The Leader of Muslims, His Eminence Ayatullah al-Uzma Hajj Seyed Ali Khamene'i (d.) has asked Iraqi Muslims not to cooperate with foreign rule and said: "Today, if anyone assists foreign forces to consolidate their rule in Iraq, this will be recorded in the history of Iraq as a shameful stain for any individual or any group that does it." Addressing Iraqi Muslims in Arabic in the second khutbah of Friday-prayers on 11 April, Ayatollah Khamene'i said: "The American and British claim that they are giving freedom to the Iraqi people is a travesty. In reality, they are acting to secure control of Iraq, its oil and the Middle East and they are trying to suppress the Palestinian intifada. They are also trying to bury the Islamic revival. The appointment of a foreign ruler in Iraq is a humiliation for freedom and popular sovereignty in Iraq. They are scheming to obliterate Iraq's Islamic identity and nationalism and to turn it into a springboard for American domination of all the Middle East and its valuable human and material resources."
Ayatollah Khamene'i delineated Islamic Republic's policy as follows: "As far as the war between Saddam on the one hand, and America and Britain on the other, is concerned, we believed that both sides were wrong.
We have not given any help to any of them, and we declared our neutrality towards both of them. However, we will not be neutral in the confrontation between the occupiers and the Iraqi people."
I would like to call upon all my brothers and sisters who are performing their prayers, as well as myself, to be pious and frugal. I would like to advise you to be careful about your words and your deeds and even your thoughts. Today, in the first sermon, I am going to talk about the important issue of the day, which is the issue of Iraq and the extremely complex events taking place there. In the second sermon, I shall spend most of my time addressing my Arab brothers and sisters in Iraq and other Islamic countries in Arabic...
On Iraqi history, an important event has transpired in Iraq. A military attack has been launched and the group that was in charge has been toppled. There is a nation that has its own demands, ideals, and desires. It has its own capabilities and a group of claimants has surrounded it.
Of course, perhaps you know that Iraq encountered many difficulties in the last century. Bloody events happened. After the fall of the Ottoman government, the British put a non-Iraqi family in charge and that family was supposed to be the royal family. They had three kings over a number of years. The first one died. The second one was killed in a mysterious accident. The third one was chopped into pieces by the people.
They were appointed by the British. Then government after government came to power, after staging coups. These governments lasted almost a decade, from 1337 [1958] until 1347 [1968] when the Ba'athist government came to power, in which Saddam was the second man, and the first was Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr. They ruled for 10 years - three rulers resulting from military coups. The first was killed, the second was murdered in suspicious circumstances, and the third was removed from power. From 1347 onwards - the Ba'athists have been ruling for some 30-odd years.
One should consider these 37 years as Iraq's hardest period, particularly the period of Saddam's independent rule. Now, Saddam's government has been toppled, and no one knows where Saddam is - which is a very suspicious situation.
This issue is in fact not just a isolated case. What has now taken place in Iraq involves four issues. The Americans, the British and their propaganda organs want to wrap things up quickly, and turn this into a simple issue, and to create a yes or no scenario about it in public minds. Yet, their attempts are futile.
This involves four issues, not just one. It was only yesterday, or the day before that, when a message from Bush and Blair to the Iraqi people was broadcast.
Well, of course, the Iraqi people did not have any electricity, and could not receive it. The gist of the message was that we came to Iraq to liberate you. They wrapped up the issue in the remark: we have come to liberate you and free you from Saddam's clutches.
There are two major mistakes in this brief remark by the gentlemen. American aim is not to liberate Iraq:
One is that they are saying: we have come to liberate you', meaning that the Iraqi nation does not have the ability, strength and competence for doing that, and that they should do it for them. This is indeed a major mistake.
Secondly, that this remark was also a lie, since one does not liberate a nation by attacking them with fire, bombs and missiles. One does not destroy cities, villages, and residential areas on such a scale or cause such tragedies - which I shall briefly talk about - under the pretext of destroying a military garrison.
No, the issue is not that of liberating Iraq. There are four issues, which one should separate. One issue concerns the fall of Saddam. Some kind of irritation and contradiction had occurred between the interests of Saddam and the interests of the ruling American administration - on which I will briefly elaborate later. This led to dispute and fight. Well, they were stronger and toppled Saddam. This is one issue.
Our stance on this issue is clear, and I will also elaborate on that. We have a clear stance on each of these four issues. We separate these issues to clarify the stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is based on Islamic thinking, Islamic wisdom. One issue concerns Saddam's downfall.
