All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, from Whom we seek help and in Whom we trust, and peace and greetings be upon our Master and Prophet, Ab-il-Qassem Al-Mustafa Mohammad, and upon his Immaculate and Infallible Household, especially what remains with Allah on earth.
First, I would like to advise all dear brothers and sisters and also myself to observe piety and virtue in our words and deeds and even in our thoughts.
Today, in the first sermon, I am going to touch on the main issue of the day, which is issue of Iraq and its related complicated events. And in most of the second sermon, I will address our Arab brothers and sisters in Iraq and in other Islamic countries.
As regards the issue of Iraq, some important events are presently taking place in that country, and the situation there is very sensitive.
As you may know, during the past century Iraq went through hard times and experienced some bloody events. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British established a monarchy in Iraq and brought a non-Iraqi family to power in that country.
Three kings belonging to this family ascended the throne one by one. The first of them died, the second was killed in an accident in suspicious circumstances, and the third was dismembered by the people. They were all brought to power by the British.
Then, three governments took power through military coups from 1958 to 1968. The first military ruler was killed, the second was also killed in suspicious circumstances, and the third was ousted from power.
In 1968 the Ba'thists came to power in Iraq, and they ruled that country for the past 35 years. During this period, the Iraqi people underwent the hardest of their times, especially the time when Saddam Hussein was in power. But even now that Saddam's regime has been toppled, it is not clear where Saddam Hussein is himself, and this makes one feel very suspicious!
What has taken place in Iraq is very complicated. A couple of days ago Bush and Blair sent a message to the Iraqi people, telling them that they had sent their troops to their country in order to liberate them from Saddam's rule! But even in this short message there are two false remarks!
In their message, they implied that the Iraqi people themselves did not have the power and ability to overthrow Saddam's government, and that they needed the help of others. This was their first false remark. Besides, what they said was also a sheer lie, since nobody would fire missiles and drop bombs on a nation, destroy their towns and villages and kill them in large numbers in order to liberate them!
Thus, it is clear that what Bush and Bair said in their message was only a false claim, and that the liberation of the Iraqi people was not the case.
There are four points that should be explained and clarified here. The first point concerns the downfall of the Saddam's regime.
The fact is that, initially, there was no clash between U.S. interests and those of the Saddam's regime. Even some U.S. officials have said that the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had a key role in the coup that was staged by the Ba'thists in Iraq in 1968.
I am not sure whether this is true or not, but what is certain is that the United States and the Iraqi regime had many common interests, especially after the victory of the Islamic Revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran.
Saddam was dreaming of annexing some parts of Iran's territory, and the United States was opposed to the Islamic system and intended to restore the former tyrannical regime, which was its puppet. This brought the United States and Saddam Hussein close together.
Consequently, when in 1980 the Iraqi regime staged its war against Iran and launched an air raid on Tehran on the first day of its military aggression, the United States not only did not raise any objections in this regard, but also increased its assistance and support for that regime. Even the United Nations, under U.S. pressure, was forced to support the Iraqi ruler. These are the facts that have been recorded in history.
Saddam rendered a valuable service to the United States, since by imposing a war on the Islamic Republic and keeping us busy for some eight years, he prevented us from taking measures to promote the country's construction and development and to raise the living standards of the public.
Therefore, at this stage, Washington and Baghdad shared some common interests. However, later in 1990, when the Iraqi troops attacked Kuwait, a conflict emerged between the interests of the two. The U.S. officials noticed that Saddam's expansionist goals were bound to endanger U.S. interests in the region, since the attack on Kuwait was in fact an attack on U.S. interests.
Besides, the U.S. officials realized that if they did not stop Saddam at that stage, it was quite likely that he would attack Saudi Arabia at a later stage. Indeed, the Iraqi ruler had made his expansionist intentions clear by saying that after occupying Kuwait, he would advance and capture other Arab countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar as well. In other words, Saddam intended to occupy as many Arab counties as he could.
It was only at this stage that the negative propaganda against Saddam began to spread, and the United Nations started to exert pressure on his regime. Saddam was not the kind of person who might stand against the United States, and he was willing to come to terms with the U.S. officials. But if the United States had come to terms with Saddam, it would have lost its friends in the Persian Gulf region. This was because the Arab rulers in the Persian Gulf region were afraid of Saddam, and they did not want the United States to support him as it had done before.
On the other hand, Iraq was of great significance to the United States due to its considerable oil and natural resources, which Washington could not dispense with. Therefore, the United States decided to get rid of Saddam in order to allay the fears of other Arab rulers in the region and also to continue to plunder Iraq's oil and natural resources.
This is the reason why the Untied States and Britain waged their war against Iraq, and what they have said regarding their intention to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's rule is only a sheer lie. They toppled Saddam because a conflict had emerged between Saddam's and their interests. They used to support Saddam when they had common interests, as they supported him during his war against Iran.
