the world, a ruling party forms a government! within two to
three days. It does not spend four to five months engaged in debates and
discussions with various political forces. The prime minister-designate,
the president of the republic, and the heads of parliamentary blocs were
all instrumental in the formation of the government. They were decisive
and key factors in this."
Nasrallah says that this was attested to by discussions held on the
government statement, and also by the changes made to this statement. He
adds that various political figures and parties have described the
government configuration as an assortment of "various and diverse
political forces that have their own visions, their own peculiarities,
and their own sets of priorities," noting that this is "a correct
characterization." Nasrallah goes on to say: "This shows that all the
forces making up the government are nowadays saying that this is not a
Hezbollah government. Speaking for Hezbollah, I share their views and
say that this is not a Hezbollah government."
Elaborating on this issue, Nasrallah commends the Miqati government,
saying that it "can boast this extent of democracy, debate, and
diversity of views; this tug-of-war; and this give-and-take." He adds:
"This is the reality of the government. Consequently, and most
unfortunately, if the whole government shows a complete identity of
views, they [the other team] come out to say that that there is a party
that holds sway within the government, and that people [partners in the
government] are powerless, and that this explains why things are
proceeding swiftly. And if there are discussions, a give-and-take, a
diversity of views, and, sometimes, a disparity of views, they start
talking of bickering, of a lack of solidarity within the government, and
of infighting within the government, which suggests that the government
is about to implode. This characterization is neither correct nor
accurate. In a nutshell, we are facing a national government that
represents a pa! rliamentary majority and a true popular majority."
Asked whether he is satisfied with the performance of the Miqati
government, Nasrallah says that while making an assessment of this
government's performance, one should take into account the fact that
this government "inherited" a Lebanese domestic situation left behind by
successive Lebanese governments, including high indebtedness, crises, a
huge administration vacuum, and a lack of an economic and social vision.
Elaborating in his praise of the performance of the Miqati government,
he adds: "For the first time, we have an appropriately endorsed
electricity plan. That is, the plan was debated by the Council of
Ministers, which referred it to the Chamber of Deputies. It was
thoroughly debated. So, for the first time, we have an electricity plan
that is heading for implementation, God willing. Of course, this is a
huge accomplishment." Nasrallah goes on to say that the Ministry of
Internal Affairs has submitted a Draft Election Law two years ahead of
elections, which is a far cry from past practices. He says that the
Miqati government circulated this Draft Election Law, which the Council
of Ministers will debate. Nasrallah views this as "an accomplishment."
He adds that the Ministry of Finance has also submitted a Draft Budget
Law, which is also a far cry from past practices. Nasrallah goes on to
say that the government is showing interest in the citizens' living
conditions, and is seeking to alleviate poverty in the country.
Nasrallah says that Lebanon boasts "a stabilized security situation."
Elaborating on this issue, he says: "We nowadays boast a stabilized
security situation. Against the backdrop of this tense situation
throughout the region, the country, compared with elsewhere, boasts an
excellent stabilization in the security situation."
Continuing to lavish praise on the Miqati government, Nasrallah says
that rarely had a Lebanese government made such achievements within a
short period of time against the backdrop of such tough domestic,
regional, and international circumstances.
Queried on Hezbollah's ties with President Michel Sulayman, "one of the
pillars of the Centrist Bloc," Nasrallah says: "Even the prime minister
describes himself as a centrist figure." He adds: "The relationship with
his excellency the president is good; and we are in constant touch.
Constant communication is the hallmark of this relationship. We are in
constant touch. There is no interruption whatsoever in communication.
There are consultations, and the sensitive and key issues are discussed;
and there is also amity [in this relationship]. You know that especially
when it comes to the issue of resistance, his excellency the president
has always taken clear and great stands. Even in the latest speech that
he delivered at the Security Council [corrects himself] the United
Nations, he made himself clear in this regard."
Asked whether he is satisfied with Prime Minister Miqati's handling of
dossiers and issues, Nasrallah says: "Definitely. Prime Minister Miqati
was our option, and we supported this option. We do not regret having
embraced this option. We are now supportive of this option.
Consequently, when I speak of the government's accomplishments, the
president of the republic, the prime minister, and the ministers, who
represent the political forces, are, undoubtedly, all partners in making
these achievements. The person who sits at the helm, who holds the top
post, takes the main credit."
Ties with coalition partners
Queried on recent reports that the relationship between the Free
Patriotic Movement [FPM] and Hezbollah is "lukewarm," Nasrallah says:
"First of all, in general, the relationship with all my allies is
excellent. In the first place, our relationship is strategic; and it is
anchored in a vision, in understandings, and in constants." He adds that
much of what is disseminated in the media is either "baseless" or
"exaggerated."
