Translated by Al-Ahed News
The full transcript of Al-Alam TV’s interview with Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on 8-2-2022
Q: Let’s start with the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. How does Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution?
Welcome.
Naturally, a person relives feelings of joy, happiness, and overwhelming joy for the memory of the victory in those days.
In 1979, I remember that the whole world – friend and foe – was keeping pace with Imam Khomeini’s movement in Paris. I think that the hearts of tens of millions were with the Imam while he was on the plane that transported him from France to Tehran.
The hearts were hanging with the Imam between earth and the sky.
Will the Imam reach Tehran Airport? Will the plane be shot down? What will happen next? A person always recalls these feelings, emotions, thoughts, and impressions.
Thus, the joy that erupted from the Imam's arrival at Tehran airport and the great reception of the two million people were unparalleled in history.
There has never been a reception like that of the Imam’s.
The speech he delivered at the Jannat al-Zahra Cemetery, i.e., the cemetery of the martyrs, and the events that took place up to the announcement of victory, are in fact among the most wonderful and astounding proof of the days of God.
This was one of the great days of God.
When a person recalls that memory, he always feels joy and hope for the future.
These are our feelings, as are the feelings of all those who love him.
Q: Your Eminence, the traits of leadership in Iran have always been prominent from the time of Imam Khomeini to the time of His Eminence the Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. There are many features that have given the revolution its prominence. In your opinion, what are the most prominent characteristics of the leadership in Iran that achieved this feat?
First of all, we are talking about a jurist with a high degree of jurisprudence, ijtihad, knowledge, and specialization in religious sciences and sharia.
He’s a believer before being a jurist.
He’s a pious believer who fears God and does not fear anyone except God Almighty.
He’s also a jurist, a scholar, a thinker, and a wise and courageous person.
Wisdom and courage are the most important traits that a leader of a revolution or a leader of a regime must have.
He must also possess a strategic mind, a historical background, and a broad and great horizon – he does not only have his city or country but also the whole world in his mind. This means that through his ideological and cognitive background as well as belief, he has tremendous endurance, patience, the willingness to make sacrifices, and plenty of experience.
We are talking about leaders who have plenty of experience as a result of not only experience but also study or educational attainment.
There is no doubt that the personality of His Eminence Imam was one of the most important and basic factors driving the victory of the revolution, in the establishment of the Islamic Republic’s regime, in the steadfastness of this regime, and in the development of the Islamic Republic of Iran to what it is now.
Q: Of course, the leadership worries Iran’s enemies to the extent that one of the “Israeli” generals said that what frightens us the most in Iran is the charisma of the spiritual leadership. He meant by it the current leadership. In your opinion, what is Iran’s position today, 43 years on, in the world and in the region? What can be said about this “Iran”, which has been besieged for 43 years and is being fought until today?
For starters, this is a model.
The Islamic Republic of Iran today, which is the product of the popular Islamic Revolution, is a model of a true sovereign state for not only the Islamic world and the third world, but also for the whole world.
You know, we have a problem in the third world, which is the problem of sovereignty, independence, and freedom.
These are slogans that are raised in many countries by many peoples, but in the external application, in the external reality, the matter is different.
There are many who talk about sovereignty, but they are followers of embassies.
Many talk about independence, but they are followers of foreign countries and put the interests of foreign countries before that of their own.
When you look at Iran from this perspective, it is a completely sovereign state; it is a state with real independence; it is a state of absolute freedom.
The people rule Iran; the people are the ones who choose the leader, the president of the republic; the people choose Representatives of the House of Representatives, members of the Assembly of Experts, members of municipalities, etc., there is real popular sovereignty.
Therefore, this model is presented today.
On the other hand, when it comes to the model, we are facing a wonderful experience called an Islamic state.
In the Islamic world, all countries are said to be an Islamic state, given their affiliation to identity, meaning they are born from Muslim parents.
Most of the people in this country are Muslim people, so this is an Islamic state.
This is tolerance in the expression.
An Islamic state means a country that establishes the rule of Islam.
Since the beginning, there was relentless effort in the Islamic Republic and on the part of the Imam, the leader, the officials, the institutions, the people, the elites, and the general public to establish the true rule of Islam.
Of course, neither His Eminence the Imam nor His Eminence the Leader claimed that what we have in Iran is a complete application of Islam.
They say we strive with all energy, with every effort, with all sincerity to establish Islam, implement Islam, and present a true Islamic state as an example to the world.
This is when it comes to the model.
I want to be brief, and I do not want to prolong it further.
However, when you go to the political assessment, today you are in front of a strong and great regional state.
This is not just me saying this; the whole world deals with Iran as a great regional power that has a great influence on the issues of the region as well as in the fate of the world.
Iran cannot be easily ignored and fought.
However, the Islamic Republic overcame all that.
Also, when you look at Iran in terms of development, i.e., compare Iran at the time of the Shah, in 1978 and1979, and Iran today in terms of science, technology, urbanization, universities, the number of university students inside and outside, specializations, scientific discoveries, scientific development, infrastructure, airports, ports, highways, housing and towns, the great financial advancement, self-sufficiency, agriculture, industry and trade, and military industrialization and capabilities.
On the 40th anniversary of the victory of the revolution, I delivered a speech.
I joined two speeches in one and spoke for an hour and a half.
I mentioned numbers, not from Iranian sources but from sources in the United Nations, about what the world says about the level of any scientific or technological issue in Iran or the position Iran has reached.
Therefore, today, usually when the world talks about Iran, it talks about the nuclear file, the nuclear negotiations, and the political problems that exist in the region.
However, during these past decades, it is necessary to highlight how this model, this Islamic regime, this Islamic revolution, this wise and courageous leadership – Iran – developed and where Iran has become on every level.
This is also a chapter that takes a long time.
We will suffice with this reference.
Q: In any case, Your Eminence, you mentioned that there are many positions on this subject that can be viewed, but we are talking today about Iran facing a great deal of hostility. The United States is leading the hostility. All our misfortunes are from America. Imam Khomeini said this, and it was confirmed by His Eminence the Leader and all the officials in Iran. But my question is, Your Eminence, is this American hostility towards Iran a principled hostility to a revolutionary Islamic regime, or is it an enmity that could one day end in the interests of the United States America?
Iran at the time of the Shah was ruled by the United States of America.
It is true that there was a Shah and the Shah’s government, but Iran, at that time, had a population of 30 or 35 million, 60,000 of which were American advisors.
This means that American advisors were present in all sectors – in the security, military, oil, transportation, housing, economic, financial, cultural sectors, etc.
Then, the Islamic Revolution came.
Take a look at what the revolution in Iran did and what the American position was.
The country was controlled by the United States of America.
It plundered its wealth, oil, gas, etc.
It managed it the way it wanted.
It tried for decades to change its ideological, cultural, and intellectual identity.
The Shah and his father worked on Westernization.
The Shah was known to be an agent of the United States of America and was serving the American and Zionist projects in the region.
He was the (Persian) Gulf policeman who was feared by all the (Persian) Gulf states and a strategic ally of the “Israeli” enemy.
Imam Khomeini and those with him as well as the rebellious Iranian people, came.
The Islamic Revolution took place in Iran.
It brought down this regime and expelled this agent and the 60,000 advisors.
This means that when the Shah and the regime fell, the Iranians did not let the American advisors stay.
They expelled the Americans and the “Israelis” with the Shah.
Therefore, relations with “Israel” were cut off.
The “Israeli” embassy was confiscated and was handed over to the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Hence, the PLO had an embassy there.
It is still the same embassy.
They completely expelled America from Iran.
In the Imam's words, they cut off America's hand from Iran.
In fact, America does not have a problem with us because we are praying or not or fasting or not.
No.
If a genuine Islamic regime wants the people and this country to be free, independent, sovereign, and not allow their resources to be plundered, of course, it [the US] is against this Islam.
As for Islam that prays, fasts, performs Hajj and Umrah, and remains silent about the occupation, normalizes with the occupation, or accepts American hegemony, then America has no problem with this type of Islam.
This is what Imam Khomeini called American Islam.
What is American Islam? It is this, Islam that has no problem except to pray, fast, perform Hajj.
The Americans have no problem with it.
They don’t even have a problem with them building mosques in the US But when it comes to the issue of Palestine, Al-Quds, your country, the wealth of your people, your homeland, your nation, your decision, and your destiny, what are you to them? Are you their tool and slave or a servant of God? Of course, America is against the Islam that makes you a servant of God.
This Islam is the one that won in Iran.
Q: That means the totalitarian, revolutionary, libertarian dimension, not just Iran. What is the regime in Iran?
The British have a problem.
For example, this movement is an Islamic movement, a secular movement, a communist movement, whether they pray and fast or not is of no importance to them.
What is important to them is your position with regard to the subject of domination, hegemony, colonialism, arrogance, and occupation.
Of course, authentic Islam puts you in a position of rejecting, confronting, resisting, and revolting in the face of any injustice, domination, hegemony, or arrogance.
Therefore, this type of Islam is naturally against it.
This is the Islam that Imam Khomeini and the Iranian people proclaimed and believed in, followed during their revolt, and triumphed with it in 1979.
Q: Does this mean that there is no room in the future for this enmity toward the United States of America to disappear with the presence of the Islamic regime in Iran? Sayyed Nasrallah: Even inside Iran, there are people who try to mix up some issues thanks to the foreign media.
Some say that Iran's position on Palestine and Al-Quds is the only reason for hostility with Iran.
I say this is one of the reasons.
It is certainly one of the reasons; there is no doubt about it, but one of the most important reasons is also that the regime in Iran is sovereign, free, and independent.
It does not accept submission and is not a tool for the United States of America; it does not allow its wealth to be plundered.
As long as this type of regime and leadership is ruling Iran and as long as the popular will in Iran is that of independence, sovereignty, freedom, benefiting from its wealth, and preventing the arrogant people from plundering its resources, this enmity will remain.
Q: The United States tried all kinds of wars – the military through Saddam, security through the assassination of leaders, economic through embargo and sanctions – but failed. Nevertheless, the enmity continues. But Your Eminence, today, we are facing threats. The White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department are talking about non-diplomatic options that can be used to deal with Iran. In your opinion, are these US military threats really capable of becoming a reality? Is America fighting Iran?