The second issue, which has occurred in Iraq, and still continues, concerns the tragedies which have been inflicted on the Iraqi nation. That is different to Saddam's fall. There is a different ruling for this, and we will also declare our stance on this.
The third issue concerns the fact that an act of military aggression has been carried out by foreign forces against an independent country - a military invasion - under various pretexts, saying that they possess weapons of mass destruction, or are supporting terrorism. Well, one can make such remarks anytime from behind tribunes. These are not permits for launching a military invasion against a country and violating a country's borders. This is the third issue, on which we will also outline our stance.
The fourth issue concerns the management of Iraq's future, for which they have also devised plans, programs, and projects, with the futile ideas that they are harboring in their minds - which is also a separate issue. There is a ruling for each one of these issues.
Regarding the first issue, which concerns the fall of Saddam, the issue is basically is that in the beginning, earlier on in his rule, Saddam did not have any conflicts of interests with America. The Americans themselves have claimed that from the very start of Saddam's rule America's CIA had played a part in the coup staged by the Ba'athists in Iraq in 1347 [1968].
On American policy towards Saddam However, there is no doubt that after that, their interests were intertwined. That was especially after the Islamic revolution and the formation of the Islamic Republican state. Before that, they got together with the Iranian satanic tyrant, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi [the Shah]. It was clear that their interests were similar to one another. Then after the revolution, they had common interests. He had coveted the territory of our country and America opposed the establishment of the Islamic Republican state. So they were connected with each other. Therefore, in 1359 [1980], when Iraq started its war on Iran, that is the imposed war, Saddam launched an air raid on he first day.
The Americans did not even so much as scowl at him from the first hour of the war. In fact, they increased their assistance to him every day. Those are the facts of the case. It means that this is not about different probabilities. Of course, one probability is that he had already coordinated his activities with America beforehand. I cannot make any claims about that because I simply do not know what happened. Of course, there are reports on this issue. During my visits to other countries, when I was president, a number of Islamic heads of state said the same thing to me. They said that he had already coordinated with certain quarters. Now, we are not sure about that.
What we are sure about is that after the war started, America gave Saddam maximum support. They supported him and they even put pressure on the UN and compelled it to support Saddam in various ways.
We tolerated that war for eight years and Saddam served their interests. Because Saddam acted to further American interests, he kept the Islamic Revolution busy for eight years, and he kept it focused on an internal bloody affair, namely, the war.
If a fledgling country or revolution is not involved in a bloody war, then, well, they will have an opportunity to focus on reconstruction and they will be able to accomplish great tasks. Now, Saddam took advantage of the best periods of our lives, that is eight years, and he kept us busy in a way that served American interests. Their interests were interwoven.
Later on, in 1369 [1990] Saddam attacked Kuwait. That was when their interests became incompatible. They saw that, no, this man was so ambitious that he was endangering American interests in the region. That is because attacking Kuwait was tantamount to attacking American interests. If they had not stopped Saddam, he might have attacked Saudi Arabia as well. Indeed, he used to say these things as well. He said: When I take Kuwait, I will go forward as far as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar and I will go as far as possible. I mean that was Saddam's intention. Well, their interests became incompatible. From then on, the UN started to put pressure on Saddam and there was a propaganda campaign against him as well.
Saddam was not a person who could put up resistance against America. He was prepared to make concessions or make a deal. However, the Americans could not do that. They faced a complex problem. If they had made a deal with him, they would have lost their friends in the Persian Gulf. The rulers of the Persian Gulf could not bear to see America strengthening Saddam as it had done before. That was because they were scared. If America wanted to exert maximum pressure on Saddam, then, well, it would have had to forego its interests in Iraq.
Therefore, America faced a paradox. Iraq is a country that has vast oil and other resources. It has a population of approximately 20 million people. It was really attractive to America in this important part of the Middle East. It wanted to stay there. It wanted to maintain its presence there and pursue its activities. It wanted to plunder its resources, but it could not do that. That was because if it made a deal with Saddam, it would have faced problems elsewhere. If it did not make a deal, it would have had to forego its interests. That is when the contradiction between America and Saddam's regime became more serious. They started thinking about the situation. They wanted to eliminate Saddam and pave the way for themselves in Iraq and make things easier for themselves. These things happened later on. Therefore, when the Americans or the British claim that they went there to remove Saddam to help the Iraqi people, they are telling a blatant lie. They did not do this for the Iraqi people at all.
Iraqis hate both Saddam and occupiers
They removed Saddam because their interests started to come into conflict with Saddam's interests. Otherwise, when their interests were the same, they used to support him, just as they supported him during the war with Iran.