Nasrallah goes on to say: "Hence, first of all, the relationship with
all allies is important and good. At any rate, during the past phase,
and also at the current phase, the allies have demonstrated their
resolve, their clarity, and their stands, as well as their sincerity."
He says: "Therefore, as far as the issue of allies is concerned, all
that is being said on lukewarmness here and tension there is untrue."
Nasrallah adds that the political forces making up the government,
including Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, the FPM, and other political
parties and forces, for that matter, are an assortment of "diverse
political movements, parties, and forces." He goes on to say that this
means that "there are common denominators, constants, and a commonality
of views" among the aforesaid political forces. However, this does not
necessarily mean that there are no differences in views or visions among
them, he maintains. Nasrallah acknowledges that such differences do !
exist. Otherwise, the aforesaid political forces would have been a
single party, he argues. Nasrallah goes on to say: "As for the
relationship with the FPM, it is characterized by neither lukewarmness
nor deficiency. On the contrary, the relationship is strong and
effective; we are in constant touch with the FPM, and we hold constant
discussions with it." He says that the topics currently debated by the
government are mostly new topics that were not previously discussed with
the FPM, and that they were not enshrined in the understandings
previously achieved with the FPM. Nasrallah argues that the work
mechanisms usually acted upon by all Lebanese governments, including the
current Miqati government, do not provide enough time for discussions
ahead of cabinet sessions, which, at times, gives rise to differences
and precludes the necessary coordination. He adds that this is, however,
"a healthy sign," and that it applies to ties among all components of
the government, and not! only to ties between Hezbollah and the FPM.
Asked on Hezbollah's relationship with the Progressive Socialist Party
[PSP] and PSP leader Walid Junblatt, Nasrallah says: "The statement
issued following our meeting spoke of a strategic alliance and a
strategic relationship. At any rate, I, once again, say that we
[Hezbollah and the PSP] are not a single party. We see eye to eye on
certain issues and differ on others. When we met, Mr Walid expressed his
views, and so did I. He substantiated his views, and so did I. We agreed
on certain issues and disagreed on others. However, this does not
translate into either animosity, a struggle, or a conflict. We are
forces that are part of the current parliamentary majority, within the
current government. We are eager to safeguard the relationship; we are
eager to maintain dialogue; and we are eager to achieve understanding on
the largest possible number of issues, and also on cooperation. This is
the reality of the existing relationship [between us]."
Queried whether he sensed a desire to effect "a new realignment" on the
part of Junblatt, Nasrallah says: "No, not at all." Elaborating on this
issue, Nasrallah says: "The talk to this effect can be found in some
media outlets, in some saloons. However, I have not sensed any of this,
not at all."
Security
Asked on the security situation in Lebanon, Nasrallah says that there
has been "a stabilized security situation under this government, and
even under the former government." He adds that the "stabilized security
situation" in Lebanon has continued, arguing that this is attested to by
the fact that conferences, as well as Arab, regional, and international
gatherings and functions are convening in Lebanon. Nasrallah goes on to
say that "individual incidents" here and there should not prompt some to
draw the conclusion that the security situation in Lebanon is not
stabilized.
Responding to a question on "charges" that Hezbollah is arming its
allies in northern Lebanon and creating security zones there, which
prompted some MPs in Tripoli to threaten that they would urge people to
take to the streets, Nasrallah says that as part of its policy,
Hezbollah does not respond to "the deluge of charges" made against it.
He adds that there is "a deluge of falsehoods, fabrications, and
charges" targeted against Hezbollah. Nasrallah goes on to say that
Hezbollah is always blamed for blocking roads and shootings even when it
has nothing to do with them. Elaborating on this issue, Nasrallah says
that "there are people in Lebanon" who are preaching the virtues of
democracy, diversity, and pluralism, and the virtues of diversity within
sects, when they, in point of fact, act unilaterally within their own
sects. He adds: "They can tolerate neither diversity nor pluralism
[within their own sects]; and this is a fact."
Nasrallah goes on to say that these people are strongly alarmed and
countenance the end of the world when they see a rival political force
gaining ground and greater popular support, attracting followers, and
expanding. Nasrallah argues that when they speak of Shi'i domestic
politics in Lebanon, these people criticize the Shi'i "duality"
manifested in the existence of both the Amal Movement and Hizballah. He
implicitly urges an acceptance of "duality" within the Sunni sect in
Lebanon.