This was a possibility, with some giving it a certain high percentage during the Trump administration.
Trump threatened war and took matters to the brink of war but did not go to war.
It is highly unlikely that this administration will go to war.
Talking about war is always to intimidate, threaten, and put pressure on Iran.
As for America being able to go to war, in the end, Iran is not an ordinary country.
It is a strong regional country that has a major role in the region.
At that time, I and others said any war with Iran will lead to the explosion of the entire region, and this is not in America's interest at all.
In addition, the current administration's priorities are not war with Iran.
Its priority is perhaps trying to reach an understanding with Iran regarding the nuclear agreement.
America's priority is elsewhere, meaning China and Russia.
This is what the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Pentagon, and other officials in America say.
It is clear that the priority now is not a war on Iran.
If they chose to sign a nuclear agreement, this means that there will be certain breakthroughs.
If no agreement is reached, their choice will be the continuation of sanctions, incitement, pressure, and hedging their bets on internal unrest, as it was during Trump’s term.
Q: There are also “Israeli” threats to strike the nuclear facilities, as the “Israeli” generals say that they have prepared plans and are ready to strike Iran. Do you think that while the United States refrains from going to war, the “Israeli” entity can do that, especially with allies that are now in the region?
Rather, the allies want someone to defend them.
I am more inclined to assume that what the “Israelis” are saying is intimidation, as there is real division in “Israel” at the political level as well at the security and military levels.
What I know from following up on the situation is that most of the security and military components are against carrying out a military strike of this kind in Iran for two reasons.
The first is that this strike will not be feasible because the nuclear plants are not located in one place but are distributed.
What is more important than the material existence is the scientific presence because there are thousands of specialized Iranian scientists.
Therefore, is it possible to kill thousands through aerial bombardment? Even the security operations were not able to stop the development of the Iranian peaceful nuclear program.
So, on the one hand, they say that this is useless.
This may even accelerate the Iranian nuclear program that they fear.
Even if they or the Americans do not want to believe or are engaged as an excuse since His Eminence Imam Khamenei has announced on many occasions, so did Iranian officials, that Iran has no intention and is not in the process of making nuclear weapons or nuclear energy for military purposes.
The second reason is the magnitude of the Iranian response.
Iran is not joking.
His Eminence the Leader and the Iranian officials said that Iran will respond.
Some might imagine that if “Israel” bombed Iran, the Islamic Republic would rely on its friends in the region.
If the Islamic Republic is bombed by the “Israelis”, it will respond directly, and its response will be harsh and severe.
The “Israelis” know this well.
Therefore, the majority at the military and security levels are against going to military action of this kind.
I rule out that the “Israeli” enemy would do something like this.
If it did, it would be a foolishness with very serious repercussions.
Q: Will it be an all-out war with the participation of the axis of resistance? We are talking about the unity of the axis of resistance. Sayyed Nasrallah: It is clear that there will be a severe response from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In light of this harsh Iranian response, we will see the magnitude of the repercussions and developments.
At that moment, the axis of resistance will also be ready and will decide according to the circumstances.
Q: Zionist officials are talking about a military alliance today. That is, they want to establish a military alliance with countries that normalized ties with them, such as Bahrain, the UAE, and perhaps Saudi Arabia. They are talking about the possibility that this alliance could be used to confront Iran. And the talk about the process of establishing this alliance and the maneuvers that are taking place have become serious. In this case, will the “Israeli” threat remain a threat?
This means an economic benefit through economic relations.
It can benefit it in the media and politically and break psychological barriers.
It is useful for electronic armies on social networking sites.
But militarily, these countries cannot be beneficial for "Israel" and will instead become a burden for “Israel”.
An example of the last model is the recent development that took place between Ansarullah and the United Arab Emirates.
Regardless of the circumstances, the strange thing is that, for example, the UAE, since its founding until today, considering that it is a modern state, has bought tens of billions of dollars in missiles, aircraft, weapons, military technology, etc.
In the face of the first direct confrontation with Ansarullah, the UAE asked the Americans to send ships, missiles, and planes in order to protect the UAE It also asked Britain and France to protect the UAE, and they also requested “Israeli” assistance.
The UAE in the face of Ansarullah and in the first confrontation resorted to the great powers in the world and to “Israel” in order to help protect it.
What can the UAE, for example, or Bahrain offer the “Israelis” at the military level in the Persian Gulf region or others? Q: Are they hoping for an “Israeli” protection? Sayyed Nasrallah: They are building hopes from sand.
In the best case, from glass.
Q: We’ll stay with the “Israeli” threats, but this time with Hezbollah. The Zionist national security establishment talked about the belt of fire surrounding the entity and Hezbollah’s precision missiles, recommending that a military option to strike Hezbollah and these missiles be prepared. First, is this assessment logical and what is your response to it, especially since this threat is clear – it’s a military option against Hezbollah?
Lebanon since 1948, before Hezbollah and before we were born, Lebanon has always been in the circle of threat, with the “Israeli” enemy threatening Lebanon.
These threats exist and will continue to do so.
In the matter of resistance, the threats become specific.
We take these threats seriously.
We do not just behave as if they are part of psychological warfare.
There is no doubt that they are part of psychological warfare.
But we also deal with them as serious threats.
But is “Israel” able to carry out these threats? For example, when the “Israelis” say I want to eliminate the precision missiles that Hezbollah has, do they know how many there are? Do they know where they are scattered and distributed? They are not in one, two, three, or four places for them to strike them, and that’s the end of it.
The extent of the resistance's missile capabilities, the number of missiles, and the security measures taken, do not allow them to do something of this kind.
They exaggerate when they talk about this issue.
When they say, ‘We want to eliminate the precision missiles of the resistance in Lebanon,’ this means that they are going to need a war and not just a military operation.
In all cases, the military operation will have proportionate, strong, and deterrent reactions from the resistance in Lebanon, and this is a public commitment.
During the most recent incident, the “Israelis” bombed uninhabited areas.
We did not remain silent about the bombings and our response would be even harsher if they bombed real targets.
I’m just saying let them do it first [bomb real targets].
They won’t be able to.
Theoretically speaking, if they want to confront and eliminate the missile capabilities of the resistance, they need a war.
Can they go to war? A real war? An all-out war?
Q: Your Eminence, there is a view within the “Israeli” entity about the strength of Hezbollah that says that if it is left alone, it will develop with time and will grow into a greater force. Then, it will be difficult to hit, liquidate, or resist it. Hence, we are talking about time as a factor. There is a point of view within the “Israeli” entity that says that there must be a war against Hezbollah, even if it’s costly, to prevent this party from enhancing its military capabilities?
We have overcome this stage where the “Israeli” enemy can wage a war to eliminate the capabilities of the resistance, Hezbollah’s capabilities in Lebanon.
We’ve overcome this stage.
The proof is the extent of the capabilities in quantity and quality and the available human capabilities.
They have no precedent in the history of Lebanon and the history of resistance movements confronting the Zionist enemy.
We overcame this.
They cannot do anything like this.
Even if they launched a war, they will not be able to achieve this goal.
So, their real choice in recent years is not war.
Of course, I do not categorically deny it.
But we are talking about probabilities.
If the “Israeli” enemy, the political leaders, and military generals have a 50% and not 51% chance of launching a war – today, yesterday, the day before yesterday, or tomorrow – on Lebanon that could end the resistance's ability, which they view as a threat or as a real defender (according to the accurate description) – they would have done so, but they are not confident of the results, are afraid of the magnitude of the reaction, and are very afraid of failure and defeat.
They will not resort to a move of this magnitude.
Their bets are elsewhere and are still the same bets that we've been talking about over the past years.
They are betting on economic pressure, economic blockade, and pushing Lebanon as a state, a nation, and a people to economic collapse and security collapse, to what they call a popular revolution against the resistance.
They want to put international and regional pressure and use the living, financial, and economic aspects in the hope of reaching a conclusion calling for them to “take this weapon”.
If you remember a few months ago the enemy’s minister of war [Benny] Gantz went to France.
There was talk that the French want to help Lebanon; they want to provide aid, hold an international conference, etc.
He went to France and met with President Macron.
This is what the media said and not private sources.
He announced that I came to France and asked French officials not to provide any economic or financial aid to Lebanon unless it bears some result, at the very least “solve our precision missiles problem”.
This is if he had a way to solve the problem of precision missiles.
Q: Why did he go to France? Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: He’s been meaning to do this for a long time, in military or security forms.
You know that the “Israelis” have options of this kind, but they are well aware that they will not achieve results.
Their bet is still on the internal Lebanese situation; their bet is on the economic situation, on the popular situation.
So far, they have been very disappointed, even their bet on the parliamentary elections, which we will talk about if the opportunity presents itself.
I tell them outright, these are illusions.
Looking at the resistance’s presence today, the great popular embrace, its societal strength, its popular strength, its environment, its harmony, its unity, its solidity, its confidence, and its morale, in my personal opinion, I think we have overcome the issue of the threat against the resistance.
However, this does not mean that we should go and sleep.
We will remain cautious and ready.
Q: On the other hand, Your Eminence, after the precision missiles and the entry into the Galilee and the 100,000 fighters, are there any surprises for the “Israeli” occupation at this time? Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: There are always surprises.
Of course, what I reveal to you will not be a surprise (laughs).
In the end, in wartime – if it happens, God forbid – as we all in Hezbollah say we do not seek war; we don't want it.
God Almighty speaks of human nature: {Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you.} We understand the caveats, repercussions, and effects of war, but we do not fear them.
We do not fear them; we do not surrender when we’re threatened; we do not abandon our country and our national interests when threatened with war.
In any case… There are certainly hidden things to surprise the enemy with, but, of course, over the years, developments take place.
For example, the most important development which the “Israelis” have started talking about is the air defense system we started.
I’ve been thinking for a while that we should present a detailed report, but the opportunity has not presented itself yet.
After the incident in the southern suburbs, we announced that we would confront such incidents with drones.
For the first time, we activated the air defense force of the Islamic resistance.
We opted for activation.
So far we have had excellent results because, of course, if the drones fall, it will be better.