? Well, they came, put pressure on him with military force, and Saddam left. Is the Iranian nation happy or not? Of course, it is happy. The Iranian nation has been saying Death to the hypocrites and Saddam' for 20 years. Now, death has come to Saddam.
The happiness of our people in this affair is like the happiness of the Iraqi people. Our stance is exactly the stance of the Iraqi nation. The Iraqi nation, too, is happy about Saddam's departure and we, too, are happy about Saddam's departure.
He was a dictator, bad, cruel, unmindful of obligations and commitments, very unruly. That was the kind of person he was and he was ruling dictatorially over a nation. He was a bad creature both for the Iraqi nation and for us as a neighbor.
Hence, the idea that the occupiers should say that the happiness of the people of Iraq is because of their presence, this is a claim that is worthy of derision. No, the Iraqi people's happiness is because of his Saddam's departure.
A few days ago, a European TV showed a sight from Baghdad. They asked something of a youth, the youth clenched his fist and said in Arabic: Death to Saddam, Death to Bush. He said death to both of them. Of course, they only showed it once. In other words, news censorship did not allow it to be repeated. Otherwise, if they asked 1,000 people in Iraq, 900 of them would give the same answer.
Happiness about Saddam's departure has nothing to do with the arrival of the occupier; it cannot be put to their account. Well, a few people in Baghdad may wave their hands; then, to quickly say, yes, the people have welcomed us. No. Not at all.
I have information, clear information from various perspectives. Neither in Basra where the British have come, nor in other towns where the Americans have come, the people have shown no delight at seeing the occupiers.
Iranian, Iraqi people were neutral in war
? Even if the people of Iraq were happy about Saddam's departure, their happiness paled because of the bombardments of the American and British forces. During those few weeks, they truly inflicted a great deal of hardship on the people.
?Therefore, the people of Iraq remained neutral in the war between Saddam and the invaders and aggressors. The Iranian government also announced its neutral stance towards this war. That is what being neutral means. Both sides are oppressors, both fronts are oppressors, Saddam is an oppressor and the invaders are oppressors too.
The Iraqi nation did not support any of the sides in this war and the Iranian nation and government did not support any of the sides either. That is the meaning of being neutral. That is, we did not provide the least bit of support to any of the sides. We neither helped Saddam to save himself nor supported the invaders to win faster. We used all our resources to make sure that none of the sides was helped. Of course those who spy on everywhere with their satellites know that well and we do not need to tell them. But, the Iranian nation should know that during that time the war the Iranian government and the country's officials did their utmost - and were successful - in stopping any kind of help to any of the sides.
Obviously, if the advance of the invaders was swift it was because the Iraqi nation stayed neutral. If the Iraqi nation had been behind Saddam in this war, the aggressors know well that they could not have advanced in the manner, which they did. That is what happens when a nation does not believe in a system, in a country and in its officials. The Iraqi nation had been assaulted, hurt, insulted, and tyrannized by the country's officials; therefore, it did not extend any kind of support to them. That is how the enemy, the enemy of the country, the invaders, managed to make swift advance, and there are things to be said about that too.
As we said, our nation is happy in this affair. Our government is happy. Our officials are happy. Of course, they are also a bit suspicious, both the nation and the government and officials. They are a bit suspicious about this affair, about why Baghdad did not resist like Basra. In other words, after the first week of the war, the situation of the war changed. The first week, there was a serious war. They were saying that the serious war will come after this, but after that - the aggressors were stuck for a few days. Then, when the aggressors started to move, there was no proper defense.
Baghdad surrendered in two, three days. That is to say, it fell. No one defended Baghdad properly; whereas, in Baghdad itself, according to the information that we had, there were about 120,000 armed troops. While, the defense circles of 100-km width that they had arranged around Baghdad along with the Saddam's Guards around Baghdad were much more than this. Setting those aside, even Baghdad itself, with about ?100,000 to 120,000 armed troops was unable to resist for more than two, three days in the face of the attack. Either it was unable or it was ordered not to resist. It is not clear now. The future will clear up these ambiguities.
Anyway, therefore, as far as the first event is concerned, namely the American and British aggressors toppling of Saddam, our policy is - if I can sum it up - that we did not help either of the tyrants. We are very happy that Saddam was overthrown. Our nation is happy as well. We were neutral and we did not support either of them. The Iraqi nation was neutral as well. We are happy in the same way that the Iraqi nation is happy. That is the first thing.
