Interview Given by President al-Assad to Lebanese Al-Manar TV
May 30, 2013
http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/05/30/485037.htm

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV
broadcasted on Thursday,

Following is the full text of the interview:

Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu
Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant
over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian
state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the
other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time,
a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were
set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the
heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a
source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to
understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and
prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and
unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because
they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the
regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene?
Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction,
killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria.
The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success
after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been
shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme
in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need
answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide
the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of
events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the
relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s
plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications
have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great
pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad.
Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.

President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and
a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the
president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you
managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret
behind this steadfastness?

President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the
Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related
to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves
because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They
started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires
tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money.
When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order
to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to
infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack
of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this
sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up
from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote
the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle
for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order
to secure power for anyone else.

Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian
leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the
battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from
defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the
decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if
we take of Al-Qseir as an example.

President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has
its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation
from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and
political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and
there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic
dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is
over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded
Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really
at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties
and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from
defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of
the Armed Forces.

Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being
criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be
fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance.
In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do
not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?

President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in
people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not
necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were
deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the
failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these
terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is
being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters
alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several
factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the
battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors
cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the
same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr.
Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah
fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use
their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance
wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few
hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds
of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of
terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from
neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly,
the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the
Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the
number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into
account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a
state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say
they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011
and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the
battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the
second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number
of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the
state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times,
Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly,
why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more
significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir
is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs?
Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a
strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists
in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these
propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the
moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign
officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir –
all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance.
It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has
made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many
other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in
Al-Qseir.

Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and
Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape
of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus.
Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were
to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is
the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with
Israel.

President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not
connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second,
nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt
for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all
over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature
of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather
the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers
rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their
occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its
consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we
their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in
Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the
battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their
objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking
on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the
borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here
the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face
the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7,
2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the
communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance
turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army;
that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said
very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the
enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes
from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the
question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or
inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli
enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the
Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel
immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t
want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The
question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?

President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at
the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s
support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the
resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is
not interested in anything else.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian
state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian
response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to
respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come
immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have
been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated
immediately without resorting to Army command?

President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly
foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course,
there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli
attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these
short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political
nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic
significance.

Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?

President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a
consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question.

Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?

President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan
front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have
received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be
enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is
not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a
political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military
action.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan
Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed
the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed?
And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to
speak?

President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there
is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is
short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind
might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t
think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards
resistance; this is the really dramatic change.

Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of
quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a
movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?

President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing
the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called
so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can
either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the
case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will
of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has
decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of
mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and
liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in
Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there
would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current
circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction.
First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor
in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s
engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a
sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in
this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not
hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to
Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct
answer from you: what would Syria do?

President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that
we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military
means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We
plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing
of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there
was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the
balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct
question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now
in possession of these missiles?

President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military
issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is
concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have
negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is
committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither
Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have
influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be
implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together
with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the
future.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the
Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being
achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria
and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another
perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been
stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the
Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple
proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the
coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500
other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and
the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to
the crisis?

President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the
Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should
remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which
part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority
to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read
it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t
know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.

Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and
no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever
on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President,
this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian
government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in
this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the
Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other.
How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis
that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these
groups?

President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without
the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we
talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to
those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official
Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the
people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation
and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they
represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home
to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to -
five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they
represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their
reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries?
So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the
positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the
conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to
how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other
opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their
flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with
them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we
are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with
their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.

Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these
negotiations will be held next month?

President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by
other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a
couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.

Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other
options.

President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a
notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions
placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable
and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in
principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.

Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian
leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?

President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon
in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is
subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum.
This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is
why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes.
Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the
approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate
representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.

Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in
Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of
President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to
hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do
you understand this ambiguous term?

President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in
January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the
president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the
President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the
government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian
constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the
commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme
Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the
government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing
the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he
doesn't have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a
popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be
discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree,
we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for
them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be
done neither by the president nor by the government.

Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken
against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a
role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister
Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and
also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the
forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?

President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in
American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If
he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I
have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people.
With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable
that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue
will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss
this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions
with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to
nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian
people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself
forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud
al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia,
with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their
recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate.
They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad.
Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a
political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once
more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government
asked for an apology from the Arab League?

President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their
rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists
have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent.
Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is
also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and
supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab
League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in
the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in
the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign
ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect
it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But
we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer
anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not
independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are
sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings
because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin
any hopes on the Arab League.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as
such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the
steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic
question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the
consequences of the failure of political negotiations?

President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are
obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid
embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside
Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations
from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this
dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most
of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no
influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the
terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the
states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to
carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not
significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not
stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs
will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to
neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in
Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah
taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the
situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation
is still applied or accepted?

President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria
and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused
of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s
start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese
interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of
terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in
Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed
negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to
protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly
in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of
Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we
talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one
thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the
government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the
interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the
Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking
about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing
this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from
issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in
response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation,
we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is
on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later
the fire will spread to my house.

Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of
resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the
resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises
of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with
great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What
would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this
dark tunnel?

President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab
resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an
intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed
militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a
campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before
the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength
lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence
lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This
is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different
junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s
weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength.
Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you
referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of
this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the
resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have
distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the
real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian,
regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance
fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our
enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so
confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this
battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack
like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the
resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them
that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the
resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.

Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this
interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab
Republic. Thank you very much.

President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar
channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and
to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.

Al-Manar: Thank you.