However, the goal is not only to shoot down the drones but thwart their danger and threat.
One of the most significant strengths of drones during peacetime is the information aspect.
The drones recorded daily details throughout the day.
During the past two years, that is, since we started this procedure, I can tell you and the honorable viewers that this “Israeli” movement has decreased very much.
Of course, the brothers can prepare a report, God willing, and publish it with numbers and details.
Take, for example, the Bekaa region.
Drones used to come on a daily and at varying degrees.
Now, a month, two, or three months would pass and not even one drone would come.
This, of course, is unprecedented since the “Israeli” enemy began sending drones to the skies of Lebanon.
Also, their movement in the south decreased a lot.
However, I cannot claim that there are no drones for a week or two.
They cannot completely disappear from the sky.
But they changed their course.
This means that instead of moving over the land to this village or that city, they are forced to go west, i.e., over the sea and move horizontally to avoid moving over wide areas of land.
They also move within high ranges because they believe that the leadership of the resistance has authorized the activation of this level of weapons.
Q: Your Eminence, you are now talking about anti-drone weapons only. However, the enemy’s media reported from the Information Division in the “Israeli” army that Hezbollah has real air defense systems. It talked about Russian SA-8 and SA-17 missiles. What can you say about this, His Eminence the Sayyed?
All this will show if it exists.
Q: They are talking about air defense systems, warplanes, and not just drones. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: Everything is possible.
In the end, the resistance believes it has the right to possess any weapon that will enable it to defend this country and this nation against the “Israelis”.
Q: Can we say that the rules of air engagement with the “Israeli” enemy have now changed? Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: Part of it has changed, and what I said, i.e., activation.
When you say it changed, it means that we opted for activation - activation against the drones.
This is a decision that was made following the incident involving the drones that fell on Dahiyeh [the southern suburbs of Beirut], that is, they were brought down.
The southern suburbs are another level.
This is up to the circumstances.
Whether it exists or not remains for war.
Q: There is a fierce and widespread attack, both internally and externally, against Hezbollah at this stage in Lebanon, and there are those who accuse Hezbollah of being an Iranian party and not a Lebanese party. They want to say that you do not have a “national Lebanese affiliation.” What do you say to that?
We can say that it is empty talk.
However, I would like to give a scientific answer to the issue.
Let us say that one hundred thousand fighters belong to this party in Lebanon, without talking about other institutions and frameworks, civil frameworks; a great number.
A party that has a framework, leadership, institutions, formations, and a massive number of supporters says it is a Lebanese party.
Meanwhile, it is being accused of being an Iranian party, a Saudi party, or an American party.
In the end, there are criteria.
What are the criteria and scales that deem a party Lebanese or non-Lebanese? One of the simplest criteria is whether they are Lebanese or not – Hezbollah’s leadership, members, and cadres, including men, women, old and young.
They are all Lebanese in a personal sense and identity wise.
They are holders of Lebanese nationality since the Lebanese nationality existed.
They’ve been Lebanese for hundreds of years and are the people of this country.
This is a criterion, and usually this criterion is not sufficient.
We say that the leadership of Hezbollah, which makes the decisions, leads the operations, and runs the institutions, these are Iranian cadres and Iranian or non-Lebanese figures.
Therefore, this is a non-Lebanese party or a mixed party.
Of course, it is not so.
Hezbollah, from head to toe, is made up of Lebanese men and women.
The second and most important criterion is whether this party or group is working in the interest of Lebanon or that of foreign governments? This is the basic criterion because any party can claim to be Lebanese and patriotic.
The real criterion is whether you belong to this country, its history, culture, and social fabric.
The answer is yes.
The other criterion is whether you work for the national interests of this country or for the interests of foreign countries.
So, according to these criteria, can you consider Antoine Lahad’s army to be a Lebanese army, party, or organization? No, it’s a puppet army and was fully serving the “Israeli” occupation in the occupied border strip at that time.
It was working in the interest of the enemy, serving it, and defending it.
Hence, the criterion is the national interests.
Let me tell you a story.
Once we were at the dialogue table in 2006, before the war, and everyone was there.
The dialogue table and the parliament was headed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, and I was one of those attending.
There was a discussion about the relationship with Iran, dependence, political decisions, etc.
I told them that a good criterion to deem a party Lebanese and nationalist is whether it works for the interests of its country or that of a foreign state.
Can you give one example since the establishment of Hezbollah in 1988 until today, where Hezbollah did something for the benefit of Iran and not of Lebanon? Give me an example, and no one answered.
Half an hour later, after the topic was over, one of them remembered that there was an example, so Parliament Speaker Berri asked him to speak.
He replied, giving the hijacking of a TW8 plane from Beirut airport, which took place in the 1980s.
He claimed that it was for the benefit of Iran.
I wanted to respond to him, but Parliament Speaker Berri asked me to wait.
Parliament Speaker Berri replied to him and said that this has nothing to do with Sayyed.
Several young men hijacked the plane, and I negotiated with them to address this operation.
One of the results was the release of thousands of Lebanese detainees, and Iran had nothing to do with this issue.
So, this person could not reply and remained silent.
I mentioned to them more than once that if any of you remembered a position, performance, behavior, or practice that Hezbollah did in the interest of Iran and not Lebanon to kindly mention it.
This took place in 2006.
And now, in February 2022, I direct this question to all those who are accusing us and speaking.
I have no problem with them speaking.
What they say will not make us or break us.
However, logically speaking, let someone come forward and say, ‘O Sayyed, O Hezbollah, you did so-and-so which was not in Lebanon’s interests but Iran's.’ Then, they should give one example.
The most important thing that expresses our relationship and trust in the Islamic Republic of Iran is the resistance.
The resistance in Lebanon is a major national interest.
It is a sovereign and security interest.
It is existence, security, safety, dignity, and freedom.
To those accusing us that this matter does not mean that we are a Lebanese party, this is more Lebanese than any other issue.
We make our own decisions.
This is a problem.
For example, they imagine how countries deal with parties and use old measurements to compare.
When I replied to the King of Saudi Arabia in the last speech during the commemoration of martyr Hajj Qassem Soleimani, they considered that the negotiations between Iran and Saudi Arabia failed since Sayyed Nasrallah is replying to the Saudi King.
Others thought that things in Vienna were not clear.
The next day, Iranian Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian said that negotiations with Saudi Arabia are continuing and there is an arrangement of relations with Saudi Arabia.
Here, their argument has been invalidated.
In Lebanon, sometimes they say that there is a disagreement between Hezbollah and Iran.
There are those who say that there is a distribution of roles to justify their mistakes because the principle on which these claims are based is incorrect.
This is because Hezbollah’s decision makers are Lebanese.
It basically prioretizes the interests of its country and people.
Therefore, Iran can be a friend of this or that country, and we are not friends with it.
The Islamic Republic’s friendship with a country, i.e., the friendship of your ally does not bind you to this friendship.
We are friends with a certain country based on our principles, our calculations, and the interests of our country.
Therefore, they are reading wrong because they cannot understand that Hezbollah is the decision maker.
In Yemen, Ansarullah and the leadership of Ansarullah are the decision makers.
Iran does not tell them what to do or not to do.
It does not make dictates.
Likewise, when we go to other arenas.
As a result of this confusion, they analyze wrong and make wrong decisions.
It is known that my brothers in the party and I speak our truth humbly.
In fact, some parties and people in Lebanon that follow the orders of and adhere to the directives of embassies and conspire against the resistance which is defending Lebanon’s sovereignty, natural resources, waters, and borders are the ones whose loyalty to Lebanon must be questioned.
I should be the one questioning whether you are Lebanese or not.
But we do not engage in this discussion and make accusations.
We do not say this is an American party, a Saudi party, an Emirati party, and so on because this makes you feel that you are entering into worthless arguments.
Q: There is an incrimination of Iran and its role. The Islamic Republic has always said through its officials that it supports Lebanon’s stability, sovereignty, government, people, and resistance, defends Lebanon’s rights in international and diplomatic forums, does not interfere in Lebanon’s internal affairs, and is ready to provide any assistance requested by the Lebanese government in its current crisis. On the other hand, we hear strange terms used to describe Iran, such as it controls the Lebanese state, Iranian influence, etc.
Let us talk about what came after 2005 because before that year, they will tell you about the Syrian presence and that they were prevented from doing so and so.
You’ve been taking part in political life, in the parliament, the government, and state departments inside and outside the country since 2005.
Let these people say what they have done for Lebanon.
I am not asking the question to one person, but to the whole group that does not have a program to save Lebanon from the problems plaguing this country in the economic and financial sphere.
They do not even have a plan other than attacking the resistance, Hezbollah, and Iran and inventing slogans.
Let them say what they have done between 2005 and now.
Let the people see one of the achievements you have made other than noise, accusations, conflicts, and sometimes bringing the country to the brink of civil war.
Meanwhile, we can mention the tangible achievements we’ve done on more than one level and which we’ve presented to our country and people from 2005 until now.
The problem is the others.
I am talking about enemies or opponents.
Describing them as so is still being forgiving; they are the enemy and actually practice hostility, behave like the enemy, think like the enemy, and have similar interests as the enemy.
When we ask them what their achievements are and what their plans are, they reply by demanding the resistance hand over its weapons.
Will this save the country? They have nothing else to offer.
Therefore, regarding this subject, we expect more of these resounding slogans, accusations, and insults; they know that this is not true.
As for the test of sovereignty, independence, and freedom, they failed a long time ago.
We do not need to say: Look, they kept quiet about this matter.
But it is fine to recall this.
Today, for example, when it comes to the parliamentary elections file or any other file, everyone knows that the US embassy is interfering.
There are no secrets.
The US ambassador speaks to the media about the parliamentary elections and holds meetings with political leaders.
At the end of the meeting, they read statements stating that they talked about the elections.
Delegations from the US embassy roam the country and interfere with the issue of the elections.
Therefore, I say in all honesty that the Iranian embassy, from the ambassador to the least senior employee in the embassy, or any Iranian party do not interfere in the Lebanese elections.
This is a Lebanese issue that is left to Hezbollah.
Same goes to the rest of the affairs.