Elaborating on this issue, Nasrallah says: "Specifically, and let me
speak straightforwardly, as this issue concerns northern Lebanon, the
Future Movement cannot tolerate any duality. Throughout all the past
years, our brothers within the Islamic and national forces, those who
were affiliated with the former opposition and who are now
pro-government, have had their offices attacked, and they have been shot
at, and they have been targeted by severe terrorism on the media and
psychological levels. They were accused of being the killers of [the
late] Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri. This happened during elections,
and at other times as well. An effort was made to isolate them using
sectarian and denominational slogans. Throughout all the past years,
they have endured what is intolerable, particularly in northern Lebanon.
They [the Future Movement] can tolerate neither pluralism nor duality.
They are saying: I am the sole representative [of Sunnis in Lebanon];
and ! that is it."
He adds that "due to changes in the Arab region; due to the defeat of
the US scheme, which impacted all of the United States' allies in the
region; due to the transformation seen in the country; and due to the
failure of the other team's plan, and of its performance and
behaviours," a change affecting public opinion in Lebanon, including
northern Lebanon, has taken place. Nasrallah goes on to say: "There are
political forces in northern Lebanon whose popular standing is
improving. How can they face up to this? The charge emerged that we are
arming [the Sunnis of northern Lebanon] and creating security zones
[there]. I tell you that this is untrue. I heard of this issue from the
media. I even contacted my brothers, who are usually in charge of
running political and organizational ties with these forces, putting the
following questions to them: O brothers, is there any truth to this
story? Have you supplied anybody with weapons or ammunition? Have you
opened thi! s file? They answered saying: No, not at all. This is
untrue." Nasrallah adds: "As far as this issue is concerned, I confirm
that this is merely an exaggerated media, political, and psychological
offensive aimed to face up to the relief, growth, and expansion
experienced by these political forces in northern Lebanon."
Asked where he stands on the views on minorities and Hezbollah weapons
recently articulated by Maronite Patriarch Bisharah al-Ra'i during his
meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Nasrallah says: "As a
matter of fact, with regard to this issue, the attack on his beatitude
the patriarch is unfair. In my opinion - and so that I may not
exaggerate, as others have already expressed this view - his beatitude
the patriarch has [only] offered a description. He did not say whether
or not he supports or rejects this or that." In all his statements, his
beatitude the patriarch neither supported the Syrian regime nor
Hezbollah's weapons, Nasrallah contends. Nasrallah goes on to say: "The
patriarch offered a description of external realities, and, in the
process, expressed concern over some issues." He cites the statements
that Patriarch Al-Ra'i made in Paris on description's weapons, as well
as the statements that he made on Syria.
Christians
Responding to statements made by Christian figures affiliated with the
14 March Forces who convened a meeting yesterday - statements to the
effect that Christians do not need anybody's protection, Nasrallah says:
"All peoples of the region nowadays see k protection. Sunnis, Shi'is,
Alawites, Druze, and Christians - we all want protection. But, of
course, the question is: Protection against whom? Protection is
achievable through our unity, through our alliance, through our
solidarity, and through our shouldering of responsibility. Otherwise,
the region would be disturbed. As for what has happened in Iraq, of
which we have just been speaking, where are the Christians of Iraq? As I
have just said, due to the fact that they are larger in number, the
Shi'is have shown endurance. The same holds true for Sunnis, Turkomans,
and Kurds. The fatalities [in Iraq] among Shi'is or Sunnis are way
larger in number than Christian fatalities. However, due to the fact
that Chris! tians are few in number, their emigration has become
noticeable. Nonetheless, right now, there are displaced people inside
Iraq, and refugees living outside Iraq. This is because this is a real
concern. If somebody pushes for sectarian sedition, or civil war in
Syria or Egypt, God forbid, they have the right to express concern over
the presence of Christians. All people have the right to be concerned
over their situation. So, this is a legitimate concern. Hence, I call
for doing the man justice, and for reading the statements that he made
as they are."
Russia visit
Asked on a visit made to Moscow last week by a high-ranking Hezbollah
delegation, and whether the visit shows that Hezbollah will also open up
to China, Nasrallah says that the Russian Duma extended an invitation to
"the Loyalty to the Resistance" parliamentary bloc more than a year ago.
He adds that the idea of making the visit to Moscow was contemplated
"even before the outbreak of Arab revolutions, before the use of the
Russian veto on Syria, before the issuance of the bill of indictment by
the Special Tribunal on Lebanon, and before the no-confidence motion
which brought about the downfall of the government of Sa'd al-Hariri."