Now that the Saddam's regime has been toppled, are the Iranian people happy or not? Of course they are! The Iranian people have been chanting "death to Monafeqin (hypocrites) and death to Saddam" for the past 20 years! Now, death has come for Saddam!
The Iranian people are as happy as the Iraqi people about the overthrow of Saddam, because he was a dictator, an oppressor and a very wicked person. He did great harm to both the Iraqi and the Iranian nations.
The United States and Britain are now claiming that the Iraqi people are happy because the U.S. and British troops have entered and occupied their country! This is a very ridiculous remark! The Iraqi people are happy because Saddam has been toppled, not because alien forces have occupied their country!
A few days ago, a European television channel broadcast a footage that showed an Iraqi youngster who, in response to a question, clenched his fist and said: "death to Saddam and death to Bush!" If the same question is posed to other Iraqi people, ninety percent of them will answer in the same way!
The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi people took a neutral stance with regard to the fighting that took place between the Iraqi soldiers and the U.S. and British aggressors and occupiers.
The Islamic Republic also announced that it was neutral, since we considered both parties to the conflict to be oppressors, and we extended no assistance to either side in this conflict. Of course this fact is very well known to those who watch everything through their espionage satellites, but the Iranian people should also know that our government did its utmost to prevent any aid or assistance from being extended to either side in the conflict, and it succeeded in doing so.
Thus, the rapid advance of the aggressors was mostly due to the fact that the Iraqi nation remained neutral. However, certain ambiguities and questions still remain in this regard. For instance, whey did Baghdad not resist like Basra?
In the first week of the war, there was serious fighting. Then the aggressors stopped for a few days. But when they resumed their military operations, the Iraqi soldiers did not put up a proper resistance, and Baghdad was captured in a couple of days!
This happened despite the fact that there were nearly one hundred and twenty thousand armed soldiers only in Baghdad itself! But there were even more Iraqi military forces that had formed a defensive wall at a distance of one hundred kilometers from the Iraqi capital! Therefore, it is not clear why Baghdad resisted the aggressors only for a couple of days! Such ambiguities will be clarified in the future.
The second point concerns the great sufferings that were inflicted on the Iraqi people in the course of the war on their country. The memory of such sufferings and acts of aggression will not be forgotten and will always remain alive in the world conscience. As you can see, some twenty-seven years have passed since the Vietnam War, but films are still being made about the sufferings that were inflicted by the Americans on the Vietnamese people.
The greatest right of mankind is the right to live. The Untied States claims to advocate human rights, but it has bombed many cities in Iraq and deprived a large number of Iraqi people of their right to live. More than one thousand cruise missiles were fired at and thousands of heavy bombs were dropped on different cities in Iraq, including Basra, Nasiriyah, Diwaniyah, Hillah and Baghdad itself.
As a result of these bombings and bombardments, many Iraqi people, including women and children, were killed, and others were left without food and water. Those parents who have infants and small children can understand better how it feels when there is no food or water to give to their children!
Furthermore, the U.S. and British soldiers treated the people of Iraq in the most insulting manner. They entered their homes by force, blindfolded their men, handcuffed them from behind and insulted and threatened them before the eyes of their wives and children! The soldiers also forced them to lie prone and then stood above them with their guns pointed at their heads!
Even a more shameful act committed by the U.S. soldiers was that they frisked the Arab women, who were covered in Islamic dress, just because they thought the women might be carrying explosives! Is this respect for human rights and freedom?!
We strongly condemn the great sufferings that have been inflicted on the Iraqi nation and express our deep sympathy for the Iraqi people. We also condemn the military aggression against Iraq, and if the aggressors claim to support human rights, we consider them to be liars.
The third point to mention is the U.S. military attack on Iraq on the pretext of destroying weapons of mass destruction, which Washington had claimed the Iraqi regime possessed. This was a most ugly and appalling act of aggression, and it was condemned and considered illegitimate by the world public. Massive demonstrations were held and great rallies were staged in almost all countries, including in the United States itself, in protest against this military aggression.
Although we have already condemned and continue to condemn the U.S. military attack on Iraq, we also believe that the United Nations did not face up to its responsibilities in this regard.
Why did the UN Security Council not condemn the U.S. and British war on Iraq? Why did it not issue a resolution against these two countries? Even if they vetoed this resolution, the issuing of the resolution itself could have been an effective move against the U.S. and Britain.
Why did the UN General Assembly not convene to condemn this military aggression? The UN Secretary General should have done more in this regard.
Through its attack on Iraq, the United States showed that it is a rogue state itself, although the former U.S. president used this term to refer to some other countries. It also showed that it is really the Great Satan, as it was called by our magnanimous Imam.
The British also made a great mistake. They followed the United States in order to have a share in the booty, but this was a big mistake. The fact is that the British had an ugly image in the eyes of nations in the regional countries like Iran, Iraq and India because of their oppressing of these nations. However, over the past thirty or forty years, this image was gradually fading due to the emergence of a more wicked power in the world. But Mr. Blair once again revived the ugly image of the British.