That is why they do not have the right to speak about sovereignty, independence, or freedom.
Rather, they are enemies of the resistance and in fact serve the foreign project that is alien to Lebanon.
Q: We want to talk about the reason behind this fierce attack on the resistance and Hezbollah in Lebanon. In contrast to Iran, there is American influence in Lebanon. Your Eminence spoke a lot about American influence, penetration into institutions, etc. We want to ask you if there is an assessment on your part on the subject of the American security, intelligence, and military influence in Lebanon and about this embassy that is being built in Lebanon, which is the largest in the region. What do the Americans want?
They are talking about an Iranian occupation, which is ridiculous.
Then, we respond to it by saying an American occupation.
No, but we consider that one of our friends and brothers says that the American occupation of Lebanon is an American occupation.
We consider this to be a derogation from the sacrifices of all those who struggled, fought, and resisted at the very least from 1982 until today, from various parties, factions, and fronts.
There is no American occupation of Lebanon.
Yes, there is American influence in Lebanon.
This is true.
There is a political, financial, military, and security influence.
For example, in terms of financial influence, can the central bank bypass any limits, controls, or details dictated by the US Department of the Treasury, absolute surrender, what is the influence? This is the influence; there is an obedient and submissive party, and the entire Lebanese banking system is subject to the decisions of the US Treasury, and this is known.
They get their orders from America to close a certain [bank] account.
So, it gets closed, and they do not discuss it.
The deputy secretary of treasury or the Assistant secretary of state for financial affairs comes, gathers the heads of banks and the bodies concerned with financial and monetary affairs, and informs them of his decisions.
Meanwhile, they implement these decisions.
So, what is this called? It is called influence and domination.
I do not say occupation, but that is what is called influence and control.
This is related to the financial issue and an example of some financial institutions.
Regarding the political issue, it has economic repercussions.
For example, we suffered greatly when we brought the diesel ships.
They ask why you brought the ships to Baniyas from a distance of 270 kilometers to the Bekaa region to be distributed.
Why do all this? Because we cannot bring a ship off the Lebanese coast.
America does not allow it.
So, what do you call this? We call it political influence, and the Lebanese government says that we cannot bear this issue.
They made it clear that we have turned a blind eye to the Lebanese coasts.
Rather, we were officially addressed saying that they are disconcerted and that the government in Lebanon may fall to this extent – bringing a ship in order to sell diesel fuel at a cheaper price than the market, may cause the government in Lebanon to fall.
This is considered American political influence.
For example, when talking about economic issues, what are Russian or Chinese investments? The American political influence is [preventing them].
With regard to the military issue, there are American forces in Lebanon.
There are no American military bases.
Rather, there are some officers and some soldiers guarding the American embassy, training, or posing as advisors to the Lebanese army.
This is known; they are present in limited numbers, but they have a permanent presence in the military establishment.
There are people in the Ministry of Defense; American officers and generals, God knows to what level they interfere in the Lebanese military establishment.
They are present and this is known.
I am not revealing a secret.
The American ambassador is always there.
If a water boat was brought, the ambassador would be there.
If a small helicopter or supplies were brought, she would be present.
She would be there glued to the Lebanese army.
This is not a good thing.
Therefore, there are serious remarks on this and must be addressed in one way or another.
But the most important thing is the security issue.
It is well known that the US embassy in Lebanon is the main headquarters for the Central Intelligence Agency not just for Lebanon but for the entire region – Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Cyprus.
There is a huge embassy in Iraq and a large embassy in Lebanon.
The embassy’s activities are not confined to Lebanon, but its security influence, including the recruitment of CIA informants who work for the American intelligence, exists.
We believe that the US intelligence that operates within a certain level went through a stage where the US embassy in Awkar recruited Lebanese to gather military information that the “Israelis” and not the CIA needed.
It was working at the security level to serve the “Israelis”.
Therefore, yes, there is political, security, financial, and economic influence.
Everyone who says we want a sovereign state and talks about sovereignty, freedom, and independence, must confront this destructive influence.
If this influence serves the interest of the country, then it is debatable.
But what will this destructive influence offer Lebanon?
Q: Your Eminence, there have been sanctions imposed on Hezbollah over the past years, the latest of which were sanctions against some Lebanese people, including businessman Adel Diab and others as well as a travel agency. What is the impact of these sanctions on Hezbollah and the environment of the resistance in particular?
Therefore, these sanctions are harmful.
For example, many of these merchants are actually oppressed.
Their money is not for Hezbollah, nor are they partners with Hezbollah or finance it.
It is enough that they belong to the environment [of Hezbollah], are supporters [of Hezbollah], or friends [of Hezbollah] to be wronged in this way.
Of course, they are harmed.
Banks cause problems with their money, and their businesses are disrupted.
They have nothing to do with Hezbollah.
This is baseless.
Rather, this harms individuals and disrupts companies.
Then, they dismiss their employees.
The merchant has to look for other ways to continue his trade.
As for their claim that sanctions hinder Hezbollah, I said previously that Hezbollah does not have economic projects or commercial companies for them to be affected by these sanctions.
Hezbollah’s leadership and members have no property or money abroad.
Hezbollah’s environment and friends can be affected.
Some of those who donate money to Hezbollah may be reluctant to do so.
In any case, the size of donations that were previously provided and are currently being offered to Hezbollah do not have a fundamental impact on the path of Hezbollah for sanctions to leave negative and dangerous repercussions.
Therefore, we say that the effects [of the sanctions] are undoubtedly harmful to some in the environment, but they cannot negatively affect the development and continuity of Hezbollah.
Sanctions have more of a psychological and moral impact rather than a physical one.
We previously talked about how the Americans put pressure on the banks.
We remember two or more years ago that every person from Hezbollah who had an account in the Lebanese banks had to withdraw their money.
These people were harmed, and they spoke with the banks.
The banks responded that they had nothing to do with this and that the Americans interfered.
So, they expelled everyone who belongs to Hezbollah or is suspected of having a relationship with Hezbollah.
I say they expelled us, respectfully.
They canceled all our deposits.
When the disaster of the deposits came, we are not rejoicing at the misfortune of those who made deposits.
On the contrary, we are very hurt, and many of them are our families and people.
We used to always say, {Maybe you dislike a thing which is good for you.} Those who have succeeded in withdrawing their deposits from the banks were the individuals accused of belonging to Hezbollah who were expelled from the banks.
Being expelled from the banks was beneficial for us.
This is one of the confirmations of {Maybe you dislike a thing which is good for you}.
Q: Your Eminence, you have details about the American request to meet with Hezbollah. Was there such a request?
Q: What was the point of that? Sayyed Nasrallah: Look, the Americans say that they are pragmatic and realistic.
They do not have a problem.
They say we do not negotiate with terrorists.
They cooperate with terrorists and not negotiate with them.
They create terrorist organizations, run them, and cooperate with them.
This is what Trump admitted.
He accused Obama and Clinton of creating Daesh, and Clinton admitted to making al-Qaeda.
Them not negotiating with terrorist organizations and contacting them is nonsense.
Although they classify us as a terrorist organization, for years there have been attempts before and after 2000, after September 11, before and after 2006, and in recent times as well.
There have always been attempts to open channels of communication.
Of course, we don't have to, and we're not bragging about it.
We want to prove our sincerity because they used and resorted to more than one channel.
They asked a certain party and we told them no.
Then, they spoke to the so-and-so side, and we told them no.
They resorted to four or five mediators for this.
You know in Lebanon we have many mutual friends (with America).
Q: What was the aim, Your Eminence, of this request, especially now that the American campaign against you is huge? Sayyed Nasrallah: They have no problem.
They could wage a war against you and impose sanctions and besiege you.
They want to negotiate with you directly and talk to you directly in order to employ all the things they are doing against you, as they are doing with Iran.
And now, what’s with the whole thing about Iran and Vienna? The Americans want Iran to talk to them directly.
That’s all.
Today, a deal in Vienna is pending mainly over this point.
They tell you we are sitting with you – it was through mediators that a discussion has taken place – and that we can meet even though we are enemies.
I do not want to discuss what the Americans are doing in the region and in the world.
I am speaking to you only about things you are doing in Lebanon.
You support the “Israeli” enemy.
You are responsible for all of “Israel's” wars on Lebanon.
You are responsible for all of “Israel's” massacres in Lebanon.
You work as a spy in Lebanon for the benefit of the “Israeli” enemy.
There is nothing between you and me to sit down and talk.
They replied to us that even enemies open back channels; in the end, enemies talk to each other.
We told them that we are not the kind of enemies who talk to you.
They want to open… the problem with the Americans when you open [channels of communication] is that they want to sit with you and tell you one, two, three, four, five.
They want to pressure you to make compromises or bargains over basic things that you are not likely to give up.
Let's talk about realistic and logical politics.
Let us put aside the principled, fundamentalist, and ideological issue.
They want to talk to you about the precision missiles, weapons, Palestine, Al-Quds, and the position toward "Israel".
In Lebanon, they do not have a major problem with us, aside from the “Israeli” issue.
We are a political party, with a number of representatives in parliament, two or three state ministers, and a number of general managers – the composition of the state.
This is what they want.
Their offer to us was from 2000.
They want to tell us that if you want us to lift the sanctions, do so and so, halt all the attacks on you, and to silence all those insulting you and writing articles about you, you must do one, two, three, four.
We are not about to do that in the first place.
Q: What is this one, two, three, and four? Sayyed Nasrallah: They are all related to the resistance.
Q: Does that mean ensuring “Israeli” security and not threatening “Israeli” security? Sayyed Nasrallah: In 2000, after September 11, I spoke about this matter.
But I will mention it very briefly.
A person came to me – I mentioned his name later.
He was sent by US Vice President Dick Cheney.
He said we’ll take you off the sanctions list.
Then, he read me the letter.
I made the mistake of not taking the letter.
That's how rebellious I was! He told me, “I will give you the letter.” I told him, “No, keep it with you.
I will not take any paper from the Americans.” He began to read to me, “We will remove you from the terror list.
Then, we will grant you international recognition, like the national liberation movements in the world.
The veto that we put in place to prevent you from entering the Lebanese government, we’ll ask that you be represented in the Lebanese government.