Criticizing bombings in Iraq
The second thing that happened was the atrocities committed towards the people of Iraq during that period. These are not things that will be forgotten. You see, 27 years have passed since the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War came to an end in 1354 [1975]. Now, 27 years have passed since the end of the Vietnam War. Many things about the Vietnam War have been forgotten. However, the atrocities that the Americans committed towards the people during that war will not be forgotten. Just look at how many films have been produced and how many stories are being told. The people of the world remember those things and the conscience of the people of the world will always keep them alive.
That was an attack on the people. The most important right of human beings is the right to live and exist. Those gentlemen claimed that they were defending human rights and they denied the peoples of those cities the right to live by bombing them. More than 1,000 Cruise missiles were fired. Unfortunately, I do not have the accurate statistics handy. Thousands of super heavy bombs were dropped. There were innumerable rounds of artillery fire. They repeatedly dropped those things on those cities in various ways. The cities of Basra, Al-Nasiriyah, Diwaniyah, Al-Hillah and Baghdad, as well as other cities, were affected. People, lived in those cities. We know the meaning of being bombed. We were bombed ourselves.
? Missiles fell on us in Tehran, Dezful and other cities. The same was true of other cities. We know what that means. Tens or hundreds of missiles were fired on a particular city over the course of only one hour. Is that a joke? They claim that they wanted to destroy military targets. How many military targets were there in Iraq that they had to be attacked with more than 1,000 Cruise missiles and more than thousands of bombs? Those things exterminated the people. They created a reign of terror for the people. The people's children were frightened. The people's children were killed. The people's children went hungry.
Only those people who have infants in need of milk, but they do not have any milk to feed them, and mothers who do not have any food and drinkable water to give their children can understand. Only, they understand the meaning of that statement. Look how many children broke their parents' hearts because they were crying. Look how many young people were laid up in hospitals and their wounds could not be nursed. Look how many children who were dear to their families were taken away from them.
Then they have insulted the people. They have entered their homes. Such scenes are really heart-rending. Really heart-rending. They enter people's homes and handcuff a man in front of his family. They cover his head, blindfold him, and handcuff him. Then they insult and threaten him just because someone may have accused him of something or because they may have had unfounded suspicions about him. Are these things not important enough? They handcuffed Arab men from behind, they wrapped their heads with their kaffiyah and made them lie down on the floor, and they were standing over them with their rifles. Foreign troops were there. Are these things not serious calamities? Can one make amends for such things? That is a really, important event.
American troops frisked veiled Arab women. Arab women who were wearing veils, cloaks and long coats and they were covered from top to toe. Then a young American that no one knows who he really is starts frisking them to make sure that they are not carrying bombs. Is that the meaning of human rights? Is that the meaning of showing respect for human beings? Is that the meaning of respecting human liberty, which those liars claim they are doing? Such things cannot be resolved by apologizing. They have hit them and they are saying that they are sorry and they made mistakes. That is just what they did in Afghanistan.
The same thing has happened in Afghanistan. This sort of thing has happened many times since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. Only a few days ago there was another such case. They bombed an entire crowd and then they say that they were sorry and that they had made a mistake. Can one erase the impact of one's crimes by saying sorry, we made a mistake?
That was the second thing. We sympathize with the Iraqi people. We condemn the aggressor. If the aggressor claims that it is defending human rights, then we say that the aggressor is a liar.
Now, the third issue is that a country was militarily invaded under the pretext of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. That is one of the ugliest and vilest things that could have been done. The conscience of the people of the world condemned it and considered it to be illegitimate. I remember that anti-American demonstrations were occasionally held in certain parts of the world during the Vietnam War. However, I did not see such gatherings that we saw during this affair during the Vietnam War. Such things did not exist. It happened in all parts of the world. Back then, it was said that the Soviet Union organized the assemblies and demonstrations. Who is organizing them today?
People gathered and there were massive gatherings of thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Africa, as well as in Europe and even America itself. All of them chanted the same slogan. Who organized them? There is no headquarters to organize them? It is the conscience of the people of the world. It is the conscience of human beings. It condemns such things. This should be condemned. It sets a really, ugly precedent. This means returning to the era of wars of aggression and the kind of expansionism that prevailed in the old days.
They found a pretext against a country and no matter how many times UN inspectors said that what they were saying was not right they told them that they did not know what they were talking about. They said that they knew what they were saying was right. Then they attacked. That was really, wrong. We condemned and we shall condemn it again.