Therefore, like other nations in the world, we have condemned and continue to condemn the U.S. military attack on Iraq and consider it an aggression against the whole Islamic Ummah and a wrong precedent in the international relations.
The last point that should be mentioned is the planned U.S. domination of Iraq. In other words, in addition to inflicting great sufferings on the Iraqi nation, the United States also intends to install an American military ruler in Iraq, who is either a Zionist himself, or who is very close and affiliated to the Zionist circles.
The United States and Britain have divided up the booty in such a way that Basra, which is closer to the oilfields and has a stronger smell of oil - and the British like the smell of oil very much - has been taken by Britain, and Baghdad, which is the center of power - and the Americans like to show off their power - has been taken by the United States.
However, there are many differences between the United States and Britain, and these differences will soon increase and become revealed to the world public.
What has been done by the U.S. and Britain is a return to the first stage of colonialism, when the old colonial powers used to conquer other countries by military force and install their own rulers there. But these countries will ultimately pay dearly for their act of aggression, which has been motivated by vanity and arrogance.
We believe that the next ruler in Iraq should neither be a foreigner, nor a Zionist, nor a military figure, but that he should be elected by the Iraqi people themselves. We condemn the installation of a military ruler in Iraq by the United States and consider it blatant disregard for the Iraqi nation's rights.
We will never accept a new dictatorship in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will not accept it either, since they did not get rid of Saddam's dictatorship only to be ruled by an American military dictator!
The U.S. military victory, which involved certain ambiguities, does not mean ultimate victory for the United States. Besides, the Americans themselves also suffered certain defeats, which they may not realize now, but surely they will witness their repercussions in the near future.
Their first defeat was the collapse of their liberal democracy, which they were so far trying to promote in the world. In other words, they proved that liberal democracy is not able to create respect for human rights and freedom, and that those who follow this ideology are ready to trample on the freedom, rights and even lives of other human beings for the sake of their own interests.
If the Americans really believed in democracy, they would have left Iraq after Saddam's regime was toppled. But they are still staying there, and they are even interfering in that country's internal affairs! Therefore, the world public is now witnessing the collapse of the U.S. ideology and the falsity of its mottos and slogans.
In fact, the nations across the world had already realized the falsity of U.S. claims to support democracy and human rights. This is why in various demonstrations that were held in different parts of the world in protest against the U.S. attack on Iraq, the people carried banners or placards with slogans such as "this war is for oil, not for freedom and human rights", "this war is aimed at saving the bankrupt U.S. economy" and "the axis of evil: U.S., Britain and Israel".
The second defeat suffered by the United States was a political defeat, as Washington is today politically isolated in the world. Almost all countries in the world, including the European, Arab and Islamic states, have disapproved of the U.S. intention to install a retired American general as the next ruler of Iraq.
The next U.S. defeat was the losing of its military prestige. The American officials used to claim that their military forces could overcome the Iraqi forces within three or four days. But later it became clear that they were not able to overpower the Iraqis even in a longer period. Indeed, if the Iraqi forces had put up a proper resistance, the fighting would still have been going on, and it is not clear whether the United States could achieve victory, because it might suffer heavy casualties.
The fourth U.S. defeat was the discrediting of its media because of the censorship that they exercised in their reports, especially in those about their own casualties. Today, the U.S. media have lost their credibility and status in the world.
The last point that I would like to stress is that I believe the Zionists played a major role in encouraging the United States to attack Iraq and in preparing the ground for this military aggression. In fact, the Zionists are the ones who benefit the most from what U.S. president George Bush has often said about the new map of the Middle East. What is meant by this new map is the economic, political and even geographical expansion of the Zionist regime in the Middle East.
In conclusion, I would like to call on the Iraqi political activists to avoid making any strategic mistakes. They should not be exhilarated or frightened by U.S. military victory over Saddam, since neither is in their interests.
They should also note that chaos and anarchy, seeking revenge and harmful rivalry should all be avoided, as they will provide the occupiers with a pretext for perpetuating their occupation.
Furthermore, they should by no means collaborate with the occupiers. If they help the occupiers and alien forces to stabilize their rule in Iraq, this treacherous act will be recorded in their history forever.
The Iraqi people want independence, freedom and a government based on their religious and national ideals. Thus, those political activists who have so far been speaking on behalf of the Iraqi people should now remain loyal to their nation and its ideals. They should know that military victory over Saddam does not mean political and cultural victory over the Iraqi nation.
I pray to Almighty Allah to assist the Iraqi, Palestinian and all other oppressed nations in resisting the oppressors and to confer on them victory in light of their faith and perseverance. I also pray to Almighty Allah to bestow His favor and blessings on our great and honorable nation.
In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate
"I swear by time; most surely man is in loss; except those who believe and do good, and enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patience." (103: 1-3)