“At the time, we were not asking for that, and your weapons remain with you.
There is no problem.
Of course, not the missiles because the weapons are for a civil war, in which there is no problem, but not missiles.
“We’ll recognize you as a political party.
We’ll create a legal loophole for you to be a military organization, and we’ll give a couple of billion dollars.” At the time, I was just joking.
I told him, "You will give it to us or to the Lebanese government." He told me, "No, we will give you suitcases." I asked him what I would do with this money.
He said, “You can use it to rebuild” since we were just emerging from the 2000 liberation.
“You can use it to rebuild the areas that were destroyed due to the war, compensate the people, enhance your popularity, and implement development projects.” Billions of dollars! Then, I asked him, “what must we give in return for this generosity?” He said, "Keep delivering speeches against ‘Israel’.
It is not a problem.
We want three things.
“First, we want the issue of Palestine, Al-Quds, the people of Palestine, the resistance is Palestinian, support, weapons, training, and financing must all stop.
Two, you must commit not to implement anything against ‘Israel’, not a shot at ‘Israel’.” I told him, “Even if ‘Israel’ attacked Lebanon.” He could not answer.
I had a discussion with him.
it’s not like I told him no and walked away.
The third thing was that he wanted us to work for him as a security agency against Al-Qaeda.
You know, they were reeling from September 11.
This is old news.
Let me tell you what their deal is with us.
Let’s put aside the Americans and the Iranian issue.
If Hezbollah says that it is abandoning the issue of “Israel”, Palestine, Al-Quds, the Palestinian people, the Zionist project, they will accept it.
They will allow you to keep your weapons.
They will recognize you as an armed organization and a political party.
They can even change the political system in Lebanon, and this is what is being talked about.
At one stage, there was talk of a trinity.
You know, there is equality between Muslims and Christians.
Now, the talk is about a trinity.
Practically speaking, the share of Muslims in general becomes two-thirds, i.e., one-third for Sunnis, one-third for Shiites, and one-third for Christians.
The Shiites' share will inevitably increase within the framework of two-thirds and become one-third.
Is this just for the sake of changing the political system or does this have a price? Then, they ask you what guarantees you want.
To us, these topics are not up for discussion at all.
That is, anything that touches the resistance, the weapon of the resistance, and the presence of the resistance, which means the only guarantee for the protection of Lebanon.
There is nothing else.
Q: Your Eminence, Sayyed, there are many points that we hope we can raise, including the issue of border demarcation. Your Eminence, there is the issue of the American envoy who came to Beirut and talks about border demarcation. Do you have a position on this issue, or is it the position of the Lebanese government and you support it?
On the eve of liberation in 2000 – at that time, it was said that "Israel" might withdraw from certain areas and remain in others – I said in a speech, that we in Hezbollah studied this matter and decided that as a resistance, we will not interfere in the issue of border demarcation.
Because for us, there is no such thing as "Israel"; there is no such thing as a border with "Israel" for us to be part of the demarcation process.
We do not recognize the existence of "Israel".
On the other hand, there is Palestinian land and water; there is Palestinian water.
Hence, we have a principled position and an ideological background in all sense of the word.
Therefore, from the beginning, we said, the Lebanese state naturally wants to demarcate the borders, so let it demarcate the borders.
However, we do not interfere in the demarcation of the borders.
The talk at that time was generally related to land and sea [borders].
Therefore, after the 2000 liberation, when delegations and the United Nations returned, there was no demarcation.
There was an application of the drawn borders.
There were some points of contention.
The Shebaa Farms was a point of contention with the enemy.
We did not interfere, nor did we say that this hill is ours, and that hill is not ours, or this valley is ours, and that valley is not ours.
What did the state say? At that time, the army was the one who was following up on the matter.
When it came to the maritime demarcation, there were no drawn borders in the sea.
This is the difference between land and sea.
On land, the borders are drawn.
Hence, there is application and points of contention.
They wanted to demarcate the sea borders.
From the beginning, we were not concerned with demarcating the borders.
The Lebanese state and state institutions accept and decide the borders.
This decision is not taken by one individual in the Lebanese state.
This is a sovereign issue that has to do with space; it has to do with Lebanon's waters, the economic zone, etc.
Whatever border the Lebanese state decides will be our borders, and that is it.
As a resistance, we adhere to these borders, but we do not interfere in their demarcation.
Let me add.
In fact, many asked us.
I told them the truth is that we in Hezbollah, even though we have institutions involved in discussions of this kind, information, maps, etc., did not engage in internal discussions defining our maritime borders.
Seriously, we did not have an internal debate.
If you are asking whether we support line 29 or line 23, I tell you we didn’t even discuss this matter and we don’t want to discuss it.
We are not interested in this discussion at all.
Now, there are two issues.
As a Lebanese citizen, like any Lebanese, I desire and love, like all Lebanese, that the larger and wider the area that will be liberated through these existing negotiations would be better.
This is a natural and logical thing, but we have a limitation because there is talk about some propositions.
It is not the demarcation of borders.
We are restricted by the suspicion of normalization, a suspicion of cooperation, a suspicion of coordination with the enemy.
Of course, we are against it.
From now on, we announce that we are against it.
There is a discussion in the authentications, whether this constitutes a kind of normalization or not.
But this is a restriction because there is an official Lebanese decision, right? We are not imposing an opinion.
The Lebanese government’s decision so far, and God willing, will remain steadfast on this position.
The Lebanese state’s decision is that there is no normalization with the enemy.
Hence, we are all against choosing any option that involves normalization or suspicion of normalization.
Other than this, we do not interfere.
Q: Your Eminence, Sayyed, I want to seize the opportunity before the break, to talk about the Kuwaiti paper that was presented to Lebanon, and there was a reply to Lebanon. What is your position regarding that paper with its 12 conditions, especially 1559 – distancing oneself and verbal aggression against the GCC countries?
None of us were asked for a reply.
The reply was required from the Lebanese state, from Lebanese officials.
They deliberated with each other, sent a reply, and are waiting for the Arabic answer.
Therefore, during the past period, we did not comment because we were not concerned in answering this paper.
We were not the party to which this paper was sent to for us to provide an answer, but I would like to make a general comment on the paper, meaning on this subject in form and content.
With regard to form, Lebanon, in the end, is a state.
We say it is a sovereign state, and we aspire for it to be sovereign.
It is not right for anyone to come and want to dictate terms.
That is, there are 12 points, come on, answer us, and you have 5 days.
This is not good.
This is the first thing.
This is with regard to the form.
I want to say more than this.
Two, once you come and say in this paper, ‘O State of Lebanon, O Government of Lebanon, this is a draft that we want to discuss with you.
We are Arab countries that are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council; we care about Lebanon and love Lebanon.
‘We have an opinion on some points and we believe that regarding what we are demanding of you, it is useful to engage in a dialogue and create a Lebanese-Arab or Lebanese-Gulf dialogue mechanism.’ We do not have any objection to holding a dialogue of this kind because we do not want to take a political position or demonstrate or say that the Lebanese state should not engage in a Lebanese-Arab or Lebanese-Gulf dialogue.
On the contrary, let them engage in dialogue, even in Lebanese-Saudi or Lebanese-Emirati dialogues, etc.
There is no problem with dialogue.
In form, it would’ve been better if it was raised like this, not to test the other and ask them to give it back and answer it correctly.
This is not suitable for Lebanon.
When we come to the content, we prefer a dialogue to take place, that the Lebanese state engages in a dialogue.
If we were asked to be part of the dialogue, it would be subject to discussion.
My brothers and I did not give this idea much thought.
I am saying a dialogue because...
Q: A dialogue on the existing points... Sayyed Nasrallah: In addition, Lebanon is not only a recipient.
For example, you say interference in the internal affairs of the (Persian) Gulf states or the Arab states.
Please, sit down and talk.
I have two questions.
In the paper, there is no stopping the Saudi interference in Lebanon.
Is there anyone discussing whether there is Saudi interference in Lebanon or not? The whole world knows that there is Saudi interference, and we do not want to waste the time allotted for dialogue.
Saudi Arabia is interfering in Lebanon; the Emirates is interfering in Lebanon; other Gulf countries are interfering in Lebanon; Arab countries are interfering; the world is interfering.
You are asking from Lebanon, from the Lebanese, or from a Lebanese side not to interfere in Lebanon.
From now, I will tell you that we did not interfere in the Emirates or in Saudi Arabia or in any of these countries.
If we stand on the side of the Yemeni people who they are waging a war against, it is not interfering in their affairs.
They are waging a brutal war against them.
I am here supporting the oppressed Yemeni people; I am not interfering in Saudi affairs.
I am interfering in Saudi affairs.
You are the one who assaulted Yemen.
It is not like it attacked Saudi Arabia and we interfered in Saudi affairs.
We do not interfere in internal affairs.
However, my brother, let us say you are accused of interfering Ok, you also interfere.
This is how Lebanon will be a respectable, sovereign, and independent country.
You want Lebanon, the Lebanese, and any Lebanese party not to interfere in your internal affairs, great.
You do not interfere in our internal affairs.
Is this reasonable, responsible, and logical or not? All countries of the world are likewise.
You want Lebanon not to interfere in your internal affairs.
This is the second point.
You do not only interfere in Lebanon's internal affairs, but you also interfere in the internal affairs of the whole region.
You interfere in Syria, and they are still interfering.
You waged a ten-year war on Syria.
Isn’t this called interference? In Iraq you regularly interfere every hour; you interfere in Libya; you interfere in Tunisia; in Yemen, you interfere with war and politics; in Sudan you interfere.
This is well known.
Whoever wants to ask the Lebanese state or a Lebanese party not to interfere in the internal affairs of other Arab countries should start with himself first.
This is a point of discussion.
This means that there is no problem for me as a Lebanese to negotiate and make an agreement with you.
You do not want me to interfere in your internal affairs, which I am already not interfering in.
It is negotiable.
You, too, do not interfere in our internal affairs as Lebanese.
Would they accept this or not? We must not be a party that only gets dictates.
This is one.