Nasrallah goes on to say that this visit is both "timely" and
"foundational," as this is the first time a Hezbollah delegation travels
to Russia on an official visit. He says that another Hezbollah
delegation will soon travel to China on a visit; and that visits to
other countries by Hezbollah delegations will follow
Tribunal funding
Na'im then asks Nasrallah about "the hot dossier of financing the
International Tribunal for Lebanon," and notes that "even though the
financing of the tribunal has been discussed for a long time - one or
two months - Hezbollah has been adhering to the policy of remaining
silent," and when she asks him why, Nasrallah replies: "We have adhered
to this policy because of our vision. From the beginning, the other side
confronted Prime Minister Miqati with the issue of financing the
tribunal. The first thing they asked him: Do you want to finance it or
not?" He says they wanted to "embarrass Prime Minister Miqati by
exploiting the sectarian and denominational aspects and the current
international conditions ."
He says Prime Minister Miqati had the right to respond and he voiced his
opinion, "and I know that he has voiced his conviction regarding the
issue of financing the tribunal, and he has the right to do that," and
adds: "Anyone who is convinced of the need to finance the tribunal has
the right to say so, and some components of the current government are
saying so. Indeed His Excellency the president also alluded on this
conviction."
Nasrallah says: "We remained silent not because we had no specific
position or that we were unable to voice our stand. It was because the
other side wanted to create a sharp and boisterous controversy over an
issue that was not urgent and whose time had not yet come. They wanted
to use every means that might create differences among the components of
the government or a dispute or a crisis of confidence. Once again I say
that they have the right to do that. Let them do what they want.
However, we should not be dragged into this controversy. We should avoid
falling into traps and we must not step on the mines they are setting
for us. We considered that this issue would lead us to a controversy and
we did not have to start this controversy. Even if the entire world
speaks, makes speeches, and issues one hundred or two hundred statements
for or against, the issue will eventually be decided at a cabinet
meeting. When we come to the cabinet we will speak. That is w! hy we
avoided entering into any wrangling on this issue."
Asked if he does not think that Hezbollah should make its position
clear, he replies: "There is no need for a statement to explain
Hezbollah's position. Hezbollahdoes not approve of and is against
financing the Special Tribunal," because Hezbollah is aware of the way
it was established, of its conduct and its loopholes, and adds:
"Hezbollah rejects the Special Tribunal in part and parcel."
Nasrallah says: "However, I would not start a controversy over this. But
who will finance the Special Tribunal? If anyone wants to finance it
from his own pocket, then let him; it will be his own affair. I am not
responsible for anyone's money. If it has to be financed from the
Lebanese government's treasury, which is from the money of the Lebanese
people, a decision should be made. Who will make such a decision? Either
the cabinet or the chamber of deputies. There is no need to create a
dispute, a media frenzy or a quarrel." He says that the cabinet will
discuss it and various sides will present their opinions, "and we will
do our utmost to reach a consensus on this issue through a cabinet
discussion as well as bilateral discussions outside the cabinet," and
adds: "If we do not reach a consensus there will be a vote and that will
not be a decision that I or any minister can make. This decision will be
made by the chairman of the cabinet session - the presiden! t or the
head of the government. They will decide that since the discussion is at
an end, that neither side agrees with the other, and that there will be
two viewpoints and a divergence of views, then it has to be put to the
vote. At that point, everyone will vote and each will voice his stand.
Our own desire is different. Coming up with a consensus and an accord
will certainly be beneficial."
He says the cabinet is a constitutional institution and if the decision
to finance the Special Tribunal is not passed, then everyone will abide
by this outcome. He adds that if some demand that the prime minister
remaining in power is contingent on the government's approval of the
financing of the Special Tribunal, then they would be wronging Prime
Minister Miqati. He says: "At one point we might be forced to tell them:
Look at the Turkish-Qatari initiative." He says: "When we reached an
agreement with Prime Minister Miqati and gave him our vote, he did not
commit himself to our position to refrain from financing the Special
Tribunal, he did not agree with us on withdrawing the judges or refusing
to renew the protocol." Addressing the opposition, he says : "Leave this
issue aside. Do not embarrass this man more than you have already done
because embarrassing him will compel us to issue realistic words that
might not suit you."
Nasrallah says: "Prime Minister Miqati is shouldering a very great
national responsibility; namely, realizing stability in the country,
which is a priority from the national, regional, and international
standpoints," adding that if he convinces his cabinet of the need to
finance the Special Tribunal it will do that, but if he does not, there
will be no problem. Asked if he has a guarantee that Prime Minister
Miqati will not resign if no agreement is reached on financing the
Special Tribunal, he replies: "We have not discussed this matter with
Prime Minister Miqati and we have not heard anything from him about
this. Neither he nor us has broached this subject of resignation."