America proved itself as "axis of evil"
We, of course, believe that the UN failed to carry out its obligations in this matter war on Iraq. Why did the Security Council not condemn the American and British attack against Iraq? Why did they not issue a resolution against them? It would have been fine even if they America and Britain had vetoed the resolution. The actual issuing of a resolution at the Security Council would have been a move against them. Why did they not do that? Why did they not hold a UN General Assembly so that the action could be condemned at the General Assembly? There was a great deal of works, which the UN secretary-general should have done. There are many expectations from the UN. Of course, it is years since we have stopped to expect anything from the UN, because we see the actions, we see the influences. Nonetheless, such expectations exist. They UN and Security Council failed to carry out their obligations.
With its act of aggression, America proved that it is a rogue country. That it is what a former American president attributed to a number of other countries of the world. A rogue state does what they did the war on Iraq. That is what a rogue country does against humanity, against other countries' stability. They proved that it is the axis of evil in the true sense of the word. They proved that they are what our honorable Imam Khomeini called them: the Great Satan. It is indeed the Great Satan.
The British have also made a big mistake. They have followed America so that they can get a share of the spoils. However, they have made a mistake. This is because in this region and particularly in Iran, Iraq, and India, the British have a hateful and shameless reputation because of the bad things they have done there. After 30 or 40 years, a government more evil than them appeared in the world and gradually this reputation was being forgotten. Mr. Blair has once again enlivened this hateful and shameless reputation in the minds of the people. It was a great mistake.
Therefore, in this third case, which is a military attack, we were in agreement with the world people and deplored this action and we still deplore it. We believe it to be an unprecedented departure in international relations and an aggression against an Islamic country, Islam, the Muslims and the Islamic Ummah.
The fourth issue is again different from the others. It is the future domination of America over Iraq. In addition to the fact that they have attacked and carried out such atrocities and crimes, they want to rule Iraq by installing a foreign American military ruler, who may be a Zionist or a person who is totally, attached to Zionist circles, in that country. They want to place him at the head of an Islamic country and a brave Arab nation. This is the fourth significant issue.
Britain likes the scent of oil
They have made a division between themselves or so they imagine. Of course, there are clear signs of differences between America and Britain. However, on the face of it, there seems to be a division. In Basra, the scent of oil is a bit more intense and it is closer to the oil regions. The British like the scent of oil. Basra is for the British according to the division. Baghdad is the centre for the Americans' power. The Americans like making a show of power and acting like a brawny actor. So, Baghdad is for them. A kind of division of this kind has taken place between them.
Of course, they have many differences, these will increase, and they will become known to the people. However, for the time being, they seem to have agreed on this kind of arrangement.
This is a return to the very first era of colonialism and mere reaction. It was like this in the early days of colonialism. Colonialist European governments would go and seize countries by force in Asia, in Africa. Then, they would put in place a military ruler so that that person could control the entire the region. They did this in India. They did this in Australia. They did this in Canada, In Africa, in numerous countries. Then, after a while, they realized that this is wrong, this is a mistake. Putting a foreign, military ruler over a nation, this is a mistake. They changed the formula. They would find rulers from those countries and put them in power, so that they would be entirely obedient to them. They would help them, provide them with facilities, and they would allow the colonialists to pillage the country freely, openly; so that they could do whatever they liked with that country.
Another period went by like this and they realized that they had made a mistake. That method was not correct either. Because, the nations will rise up against such rulers, despite the fact that they may be from their own country, one of their own, but because they are affiliated to them big powers and because they are tyrants and oppressors.
Later they changed their methods. They adopted a so-called democratic method through cultural domination and hegemony. They chose a ruler who supported them through so-called election. The same thing happened during the era of the taghut rule of the former Shah.
First of all, the British brought to power Reza Pahlavi and then Mohammad Reza the last shah and his father before the revolution. Then, they realized that there would be problems. So, they forced the shah to appoint Ali Amini as prime minister so that he could introduce the so-called reforms. Then the shah realized that he might lose his authority, he said that he was going to introduce the reforms himself. He introduced the disgraceful six-point reforms during the era of the taghut. These are what the colonialists have carried out in practice in various places at different times.
Now they have returned to the first period. That is, they occupy a place with the force of arms, and then they themselves appoint a ruler. That is a very strange, reactionary, ugly, insulting action, which derives from such arrogance, and which will eventually topple them. It is due to lack of understanding of the situation and time. Almost the whole world has condemned such an action. They have said that such an action cannot be carried out.
On future American plans in Iraq
?This is adding mistake to a mistake. The ruler should be neither a foreigner nor a Zionist. The Iraqi people want a ruler who has been elected by themselves and without the support of the aggressive powers.
Of course, the Americans think that they have everything planned. They think that they will install him [Jay Garner] and then take control of the state of affairs and give some help to the Iraqi people and, at the same time, change the people's culture by controlling the education system.