Two, verbal harm, the harm inflicted on the Lebanese state, the Lebanese people, and the Lebanese officials, starting from the President of the Lebanese Republic downwards, by the Gulf media, the Gulf press, and the Gulf electronic armies.
We did not see this in the paper.
We saw that it is forbidden for anyone to speak in Lebanon; it is forbidden for anyone to open their mouth in Lebanon; and it is forbidden for anyone in Lebanon to speak or write anything.
But what do they do? This as well as the issue of resistance and international resolutions must be discussed.
If I sit with the Arabs and discuss the issue of the resistance's weapons and 1559, isn't Lebanon in the circle of threat? Isn't Lebanon in a danger zone? With regard to the issue of maritime borders, oil and gas, and other “Israeli” threats, what are the alternatives that you offer? As Gulf states or Arabs, what are your alternatives? We are protecting our country.
Give us an alternative.
In fact, they have no logic; they have no alternatives; and they have no options.
All they want is to achieve the American demand that I spoke about at the beginning of the interview.
All that is required in this whole process is that after they tried the military war on the resistance in Lebanon, which did not lead to a result, and they tried it in 2006, the security work did not stop for a single day.
They were not able to stop the development of the resistance, and they did not get a result through political pressure.
So, they opted for the economic issue and the livelihood issue, holding Hezbollah responsible.
Then, they tell the Lebanese that if they want bread, you must hand over the weapons of the resistance.
The matter comes in this context.
We, as Hezbollah, have no objection to the Lebanese government being within the framework of a Lebanese-Gulf dialogue, a Lebanese-Arab dialogue.
We talk to them with logic and discuss with them our interests and Lebanon's national interests.
Q: In your opinion, was this paper presented for discussion or for imposition? Meaning if you don't implement it, will there be sanctions? Sayyed Nasrallah: Sanctions exist, and there is nothing left to impose sanctions on.
They’ve done everything they could.
What I know is that we were told to respond to this paper, but they did not ask us to the negotiating table and engage in discussions.
Q: With regard to Prime Minister Saad Hariri's decision to refrain from running for elections and to suspend political work with the Future Movement, do you see this step having any impact on the electoral reality and on the political scene in Lebanon? Will this leave a vacuum and strike the Sunni moderation in Lebanon in favor of extremism? Sayyed Nasrallah: First, we will not issue a statement or a position, as the atmosphere has become like auctions after Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced his position.
But through some mutual friends, we had contact with him during the days he was here.
I met with a mutual friend before he announced his decision, considering that we knew his decision, that we hope that you will reconsider, and if you insist on that, it is unfortunate because the chances for cooperation existed and remain with the Future Movement.
In the governments that we were together, we cooperated well and greatly.
We even nominated him to head the government.
We did not say anything to the media, so that it would not be said that Hezbollah is giving complements or being hypocritical.
The party is not hypocritical with anyone or wants to take advantage of or take space from the Sunni arena, as was said.
This is in response to some positions.
We say that this is an unfortunate decision, and we had hoped that it would not happen, but it did.
Does it have an impact on the elections? Yes, of course.
The absence of a large current like the Future Movement has a great impact on the elections and is not confined.
So far, the scene is not clear, and we have to wait for some time for the scene to become clear and to see where things will go in Lebanon with the withdrawal of the Future Movement from the parliamentary elections.
On the subject of moderation and saying that this will open the door to extremism, I consider it a great exaggeration.
In general, our Sunni brothers in Lebanon have a general character of moderation.
They have their own culture and structure.
The cases of extremism were limited.
We can even say they are isolated cases.
Therefore, the fear is not here – that the Sunnis in Lebanon are moving from moderation to extremism.
It is not like this.
Rather, fear is when a withdrawal occurs in this way and with a large current.
This will leave frustration and withdrawal from the general political effectiveness in the country.
It will leave effects and a new structure on alliances and the political formula.
Yes, it has effects.
But for some to accuse the Sunnis in Lebanon that there is a political leader or a political current that has withdrawn from the elections – it may return to political action – of turning the Sunni Islamic arena in Lebanon into the control of extremist or takfiri groups is not right.
Even if it is possible, it is exaggerated.
The Sunnis have leaders, scholars, frameworks, destinations, and statues.
That is why we are not worried about this.
Q: On the elections, Hezbollah’s project and the electoral address on which it will run in the elections, especially since there is a fierce campaign by opponents and enemies carrying an electoral project under the title of striking Hezbollah and disarming the resistance. How do you see the electoral scene, Your Eminence?
For example, “Together we build,” “We will protect and build,” “Together,” or always,” something like that, given that it is a basic text to be relied on.
The main reason for our presence in the parliament and taking part in the parliamentary elections has always been based on clear and firm foundations.
The first title and basis is that we used to say ‘protecting the resistance project’ and ‘protecting the resistance community’.
This matter now exists.
On the contrary, today the slogan raised by many parties working on the elections and the countries funding them is war on the resistance.
Perhaps this title was not very clear in 2018, or in 2009.
But in these elections, it is very clear.
There are people who openly say that their electoral project is the implementation of Resolution 1550.
‘My electoral project is to disarm the resistance, my electoral project is such.’ This means that we need the old rule today more than ever.
Therefore, we see in the parliamentary elections an attack called ‘aggression against the resistance, disarming the resistance, and besieging the resistance.’ Meanwhile, you should say ‘protect the resistance’.
In fact, it is protecting the resistance that protects the country because we are no strangers to the country.
We say, ‘O people of Lebanon or the voters in Lebanon protect us.
This resistance that protects you, you need to fortify it politically within Parliament, the government, the state, and public opinion.’ Here comes a basic heading, regardless of the majority and the minority.
Let's go to another point.
It is very important to us that the resistance has many friends in the parliament.
This constitutes a fortification.
There is no more March 8 or March 14 in parliament today; it ended a long time ago.
Even with regard to the resistance, there are friends and opponents of the resistance.
There are also neutral people, meaning in the matter of the resistance they have no problem – they are neither with it nor against it.
So, it is wrong to work on the basis that there are two camps and that the elections are going either with the resistance or against it.
No, there are people who support the resistance and defend it, and there are people who are against the resistance and have announced this issue publicly.
Meanwhile, there are neutral people who say that if the resistance exists, we coexist with it, if it does not exist, it does not matter.
We do not classify these people as opponents nor a threat to the resistance.
This category is not aligned with March 8 or [March] 14, with or against Hezbollah, a majority and a minority, and the formation of a government.
This is the first point.
The second point is what we always say – our presence in Parliament is so that we can through laws Legislations serve the interests of the people, remove and mitigate harm from them, and abolish corruption.
This is what we have been working on in Parliament for years.
Therefore, our presence in Parliament has an impact on the election of the president, appointing the prime minister, and forming the government.
All this serves two goals.
The first goal is protecting the resistance, which is the country's guarantee in the face of the “Israeli” threat and ambitions.
The second goal is the internal issue that is related to building the state, the economic situation, the solutions, and the laws that achieve people's interests.
Therefore, our slogan is "We protect and build".
This is in the background.
Q: With regard to betting on Hezbollah and its allies losing the majority in Parliament, which will result in political change in the country with the president, parliament, and government hostile to the resistance, which according to opponents will rescue Lebanon. What do you say about that?
First of all, in estimating the scene, I do not agree with anyone rushing and speculating about the outcome of the elections from now.
There is time before this issue takes place, even if it is a few months.
We must see what the effects of the withdrawal of the Future Movement will be on the Sunni arena.
We must also see the nature of the alliances and how they will be structured today.
For example, the embassies relied a lot on the NGOs.
They began to find out that a large number of them are fake.
Once I quoted a joke –it’s okay to lighten the atmosphere.
The brothers give me some of the interactions from social networking sites.
I saw an invitation on social media – I don't remember what the topic was about.
But someone had come from abroad – a foreign delegation – and they intended to ask for the implementation of Resolution 1559.
20 NGOs or associations heeded the call to take part in a sit-in in a certain place.
I did not memorize those names.
I saw the invitations and the addresses of those NGOs.
But there were 20 addresses for those associations, 20 placards.
We said OK, let's see how many will attend.
Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? They give money to the NGOs.
It was said that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent during two or three years on these NGOs, on these associations.
The next day, the brothers brought me a picture of that sit-in.
There were only 20 people – men and women and their dog with them.
That is, 20 people accompanied by a dog.
Sorry, they weren't 20 people.
[They were] 20 advocates; they were 16 or 15 people and a dog.
I laughed and said that it seems that two or three associations are owned by one person, and at least 20 people were supposed to come to represent these associations.
We have information that a lot of meetings were held at the American embassy recently.
The American ambassador reprimanded these associations – we gave you money and nothing came out of you; you did nothing.
In any case, the significance of the NGOs and their impact on civil society are exaggerated.
Then, there are those today who want to represent civil society.
They were politicians and children of politicians who follow a political line and are charged with many accusations.
These people want to bring about change! We must not get ahead of ourselves.
We should be realistic and for the picture to be clear.
We should not talk about a majority and a minority, etc.
Everyone has a goal, and there is no problem in that.
In any case, talk about the majority and the majority, the issue of the resistance, the weapon of resistance, and the basic issues in the country – that we are a majority with four or five deputies or a minority with four or five deputies or ten or more; I am talking about groups and coalitions – do not bring about a fundamental change.
For example, when electing the president, you have to have two-thirds.
Then, you can elect the president you want.
Isn’t this correct? Therefore, the issue of the resistance’s weapons is greater than a majority or a majority of 4 or 5 deputies.
Hence, betting on this issue is futile.
Q: Today, we are witnessing an escalation in the Zionist attacks on Palestine and the Palestinian people, in the Negev and the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. There are also plans for demolition, settlement, assault, and arrest. Today, there was an event, which is the martyrdom of three men belonging to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades in the city of Nablus. They were shot by the “Israeli” occupation. How can the situation be summarized with regard to these “Israeli” attacks on the Palestinian people?
Usually, when we’re talking about martyrs, we offer condolences for the loss of loved ones and congratulations on the medal of martyrdom.
We console and congratulate them, but the incident is very painful.
The method of killing… I watched the footage today.
It is a clear aggression by the “Israelis”.
This comes within the general context that has existed for a while.
