Interviewer: As the first question, what is the main reason Trump has brought up “the deal of the century”?
Trump pursues several goals, but the most important one is the strategic goal established by the U.S. and the West. Generally speaking, since the beginning, their goal was to occupy the entire Palestine in a gradual process. When the Zionist regime began the war, as soon as it developed and as soon as they feared that they would be defeated, they asked the UN to intervene over how to negotiate and how to retreat. After that, during the negotiations, the issue of occupation was gradually consigned to oblivion. In their next attack in the 1948, the first war between the Arabs and Israel broke out. The second war broke out in 1956 and the third one in 1967. And in 1973, the fourth war broke out. A similar scenario was pursued in all these wars: the Zionist regime would attack and the western governments would always support it; but the eastern governments would either maintain silence or would help the Zionist regime indirectly and therefore, Muslims were left alone.
When the third war broke out in 1967 during the presidency of Jamal Abdul-Nasser, the Sinai Desert, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of Jordan River were occupied by the Zionist regime. In the UN, the two resolutions of 242 and 333 were ratified on the basis of which the Zionist regime had to withdraw from the occupied lands and the West Bank of Jordan River. This way, some parts of Gaza and Palestine would be in the control of the Palestinians and Baitul Muqaddas (Al-Quds) would be the capital of Palestine. However, those two resolutions existed only in theory and they were not implemented. This helped the Zionists strengthen their position in the occupied lands. In practice, they invited the Palestinians to conduct negotiations while the Zionist regime was busy pursuing its plots: it would advance step by step and it would occupy more lands.
The first scandalous action was that of Anwar al-Sadat’s betrayal of the Palestinian cause during the Camp David Accords in the year 1979. After the death of Jamal Abdul-Nasser, there was talk of two successors for him: Ali Sabri and Anwar al-Sadat. The Americans and westerners would support Sadat. When they won and when Anwar al-Sadat signed Camp David Accords, the first perquisites of the fight was actually violated. Since, the Egyptians were always the flagbearers of the fight and they entrusted the Sinai Desert to the Egyptians, but they did not have any control over it. For example, if an Egyptian police officer wanted to exercise security measures in the Sinai Desert, he had to ask for a permission from the Zionist regime.
The same conditions existed in the case of Golan Heights and the Western Bank, but after the Camp David Accords, other measures including continuing the negotiations and forcing the Arabs to negotiate and to abandon the battle were adopted. There was division among the Arabs. One group demanded resistance and another demanded negotiations. Those who were interested in negotiations would participate in different meetings and they were forced to retreat a little bit in every meeting. Examples include the Madrid, Second Camp David Accords, and Oslo Accord. In the Oslo Accord, some issues were ratified a great part of which has been ignored in the recent plan put forward by Trump.
However, on the other side, the group of warriors continued their activities with the help of the Resistance Front including the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, Iran played a major role in those revolutionary activities. With the continuation of the revolutionary activities, the warriors achieved certain victories which caused the Zionist regime to withdraw from the Lebanese soil in the year 1982, under pressure from Hezbollah. The same battle took place in Gaza and the Zionist regime suffered defeat in various wars including in the 22-day war, in the 51-day war, and in the 8-day and 2-day wars.
Therefore, a historic comparison between resistance and negotiations shows that negotiations always lead to defeat for Muslims and Arabs whereas resistance leads to victory.
What Trump did is not different from what the former U.S. presidents did. However, this man is crazy in certain ways as he does not deem it necessary to conceal some of his actions, rather, he reveals the intentions of the Americans and the Zionists in an outspoken manner. He did so and the Europeans supported him as well. Nonetheless, the recent measure adopted by Trump has a positive outcome which is, uniting the advocates of negotiations with the advocates of fighting. Mr. Mahmud Abbas, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others rejected that plan and the Palestinians reached the conclusion that they would get nowhere through negotiations and that the only way to progress is to fight back.
What historic evidence and what tangible results exist for the success of “resistance” versus “compromise”?
If we look at the history of the occupation of Palestine, we see that one year before the end of World War I, UK’s minister of foreign affairs immediately made an announcement saying that he would accommodate the Jews in Palestine because of the vow he made to the Rothschild family – who were well-known Zionists in England – and after that things developed in a particular way. At that time, two groups were active. One was presided by Sheikh Amin ul-Husseini who was engaged in political work and another was headed by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam who was engaged in fighting. Notice that if anything was done, it was because of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam’s fight, but the political work that Sheikh Amin ul-Husseini – the Mufti of Palestine – did produced no positive results.
In the years 1956, 1967 and 1973, whenever there was resistance, victory would follow and whenever, they negotiated, they retreated. Therefore, it became clear that the way to liberation was not negotiation, rather it was fighting. And we have examples for each. The Lebanese and the Gazans fought and won, but those who negotiated in Oslo, Madrid and other places made many concessions. For example, Yasser al-Arafat lost his life as a result of negotiations. Apparently, the Zionists poisoned him in Ramallah and he passed away. Therefore, what has been usurped by an occupier cannot be recovered except by resisting and the Islamic Republic has proved this in Iran. As long as we did not engage in fighting in a serious way and in resisting against the Shah and the U.S., we were not liberated, but thanks to fighting, we achieved our independence after 200 years. However, when reactionary countries in the region and other countries adopted a passive position against westerners, they lost.