They think that they can do the same in Afghanistan. The Americans have published tons of Farsi and Pashto primary school textbooks in an Asian country so that they can distribute them in Afghan schools. Thus, through the lessons, the Afghan children's culture, religion and historic outlook changes completely and America's image is not tarnished in their eyes. This is what they think they can do in Iraq.
Such a thing will most certainly not happen. The hatred of the Iraqi teachers and people towards their Americans and British atrocities is so deep-rooted that, without a doubt, it will be transferred to the next and later Iraqi generations.
At any rate, this is their American and British plan. This is the fourth issue. This issue is not the same as the previous issue. Even if they do not do this, the aggression, which is a great mistake and sin, would still exist. Regardless of whether they do such a thing or not, every other issue which I have mentioned is independently a great sin and mistake. It is an insult to the Iraqi nation. A person is surprised at how shameless they are. They are prepared to openly say in the television that the Iraqi nation cannot elect a ruler for itself. How can a person be so shameless and be prepared to speak in such a way and accuse a nation, with such a background, history, people, scientists and politicians, of being incapable? We believe this to be disregard for the Iraqi nation's rights. We deplore and cannot accept such a thing. The Iraqi people will not accept a new dictator. The Iraqi nation has not come out of Saddam's ditch to fall into the well of an American military ruler.
Even if they bring an Iraqi national to power in such manner, the people will most definitely not accept it. In any case, we believe what they are saying at the moment is an act of aggression against the sanctity of Islam and Muslims.
Military victory, with all the ambiguities, which surrounds it, does not mean final victory. The Americans have endured losses and they have suffered defeats in war on Iraq. Of course, they may not know it, but, most definitely, in the near future they will see the effects of such failure.
They have experienced defeat in three main areas. One is their defeat concerning the slogan of Western democracy and freedom, the kind of liberal-democracy, which they propagate throughout the world. That concept was lost because of the war. They showed that liberal-democracy could not bring freedom to a nation in the true sense of the word. When its America's financial interests are concerned, it is prepared to trample upon the peoples' freedoms, lives, and their right to choose.
America, Britain and Israel are the "axes of evil"
If they were telling the truth and believed in democracy; if they believed in the rights of the people, then they should have immediately withdrawn their military forces from Iraq and not interfered in Iraq's affair. However, that will not happen. It is obvious. They have been defeated from an ideological standpoint. Their slogans have turned out to be false. The people around the world also came to see that. This became apparent in the slogans they broadcast around the world. It became apparent that the people around the world had become aware of their mendacity.
Some 10 to 15 of these slogans, which the people had chanted or written on placards, were passed on to me. They are all indicative of the fact that the people around the world have understood the exact truth.
?This war is a war for oil, not a war for freedom and human rights. This was one of the slogans. This war is for saving the bankrupt American economy. This war is an aggressive occupation of the Hitler kind. America, Britain and Israel are the axes of evil.
These were slogans chanted by people around the world, not just the people in Tehran. The people of Iran had felt these slogans from some time ago, thanks to their clear-sightedness. Today the world public opinion has become aware of them and is repeating them - and many other such slogans. Therefore, they have been defeated concerning their thinking and their freedom and democracy- seeking slogan.
Their second defeat is their political defeat. Today, America has been isolated around the world from a political standpoint. This American formula, this American solution, which is to install an American military ruler - a retired American major-general in Iraq - has been rejected by almost every country in the world, apart from the two or three from among themselves. It has been rejected by Arab states, by Islamic states and by European states.
Their third defeat was that their military awe was smashed. They were pretending that they could overcome the Iraqi forces within three to four days. Ultimately, it became clear that, more than three days, four days and even more were needed and if the Iraqi forces had fought this story would have continued and it would not have been clear right to the end if they would have achieved a military victory because of the large number of casualties.
They Iraqi forces did not fight when they had to. That leaves many questions and ambiguities. As I mentioned earlier, we are not making a judgment here, but this is one of the question the answer to which will become clear in the future.
Their fourth defeat was the defeat of their media credibility. The credibility of their news media was totally lost. The whole world realized that they censor reports and they kill reporters. They shot a reporter and then they said that they had made a mistake and no one believed that they had made a mistake.
They disseminate false reports about the number of their casualties. They said during that time something like 80, 90, or 100 forces were killed. Everyone knows that this is a lie. We do not know the number of their casualties. But, the number of their casualties should apparently be asked from the workers in Kuwaiti mortuaries. They should know. The people of America will find out later. After the war in Vietnam, they said that they suffered 50,000 casualties. During the Vietnam War, they had mentioned small numbers such as ?10, 20, 100, and 200. In any case, these are their failures.