Today, the enemy government, the current prime minister, wants to outdo Netanyahu.
For him, there is no place for talks about new “Israeli”-Palestinian negotiations, political negotiations, or even the two-state solution.
Bennett says if you want to conduct negotiations or if anyone wants to impose negotiations on us about the two-state solution, I will bring down the government.
He says that as long as he is prime minister, there will be no move toward this direction.
Of course, this is not part of the Americans’ priorities.
The American is preoccupied with Ukraine, China, and other places like Vienna.
Palestine is not on the list [of their priorities].
Even if it was, it is at the bottom.
This includes the Palestinian file and the “Israeli”-Palestinian negotiations.
Yes, all that the enemy government wants from the Palestinian Authority is security coordination in exchange for money.
There is nothing more than that.
politically, the PA and its officials and leaders all declare clearly that there is no complete dead end.
When the horizon is completely blocked, this will strengthen rather than establish.
On the contrary, this option exists.
It will strengthen the option of resistance and put pressure on the “Israelis” and confront them, especially as they continue to confiscate lands, build settlements, Judaize Al-Quds, build thousands of residential buildings in Al-Quds and neighboring towns, and continue with injustice, the arrest of more Palestinians – the prisoners file is a pressure point on the Palestinian people – and demolishing homes.
In all cases, these field data make the Palestinian people, whatever their choices and political intellectual backgrounds, have no choice but resistance and confrontation.
The Palestinian confrontation has taken many forms, especially from the Al-Quds Sword Battle until today.
It is clear that there is a movement more advanced than in previous years in the West Bank.
This is what worries the “Israeli” enemy.
That is why it is getting harsher.
In any case, it is very harsh in dealing with the people of the West Bank.
Q: Your Eminence, does the response of the axis of resistance or the equation of an attack on Al-Quds is an attack on the axis of resistance still exist? Sayyed Nasrallah: Of course, the equation still exists.
It has not been announced, and we have held talks with major powers in the region about it.
This is a topic that we are working on seriously and on a daily basis.
Q: In addition to Palestine, Your Eminence, there is normalization. Herzog and Benny Gantz, who are visiting the Emirates and Bahrain. There is a path of normalization. What does this rush on the path of normalization serve and what are the results that those normalizing seek in this matter?
This is what the “Israeli” leaders think about.
They want to convince the international community of it because in the international community somewhere believes in the two-state solution, regardless of the borders of the Palestinian state and the reality of the Palestinian state.
A state that has a geographically connected area, has sovereignty, has an airspace, a port, an airport, and an army is another discussion.
But the “Israelis” are trying to show that the solution is to take over all of historical Palestine.
The solution according to the “Israelis” is that the people of Gaza can make Gaza their country.
As for the West Bank, there is no geographical unit.
There is a self-administration authority, meaning an expanded municipality and nothing more than that.
It is not connected geographically.
People in the diaspora will be settled abroad and given nationalities.
This is a different matter than the study of resettlement in the countries they are located in.
We see that there are many countries in the world that encourage the Palestinians to immigrate to them and give them nationalities, homes, job opportunities and the like, until gradually their children and grandchildren become citizens of the country and forget Palestine.
However, this issue has so far not happened because one of its main reasons is the adherence of the Palestinian people who are in the diaspora and in Palestine, and not only in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip – even people living in the 1948 territory.
Some were betting that they normalized and the generations that came after them forgot about Palestine.
The Al-Quds Sword Battle proved the exact opposite.
The project of the “Israelis” is for things to move in this direction.
Therefore, when it normalizes with the Arab countries and form economic, political, and diplomatic relations, the Palestinian people will have no one on their side and will not be able to do anything.
Hence, they must accept, as Trump told them in the deal of the century, the crumbs the “Israelis” offer them.
However, there is no Palestinian who accepts the crumbs that the “Israelis” offer them.
The “Israelis” are playing the game of time, the game of despair and frustration.
So, they want to benefit from normalization.
Of course, if they are betting that normalization can form an alliance, they can confront the axis of resistance with, then it is a mistake, as I said at the beginning of the interview.
On the contrary, these countries constitute a military burden on “Israel” and the United States.
They do not offer any help because they want someone to protect them, defend them, and help them.
Therefore, in my opinion, the real threat of normalization is to lead the Palestinian people to despair and frustration.
Therefore, they will either give up or accept crumbs and here normalization is employed.
That is why they are addressing the people Palestinian.
Even in the demonstrations that sometimes take place in Al-Quds or Hebron, some settlers address the Arab protesters in loudspeakers, telling them that they sold them out.
We are now in Dubai and Manama, and we will go to Riyadh.
All of this is in the context of this battle.
The main objective of normalization is for the Palestinian people to reach despair, frustration, depression, and a complete sense of defeat and abandonment.
On the other hand, the Palestinian people insist, are determined, and bear sacrifices.
They are a mighty people.
On the other hand, the Arab peoples are still in discussion.
You can see on social media that there are tweets in support of normalization.
This needs scrutiny because there are electronic armies.
We also see documentaries about large halls in Saudi Arabia and in the Emirates where thousands of university students sit in front of computers and are given instructions to have one hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, two million thousand support [normalization].
This is a directive from the authorities.
So far, there are no indications of popular normalization.
For example, in Bahrain there are popular demonstrations.
If the authorities allow the entire Bahraini people, even those who are not against the authorities in the internal political sense, to express their opinion, you would have seen demonstrations in the streets in Bahrain.
In the Emirates, you hear an individual wants to study at an “Israeli” University, etc.
These are rare cases.
Even in the Emirates, no one has provided evidence that the Emirati people are in harmony with or supportive of normalization.
Even if we assume that people in the Emirates are in harmony, but people in Bahrain are not and even within the Saudi society, regardless of the political difference with them.
Those who want to return Khyber to them.
There is Egypt, Jordan, North Africa, the Islamic world, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and India.
Does it mean that the Islamic world is the Emirates and Bahrain? No, each one is a different case.
On the other hand, we must stand with very important phenomena expressed by athletes, artists, and economists who rejected [normalization].
We’ve seen young men and women, old and young, Arabs and Muslims throughout the Islamic world.
A young man's greatest wish is to win a gold medal in an international competition.
When he reaches the road and must compete with an “Israeli” [competitor], he withdraws for the sake of Palestine.
This is real.
As for what you see on social media, it’s deception.
The real thing is this, a few days ago, they were honored in Lebanon.
We always direct all respect and honor to them and people like them.
This is an honorable position that expresses resistance.
Q: There is also a remarkable position for Algeria regarding the rejection of the “Israeli” entity being an observer in the African Union. This position also had an echo at the level of anti-normalization and against normalization.
It dedicated the summit to Palestine.
By doing so, it embarrassed the rest of the Arab countries.
This in addition to the effort it is making to bring together the Palestinian factions as well as the delegations that went to Algeria and held meetings on this matter.
We are witnessing the return of an important and influential country in the Arab world, which is Algeria, to the Palestinian file.
Its position on the issue of the African Union is a great position and can be used as a basis.
The effort made by Algeria with regard to the issue of Syria and the mending of relations and the return of Syria to the Arab League is also an important and significant position.
This means that there is hope for the people, so I can tell you this normalization will not happen.
Q: It is rejected, and the evidence is Egypt and Jordan. Sayyed Nasrallah: This normalization is only done on radios, television, and by electronic armies.
As for real people throughout the Arab and Islamic world, this is an illusion and a fantasy.
They will not obtain anything from it.
I said that its only result is an attempt to sow despair among the Palestinian people, and this will not happen, God willing.
Q: On the issue of Yemen, there is a development in targeting the Emirati depth by the Yemeni army, the committees, and the Ansarullah movement. This development is remarkable because there was a kind of international commotion as well as international, regional, and Arab condemnation. What do you think is the cause of this development? Will it affect the course of the aggression on Yemen?
Shortly, it will complete its eighth year.
Ansar Allah announced through its official spokesperson and the official spokesperson for the Yemeni army that as a result of the UAE’s return, entry, support, and participation in the war on Yemen, there will be a response.
This response will continue, and according to what Ansarullah said, as long as there is an action, they are determined to continue the response.
Therefore, solving the issue with the UAE is easy.
The solution is what was in the past years – for them to get out of the war and not to interfere in it.
This is what Sayyed Abdul-Malik Al-Houthi says, not me.
They are the decision makers, and I am reporting what I hear from them through the media.
Let the Emirates leave the war, and the Yemeni army and Ansarullah will not have a problem with them.
The matter is very simple.
Q: Who brought the Emirates back into the war, as it withdrew? What do you think is meant by it entering [the war] again? Is it a self-made decision or paid? Sayyed Nasrallah: Certainly, it is paid.
If we want to analyze the issue briefly, the issue of Marib, practically, whether the city or its surroundings, has become under the control of the Yemeni army and the popular committees.
The city remained.
The Americans announced clearly, whether researchers or officials, that if Marib fell, Saudi Arabia and the Americans lost the war.
This is the equation.
Hence, it is forbidden for the city of Ma'rib to fall, meaning that it is forbidden to liberate the city of Ma'rib.
From here, the pressure began.
All the military pressure and the daily aerial bombardment could not change the field equation.
There are brigades called the Giants Brigades that were present on the coast, in the Hodeidah region.
Their loyalty, command, financing, and reference is the Emirates.
It seems that the Emirates was asked to intervene and not to watch.
Saudi Arabia and those who support it in Yemen will not be able to end what Marib is facing.
A new member must intervene in the equation.
The Giants Brigades were pulled from the coast and sent to Shabwa governorate, and a front was opened there with Ansarullah in order to relieve Ma’rib and make the advance later towards Ma’rib possible.
In addition, the Emiratis not only brought the armed groups they support, arm, and fund, but they also intervened in the battle.
The Emirati drones or the air force also intervened in the battle in Shabwa, and this led to a response.
So, the American and Saudi need on the ground and the field failure in Marib may have prompted them to think about who has another presence in Yemen and could help find a balance and prevent this major qualitative victory that the Ansarullah will achieve.
So, they preferred the Emiratis.
It is also possible that the Emiratis also thought that even if they carried out these actions, the Ansarullah would not react this way as a result of miscalculations and readings related to regional issues and relations.