Interviewer: With the assassination of Hajj Qassem Soleimani, did the U.S. seek a change in the environment so as to proceed with the deal of the century?
One of the mistakes that the Americans make is that they think if they martyr the leader of a revolutionary group, the fight is extinguished while this is not true. In fact, it is the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Revolution that have cultivated Hajj Qassem Soleimani and there are other Hajj Qassems who will replace him. Of course, one might find fewer comprehensive, revolutionary, courageous and sincere personalities, but the day when Hajj Qassem began his job in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, no one would have thought that he would turn into the champion of Islamic, national history, and the flagbearer of the liberation of Palestine and the camp of Resistance.
In the early Islamic era too, instances of martyrdom would bring about victories for Muslims. For example, the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (pbuh) watered the sapling of Islam. Similarly, in the present time, the blood of Hajj Qassem Soleimani stimulated Iranians and Iraqis to unanimously pour to the streets. Millions of the Iraqi people demanded that the U.S. be condemned and expelled from the region.
In Iraq, thanks to that martyrdom, we were witness to unanimity; while before that there were differences of opinions among various political and religious groups, but with the martyrdom of Hajj Qassem and also that of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the discord between various groups turned into unity. With the support of the great Marja’ Taqlid of Iraq, Hazrat Grand Ayatollah Sistani, different groups got united.
As for the political situation in Iraq, the new Prime Minister of Iraq has been elected. Before that, the Iraqis would not stand up to the Americans and the Zionists with such candor and such haste [that they do now]. That was because they had certain domestic problems, but after having maintained domestic solidarity and having ratified the law to expel the Americans, the people of Iraq displayed glorious demonstrations which proved to be a source of support for the resolution passed by the Iraqis. After that, when Trump presented his plan, Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the masses of the people of Iraq condemned it.
In Syria too, the Syrian forces and the Camp of Resistance are moving towards the complete freedom of that country. By God’s favor, they will move towards the eastern part of Euphrates and they will expel the U.S. and humiliate them. Moreover, what the Yemenis did in recent days was perhaps a response to Trump’s project. The Yemenis achieved an unprecedented victory—during which hundreds were held captive and hundreds were killed— and consequently an important part of Yemen was liberated. I am very optimistic about the future due to the fact that Trump’s project is actually a political suicide.
Interviewer: What is your opinion about the political personality of Hajj Qassem Soleimani and his international achievements?
After the formation of the International Islamic Awakening Conference, I worked with him for many years and various conferences and congresses were formed over Islamic Awakening and the lovers of Ahlul Bayt (greetings be upon them) which played an efficient role in establishing solidarity and Islamic unity. He was the main pillar in all those activities and measures and I used to cooperate with him up close.
I saw nothing in him other than firm belief, purity and faith, and of course, he had extraordinary intelligence, insight and courage. Even the most difficult circumstances would not trouble him. For instance, Kirkuk was liberated without firing even one single bullet. It was the result of his correct policies and his bold measures. The diplomacy of that martyr was characterized by his courage and insight and he had many concerns about the region and Iraq. They wanted to segregate Kirkuk so that it would be an independent and autonomous region. Therefore, he went to Sulaymaniyah and defeated the plot to segregate that area without firing one bullet. These are very important and instructive lessons.
Martyr Soleimani would behave towards all members of the Camp of Resistance – including political personalities and the mujahids – in a calculated manner which was indicative of his charisma. He had many meetings with great politicians in the world such as Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan in order to further the goals of the Resistance. Surely his blood will serve to continue and to strengthen the Resistance.
Interviewer: In his Friday prayer address, the Supreme Leader of the Revolution referred to the Quds Forces as borderless warriors. How do you evaluate the Quds Forces after Hajj Qassem Soleimani?
We should seek all the achievements of the Quds Forces in the Supreme Leader of the Revolution. After all, it is he who has guided and continues to guide the Quds Forces. Therefore, the Quds Forces will surely continue its missions more strongly than the past. If our military advisers show their presence in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, they are there upon the invitation of those countries. Therefore, the presence of our forces is legal, otherwise, without a doubt, the geographical borders of every Muslim and non-Muslim country are recognizable and inviolable. In fact, the Quds Forces are borderless supporters and they do not merely work for Iran’s interests, rather they think of the interests of the entire world of Islam and whenever the legitimate governments of countries officially invite that force, they will help them in their Resistance and fight.
Interviewer: Finally, please give a brief account of your last international meeting in the presence of Shahid Soleimani and the Supreme Leader of the Revolution.
When a delegate of Hamas came to meet with the Supreme Leader, I went to meet with Shahid Soleimani. I used to attend all the meetings that the Camp of Resistance had with the Supreme Leader and Hajj Qassem was present as well. He would sit somewhere in order that he would not be in the highlight. He was sincere and he did not want to be recognized by others. He was not in front of the cameras for security reasons and for other matters that he thought were important, but he was present in almost all the meetings of the Camp of Resistance – Hamas, Hezbollah and the heads of countries such as Syria and Iraq – together with the Supreme Leader of the Revolution.
He had a strong affection for Ahlul Bayt (greetings be upon them). When we inaugurated the Islamic Awakening Conference in consultation with Hajj Qassem, he also placed great emphasis on the new Lovers of Ahlul Bayt Conference. That stemmed from his extraordinary love for and belief in Ahlul Bayt (greetings be upon them).
Comment