Let me say one sentence, at the end of my remarks. First of all, my reading is that, in the event that took place - the issue of Iraq - the Zionists had the biggest role; both in encouraging the American administration to do this and in laying the groundwork for this task. The Zionists played a very big role.
For the Zionists, this new map of the Middle East which Bush speaks about and repeats - as well as his cronies - means a map for spreading out in the Middle East, in the Arab and non-Arab countries around us, spreading out both in political terms and in economic terms, as well as - if it gets the chance - spreading out geographically. This is what the new map of the Middle East means. They have the most to gain in this affair, and they were the ones who laid the groundwork for it.
For the time being, too, the evil Israelis and the evil Sharon have exploited it the most. These days, all the world's attention is on Iraq. The Palestinians are being killed on a daily basis, being put under pressure. Heart-rending calamities are taking place.
Iraqis must not cooperate with foreign rule
Well, let me say a word to the political activists of Iraq. The Iraqi stage has had many political activists. Today, the political activists of Iraq are faced with a very big test, a historical test. They must be careful not to commit a strategic mistake. They must neither be over excited by America's victory over Saddam, military victory; nor terrified. Both over-excitement and fear will harm them.
Political activists must keep an eye on two things in Iraq: one is the issue of chaos, irrational acts of revenge, harmful rivalries. That is one of them. They must be very careful. Chaos is to the detriment of the people of Iraq and the future of Iraq. It will give an excuse to the occupiers to make their presence lasting there.
They must prevent futile rivalries, wrong-headed acts of revenge. They must sit and think, plan. They must not allow this. It is possible. That is one thing.
Second, cooperating with and assisting foreign rule - they must be careful not to commit this error, because it will be recorded in Iraq's history. Today, if anyone assists foreign forces so that they can consolidate their rule in Iraq, this will be recorded in the history of Iraq as a shameful stain for any individual or any group that does this.
The Iraqi people seek independence. They seek freedom. They seek a government that is based on their religious and national ideals. That is what the Iraqi people want. Those who have been speaking in the name of the Iraqi people for many years must remain loyal to the Iraqi people. They must remain loyal to those ideals. They must demonstrate that this is indeed the case in practice. Underhand activities or making deals with foreign powers will make the people turn their back on them. The only things that they must bear in mind are God's, as well as their people's, satisfaction. They must know that military victory over the Saddam regime is not tantamount to political and cultural victory over the Iraqi nation.
Yes, they have gained military victory over the Saddam regime. However, that does not mean that they have vanquished the Iraqi nation from political ad cultural points of view. We beseech Almighty God and ask Him to consider the bloods of the oppressed people and to help the Iraqi nation, all the oppressed nations, and the Palestinian nation to confront agents of tyranny.
We ask Him to enable them to gain victory out of their steadfastness and religiosity...?
I will now say part of the things that I said to you to our Muslim, Arab brothers in Arabic.
Peace be upon the Muslim brothers and Muslim sisters across the world, especially the wronged and persecuted Iraqi people. The events lived by Iraq these days are extremely important and complicated.
As a matter of the fact, the Saddam regime has been overthrown. It was a model of wrongdoing, cruelty, and violence and, for many years, it threw the Iraqi people into the prison of its bloody tyranny and despotism. Therefore, its overthrow should be a day of historical joy. Nevertheless, the terrible disasters visited upon the people because of the American-British attack, and the plots hatched by the attackers to define the future of this people have made this proud and noble people feel bitter and they have saddened all the Muslims of the world.
On criticizing US-British massacres in Iraq.
The massacres are committed against an unarmed people who have found nowhere to escape. The cries of bereaved women and the injured; the cries of hungry; injured children left without medical treatment; the demolition of people's homes; the arrest and imprisonment of passers-by under futile pretexts; the disparaging of the sanctity of families; the spreading of widespread terror and fear; the humiliation of proud men and the shameful acts committed against them in front of their children and wife; the destruction of the vital infrastructure of the country; the dropping of thousands of bombs and missiles and the cannon shelling of cities; each of these acts constitutes a war crime. In this way, the invaders have committed even more crimes than those perpetrated by Saddam over many years.
On US, British support for Saddam Hussein during Iran-Iraq war. There is nothing more hurtful and bitter for a people than to see foreign soldiers, who are in a state of drunken stupor because of their victory, enter their homes and lands unimpeded, and take over the control of their destiny. The Americans and the British claim that they have launched this attack of theirs to remove Saddam and establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, but they deliberately turn a blind eye to the fact that they were the ones who had equipped that cruel offender, Saddam. They backed him with everything they had to pave the way for him to perpetrate his cruel and criminal acts.