Asked if he does not agree that by not financing the Special Tribunal,
Lebanon will be challenging the international community by failing to
implement international resolutions, he asks: "Is Lebanon committed to
this financing?" He notes that the previous government committed itself
to this financing for one or two years "but we do not have to be
committed to financing the Special Tribunal for the remaining years." He
says that when the Miqati government was formed, the other side said
that "this government will lead to isolating Lebanon, the withdrawal of
ambassadors, sanctions against Lebanon, and threats to Lebanon," but
adds that nothing happened and the world accepted the government. He
adds: "Even the Americans said that they wanted to see the government's
policy statement first but the statement was issued. There is a reality
and the world is dealing with it." He noted that "the international
community is not entirely preoccupied with Lebanon," arguing ! that the
Lebanese people are fortunate that the region and the world are
interested in stability in Lebanon. He criticized the "hue and cry" that
is being raised and says that if Lebanon does not pay others will, and
that the UN secretary-general will look for ways to raise the necessary
funds.
Nasrallah says that "some have already said that if Lebanon does not
finance the Special Tribunal it does not mean that the Special Tribunal
will be put out of work. This is great. Then why raise all these
problems?" He says the money can be spared to enable the government to
"take care of poor families in Lebanon."
Asked if he has new evidence that this Special Tribunal is politicized,
he says that the efforts that have been exerted effected a change in the
minds of the Lebanese people, thus undermining the credibility of the
Tribunal, adding that the bill of indictment did not create any problems
in the country. He notes that conditions in Lebanon, in the region, and
in the world have transcended the issue of the Special Tribunal and its
impact.
Israeli "aggression"
Asked if Hezbollah expects new Israeli aggression against Lebanon to
break Israel's isolation, he says military commanders must prepare
themselves for the worst "because they should not be subjected to
political analyses and should avoid any surprises," and adds: "However,
based on political analysis, we say that judging by current conditions,
the July war, the losses of the Israeli enemy during the war, and its
failures, if this enemy wants to wage a new war it must ensure the
outcome of this war but the results will not be guaranteed. There have
been changes in the region and if the enemy wants to launch a new war in
the region - not only with Lebanon but even with Gaza - it will find a
different Egypt, a different Tunisia, and a different Libya. That is
what I said a short while ago. The region is changing. If we look at the
current conditions inside Israel and the loopholes and the lessons that
the Israeli army had to learn during the July war; if we look ! at the
strategic environment in the region and the strength of the resistance
in Lebanon, the current formula in Lebanon now makes us rule out any
Israeli war against Lebanon."
Hezbollah weapons
Asked to comment on Ban Ki-moon's recent call on Hezbollah to hand over
its weapons, and if Nasrallah can "reassure Ban tonight that Hezbollah
has taken practical steps to gather its arms and hand them over," he
replies: "You want to conclude this programme with a joke," and adds:
"We have not issued any comment on the UN secretary-general's call
because we consider the region and the world as one place while he is
speaking from another place. Today, the arms of the resistance, its
presence, its culture, and the golden trinity of which we are speaking
of in Lebanon; namely, the resistance, the people, and the army, are
elements of our basic strength on which nobody will compromise. They
launched a 33-day war and spread destruction, killing, and massacres but
we never compromised. Do you think that a statement by the
secretary-general or an international organization will make any
difference?"
Na'im asks him: "In 2006 you waged a war to foil the new Middle East
project, and you promised victory, and victory was realized." Nasrallah
corrects her: "The war that was imposed on us."
She then asks him what he would like to say at the conclusion of this
interview. He says: "Despite certain developments in the region that
call for concern here and there, my brothers and I think that matters in
the region are heading in the direction of promoting the interests of
the peoples of the region, the interests of the resistance and
steadfastness project, the interests of the Ummah [Islamic community
worldwide]. We will see further retreats and defeats by the US project
and the Zionist entity. As we see it, the future is promising." He notes
that current changes serve the aspirations of peoples. Concluding, he
says that Lebanon "possesses sufficient strength to confront all
changes, all developments and all challenges. Therefore, there is no
cause for fear but hope, God willing."
In concluding remarks, Na'im thanks "all the television stations that
contributed to transmitting this episode - NBN, Press TV, Al-Alam TV,
Al-Dunya TV, and Al-Nur radio station".
Source: Al-Manar Television, Beirut, in Arabic 1730 gmt 24 Oct 11
BBC Mon Alert ME1 MEEauosc 261011 sg
(c) Copyright British Broadcasting Corporation 2011