I have previously pointed out that a wrong reading leads to wrong results.
They are mistaken if they think that when Ansarullah makes a decision to open a front or react or makes an agreement or withdraws that it does so according to dictates or requests or permission from Iran.
This is not true.
This is a decision made by the Ansarullah leadership, and I confirm that all allies, friends, and moral and political supporters, led by Iran, knew about the announcement the way the Emiratis did when the strike took place.
Q: The result today is that there is American protection. They said that reinforcements will be sent, including the destroyer Cole, the F-22, and the like to protect the UAE Do you think that this American position is influential, perhaps on the course [of the war]?
For decades, the Americans have been giving them ships, air weapons, technology, etc.
They are taking weapons from the Americans, the British, the French, and the Germans.
They are getting weapons from all the countries of the world.
Faced with the first confrontation, they call on the world for help, which is evidence of weakness.
Therefore, there is a proverb that says, ‘people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.’ It is used as an example.
And I have previously said – this angered the Emiratis – that the Emirates has glass cities, a country made of glass.
As long as it is a country made of glass, why would it get involved in a war like this? Since the beginning, the Ansarullah have declared that they have no problem with the UAE The Emiratis attacked us and we responded.
Stop your aggression and withdraw and there will be no problem between us.
The thing that protects the Emirates in reality is its withdrawal from Yemen and not interfering in other Arab affairs.
Q: Regarding Syria, Hezbollah entered Syria to fight terrorism and protect Lebanon. It succeeded in doing so. How long will Hezbollah remain in Syria? Is there a set period for withdrawal?
However, we still need to be careful and cautious because in northern Syria there are tens of thousands of militants and armed groups, including extremist groups, and some takfiri groups that still pose a threat.
The front there is calm because of the presence of the Syrian army and its allies.
On the other side, there is Turkey.
In the Russian and Turkish equation, a kind of calm or unwritten truce has been achieved, but the arena there is open.
The issue of the north has not ended, and the threat still exists in the north.
The issue east of the Euphrates and the American presence there still exists.
So, what are the Americans doing in the east of the Euphrates? Everyone knows that they are stealing oil and gas, and this is the greed of the "Great" America that covets the east of the Euphrates.
Leave it to the Syrians.
America is plundering the oil and gas in the east of the Euphrates.
What has been happening in Hasakah for several months is that there is a project to revive Daesh in Syria and Iraq again.
In Iraq, there were incidents.
In Syria, there were a number of incidents, including the events in Al-Sina’a prison.
This is not an ordinary matter.
So far, hundreds of Daesh [militants], including senior leaders, have not been re-arrested.
It is possible that they fled outside the area.
It is possible that they transferred them because there are precedents of this kind.
So, the dangers still exist.
Q: Does Hezbollah see itself as a partner in the battle against these groups? Sayyed Nasrallah: Today, for example, the Russian intelligence said in the media that it has information that America wants to restore contact with extremist groups in Damascus and Latakia.
It is not far-fetched that the Americans work on this issue again.
Q: Are the Americans moving Daesh to justify their presence in Syria or not? Or to reverse the situation? Sayyed Nasrallah: America wanted the Syrian state and leadership to surrender, and this did not happen.
Hence, the situation in Syria still requires us to stay by each other's side.
We are there according to the need.
A great number of the brothers returned when entire fronts were closed, and there was no longer a need for their presence.
Q: So, will you stay in Syria? Sayyed Nasrallah: We will remain based on the need.
Q: Do the continuous Zionist attacks on Syria affect Hezbollah? The question that always comes up is why is there no response to these attacks on the part of the Syrian army and perhaps the allies of the Syrian army? Sayyed Nasrallah: [Answering] he first part: They say that they sometimes bomb Syria and the targets that are bombed in Syria belong to us.
We made an equation if we want to address the subject of the response.
But [answering] the first part, yes, sometimes the bombings of targets in Syria belong to Hezbollah, be it a camp, a center, or a post for Hezbollah.
This happens in Syria.
As for the response, with regard to the Lebanese side and Hezbollah, we have made an equation – if you kill one of our members, meaning if we have martyrs due to the “Israeli” bombing, we will respond in Lebanon because we consider it a single front.
This is what we did and will continue with.
They martyred one of ours, so they owe us one.
Q: Then there is [standing] on one leg and a half. Sayyed Nasrallah: They martyred one of ours, so they owe us one.
They remained standing on one leg and a half for two or three months.
As a result of relevant field considerations, we postponed the matter to the appropriate timing.
In Syria, they martyred one of ours.
Of course, on the borders, they martyred one of ours.
Thus, they martyred two of ours, so they owe us two.
But we made this equation.
What is the point of this equation? During all the bombings that took place, the “Israelis” were keen not to kill anyone out of fear of the Lebanese reaction.
When they bombed, they were careful not to killed anyone to avoid a reaction from Lebanon.
I remember before the last martyr that fell – at the time when drones fell in Dahiyeh [the southern suburbs of Beirut], two martyrs fell in Syria.
At that time, Pompeo was the US Secretary of State.
He called one of the Lebanese officials and told him that the then Prime Minister of the Zionist entity Netanyahu spoke to him.
He asked him to inform Lebanese officials, meaning Hezbollah, that they did not know there were Lebanese in the center they bombed.
Can you imagine “Israel” doing this? They do not want us to make any reaction.
They said do not make any reaction because we did not mean to hit you.
Of course, we responded at that time.
Hence, when it comes to [responding] to the killing [of our members], so far, we are committed to this equation.
It remains within the general sphere of Syria.
The air defense confronts [“Israeli” attacks].
We see that most of the martyrs who are falling are not the result of direct bombing but when the Syrian air defenses respond.
Sometimes planes bombard them [the Syrian air defense systems] and martyrs fall.
This confrontation is useful.
It is useful in the sense that it is true that it does not shoot down all the missiles, but seriously thwarts a lot of missiles.
Therefore, the bombing operations do not achieve their full goals.
This is what was achieved.
The question always arises why Syria doesn’t respond.
It is a different issue because it has to do with the regional situation and being drawn into war.
It has to do with the priorities of the Syrian state at the current stage, be it fighting what it calls the takfiri terrorist organizations or focusing to a large extent on dealing with the pressing economic and living situation due to the American siege and sanctions.
This set of complications have so far prevented Syria from making a decision.
What will happen in the future has to do with the Syrian state’s ability to withstand this type of aggression.
Q: Your Eminence, the American forces did not leave Iraqi territory, according to what the Iraqis demanded. In your opinion, are you in the axis of resistance concerned with the scenarios presented now for the exit of the American forces since you announced that all American forces should leave the region?
They make the position and practice it after the martyrdom of the two great leaders, Hajj Qassem and Hajj Abu Mahdi.
A million-man demonstration took place in Baghdad calling for the exit of foreign forces, and the Iraqi parliament made its decision.
The Iraqi government was concerned to follow up on this decision.
The current Iraqi parliament, the new government, the current government, the Iraqi people, and the resistance factions are concerned.
This is their decision, and they must follow up on this decision and must not leave this matter.
The decision that the American forces withdraw from Iraq is a decisive decision for the Iraqis and the Iraqi people.
They must exercise it in any way they want – through the parliament, the government, political pressure, demonstrations, popular pressure, resistance factions.
This is their business.
Q: With regard to Hezbollah's role in resolving differences between the Iraqi parties, especially the obstacles that exist now in forming the Iraqi government, do you have any help for them? Sayyed Nasrallah: Now and in the past, as a result of our old friendships and relations, that is, before 2000 and after 2000 and after the fall of the regime in Iraq and in the current situation, we have extensive relations and strong friendships with many political forces, figures, and references.
We are sometimes asked to help where we can to bring perspectives together and unite the word when dealing with crises.
This is the role we play.
Q: How do you view the violations taking place in Bahrain? Do you think that the Bahraini people are able to achieve their demands in light of these violations? Sayyed Nasrallah: With regard to Bahrain, of course, if the Bahraini people were allowed to express their opinion.
They expressed it at the beginning of the revolution, the uprising, or the rise – call it what you want – that took place in Bahrain on February 14 and the huge demonstrations that took place.
But what happened in Bahrain was severe repression, the killing of demonstrators, the arrest of scholars, leaders, figures, and thousands of young men and women, the torture that happened in prisons, which is reflected outside prisons, the revocation of citizenship, the expulsion of many people of Bahrain, and asking for help from abroad, including the Peninsula Shield Force.
The Bahraini army, the Bahraini police, and the security services run by the British in Bahrain was not enough to face defenseless civilians.
They were worried and afraid to the point that they had to bring in the Peninsula Shield Force, which is a regular army.
The scene of tanks and vehicles carrying soldiers on the bridge between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is still present.
Hence, they believed that they could resolve the issue by military action and repression, while the opposite party did have weapons.
Rather, they took part in demonstrations and peaceful movements.
They insisted on [their movement] remaining peaceful.
For 10 years, more or less, if someone threw a Molotov cocktail or fired a bullet, this is an individual case.
As for the nature of the movement in Bahrain, it was a popular movement.
However, it was not given any opportunity to express its opinion.
It was severely suppressed because the opposition leaders were either abroad or in prisons.
Is this cause for despair? No.
In the end, the Bahraini people are still clinging to their rights, their causes, and the slogans they raised.
Sometimes they express themselves on multiple occasions.
Sometimes you see them taking to the streets despite repression, the police, the killing, imprisonment, and torture.
The things I’m telling you are unbearable.
However, occasions such as showing solidarity with the Palestinian people or with Yemen come.
They [the Bahraini people] take to the streets, unite, and expose themselves to danger.
Take the issue of rejecting normalization as an example.
When the Zionists came to visit Manama, they took to the street and expressed this position.
I believe that the majority of the Bahraini people are adamant to continue this path, but these forms of expression, movement, means, and methods are subject to the political and security conditions and existing developments.
Most importantly, however, is that determination, will, and the decision still exist.
Al-Alam: In any case, I thank you very much, Your Eminence, for giving us the opportunity to sit with you. This was really comprehensive. We’ve exhausted you Your Eminence. Thank you very much. Goodbye.