They were the ones who had unleashed him to commit the horrendous massacre of 1991. They did not reproach him for what he did and they did not even bat an eye lid.
They were the ones who helped him use chemical weapons against the Iranians, and worse still, against the people of Iraq in Halabjah. They turned a blind eye to what he did, and, during the eight-year war he imposed on the Islamic Republic, they backed him and supplied him with weapons and offered to help him to manage the news media.
On US, British aims in Iraq They had turned a blind eye to all the disasters he had been inflicting on the Iraqi people, day and night. The American and British claim that they are giving freedom to the Iraqi people is a travesty. As a matter of fact, they are acting to secure control of Iraq, its oil and the Middle East and they are trying to suppress the Palestinian intifada. They are also trying to bury the Islamic revival. The appointment of a foreign ruler in Iraq is a humiliation for freedom and popular sovereignty in Iraq. They are scheming to obliterate Iraq's Islamic identity and nationalism and to turn it into a springboard for American domination of all the Middle East and its valuable human and material resources. They do not regard the Iraqi people as capable of self-determination and of being in control of their natural rights to their land. In their opinion, the best Iraqi elements are those who offer the biggest service to the foreign aggressors and who turn their back to their own people and their own homeland. The general feeling of the Iraqi people and all free men, as well as the judgment of history, is that any service offered to America that would help it achieve its vile colonial objectives is tantamount to the betrayal of Iraq, its people and its history.
On predicting failure of US, British policies towards Iraq, The American and British dreams will not come true because, there will be resistance everywhere and it will have its own language and style in the face of acts of aggression with their own language and behavior. The Iraqi people who are renowned for their zeal, fervour and ardour, will not be an exception to this rule. Through their valiant resistance, the wronged Palestinian people have deprived their Zionist enemy, who has been shedding their blood and imposing ferocious repression upon them, of its ability to undermine the resistance. Similarly, the faithful and revolutionary Iranian people, through their unity and rectitude, have been able to foil the war of aggression imposed on them by the Saddam regime, which was relying on the assistance of the same America and Britain, as well as of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. They helped the Saddam regime with arms, the news media and politics, but the Iranian people succeeded in preserving their borders - the borders of their country - and driving the enemy out of their borders.
At the hands of this criminal Saddam, the Iranian cities had suffered, for years, from missile attacks and bombs and their self-sacrificing, free youths were hit with chemical bombs. However, the resistance of the people explodes the myths of dictatorship, colonialism, repression, and aggression.
On Iraqi people's right to govern themselves The invaders have been able to subjugate the Ba'thist regime, and this is what we had expected to happen to a regime that was not protected by its people - a regime that used to rely on organs and elements of repression. However, these invaders will not be able to subdue the Iraqi people, and if they want to avoid a confrontation with the Iraqi people, then they should evacuate their armies from Iraq immediately, and completely avoid interfering with the destiny of Iraq and its people.
Who rules Iraq is the business of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi resources and wealth are its property.
The Iraqi people are capable of appointing their own future government and if the Americans mean what they said and claimed about democracy, then they should not interfere in Iraqi affairs. In this way, through a general referendum, the Iraqi people themselves will be able to form their future government, elect its officials, and define the appropriate method to reconstruct what has been destroyed by these invaders.
The position of the Iranian government and people is clear: We had been at loggerheads with the repressive and criminal regime of Saddam and we have opposed the foreign aggression against Iraq. As far as the war between Saddam on the one hand, and America and Britain on the other, is concerned, we believed that both sides were wrong. We have not given any help to any of them, and we declared our neutrality towards both of them.
However, we will not be neutral in the confrontation between the occupiers and the Iraqi people. The occupier is an aggressor and it should be condemned, and the people against whom an act of aggression has been committed are right and they have been wronged. Our political help goes to every wronged and aggressed people, and this is the line from which we will not deviate.
The Iraqi people today have a serious responsibility, and any abandonment or fragmentation of its position would entail a difficult future for them. National unity, presence in the arena and contributing to the formation of an independent government that defends the Islamic identity of Iraq, are the most important duties of the Iraqi people, especially that of the religious scholars, the intellectuals and the scientific and political elite.
I pray to God to guide our Islamic Ummah to follow the right path of honorable record and piety, to achieve its desired objectives; Almighty God hears prayers;
"Work, God, his messenger and the faithful will see what you do" [Qur'anic verse].
I ask for the forgiveness of God for me and for you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
