Speeches-2023:Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on Martyrs Sole...

Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on Martyrs Soleimani, Al-Muhandis 3rd Anniversary

Translated by Al-Ahed News

Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on the third martyrdom anniversary of Hajj Qassem Soleimani, Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, and their companions | 3-1-2023

I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. In the name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our Master and Prophet, the Seal of Prophets, Abi al-Qassem Muhammad Bin Abdullah and his good and pure household and his good and chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers.

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you all.

First, I welcome the honorable and blessed attendees to this celebration honoring the two great, martyred leaders of our time, our resistance, and our axis.

At the beginning, I would like to apologize to all my supporters for what happened in the past few days in the lead up to this celebration.

I thought a popular festival would give us enough time to talk about all the local and regional issues, especially after a month and a half. So, I thought to speak last Friday and focus on local files and touch on a number of political issues and events that took place in Lebanon, including the presidential elections and political relations.

I was excited and prepared as usual, but the Commander of the Faithful (PBUH) used to say: “I came to know God by breaking resolve and breaking determination.” God Almighty had other plans.

In any case, we wanted to be honest and transparent with you. The cancelation of my speech following the publicity and waiting left room for many interpretations, some of which certainly could have been wrong.

I apologize for worrying you, and I thank you for the love and affection. I am grateful and thank all those who prayed, gave alms, offered dhabihah [for my well-being], and did all that could be done in this context.

I would also like to give you assurances. I heard some of what was said in the “Israeli” and some Gulf media. Some said I suffered a stroke, others said I was in intensive care, and some said I was on a respirator.

There is absolutely no reason to worry. I have had this condition – just to be more transparent – for almost 30 years. I have allergies in the trachea.

Even when our martyr Sayyed Abbas [Al-Musawi] was martyred, I was in bed because of this condition. I’ve had this condition for more than 30 years.

The brothers know this well. Usually, when the allergy flares up, I avoid giving speeches. However, it caught me by surprise on Friday, so we had to cancel. Otherwise, there is nothing; it is normal – a runny nose, a cold, like all people.

If there was no speech scheduled for Friday, no one would have known anything, but this is what happened.

That is why today, God willing, I would like to focus on the occasion and issues related to our current reality. I will leave room at the end of the speech for the Lebanese political file.

Of course, on Friday I wanted to wish you happy holidays, including Christmas – the birthday of Christ (PBUH) – that concerns us all as Muslims and Christians and New Year’s. I hope that it will be a year of goodness, relief, and hope for the Lebanese people and all the peoples in our region.

Also, in the past few days, we had the martyrdom anniversary of Lady Fatima Al-Zahra (PBUH), Sayyidat Nisa' al-Alamin [the Lady of the Women of the Worlds] and the daughter of the Messenger of God, who used to refer to her as the soul which is between his two sides.

There are also the death anniversaries of a number of our scholars, including Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the great Islamic philosopher and thinker, and the oppressed, patient, and courageous martyr scholar Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr.

Also, in the past few weeks, we lost a number of our brothers and dear ones, including the fathers and mothers of the martyrs. I extend my condolences to all of them.

I usually single out the scholars. We have lost a great scholar, an eloquent preacher, and a missionary, who spent his blessed life preaching Islam and calling to God, good, and equitableness [maruf], His Eminence Sayyed Nasim Atwi (may God have mercy on him). I also extend my condolences to his honorable family members.

The occasion we are marking is the third martyrdom anniversary of the two great leaders, Hajj Qassem Soleimani and Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis (Hajj Jamal).

Of course, on the martyrdom anniversary, we renew our condolences and congratulations to His Eminence, the Leader, Sayyid Khamenei, to our brothers the officials in the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the Iranian people, to the family of martyr Hajj Qassem Soleimani, and to the Iranian brothers who belong to the Revolutionary Guards and were martyred with him.

We also extend our deepest condolences and congratulations to our honorable religious authority in Najaf al-Ashraf, the Iraqi people, the Iraqi forces, our brothers in the Hashd al-Shaabi, the resistance factions, and the family of the martyred leader Hajj Abu Mahdi.

One of the forms or factors that reveal to us the greatness of any figure or person, as well as his position, nature, or essence are his actions in this world – what he did and what he accomplished. Is what he did great and important? This is one of factors that reveal the greatness of a figure.

When we come to martyred leader Hajj Qassem Soleimani – I will talk about Hajj Abu Mahdi in the context – we discover through his great work, achievements, and successes his great personality and the truth of his essence and status, until God Almighty sealed his fate with this lofty medal and this great martyrdom at the hands of the Great Satan and the greatest tyrant of this world in the modern era.

For nearly two decades, Hajj Qassem had command of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps’ Quds Force. This force is concerned with the jihadi situation in our region in particular, and its main concern is Al-Quds and Bayt al-Maqdis. When Hajj Qassem came to our region and arena 20 years ago or more than 20 years ago, there were three basic elements or factors available to him:

1- The first was his personality. He possessed great honesty, great sincerity, devotion to God Almighty. He did not ask for anything, not for a good reputation or worldly positions. In the past few years, he was one of the most fortunate candidates, one of the natural candidates – there is such a term in Lebanon – for the presidency of the Republic of Iran.

Opinion polls supported him tremendously, but he preferred to remain in the field and on the battlefronts. He was not asking for anything. He was very pious and religious. He adhered to religious controls.

He loved God and longed to meet Him, and he requested martyrdom. Some of his personal characteristics included wisdom, management abilities, intelligence, creativity, brilliance, planning abilities, as well as a tremendous ability to endure fatigue, hardship, and difficulties, and great hope for the future. In any case, there is no doubt that he was a unique and rare figure. The first was Hajj Qassem’s personality.

2- The second was that he relied on a wise, great, and courageous leadership, His Eminence the Leader, Sayyid Khamenei, who was a mastermind and oversaw all the arenas of this world. Everything that Hajj Qassem used to do in terms of strategy, broad lines, main orders, main orientations were the instructions of His Eminence Imam Khamenei. They were the directives, controls, limits, and ceilings of His Eminence Imam Khamenei.

Here, I return to Hajj Qassem’s personal characteristics. This is what the will he wrote revealed. He lived like that. He was not a general of the wilaya, he was the soldier of the wilaya.

He wrote in his will and requested no [honorific titles] such as general, lieutenant general, or brigadier to be written on his gravestone. They wrote soldier of the wilaya Qassem Soleimani. This is how he lived his life.

He was relied upon along with the leader and the Islamic Republic of Iran as a great, important, present, capable, and influential regional power that can extend a helping hand to the peoples of our region, all the oppressed peoples of our region who are targeted by the American-Zionist project. This was all backing him.

3- Here, we must emphasize the patriotism of the existing cases in the axis of resistance. The third factor was that when he came, for example, in the early days of the Quds Force to Lebanon and contacted the Palestinian brothers, there was already an existing and present resistance in the field, a Lebanese will to resist and fight, and a decades-old Palestinian will in resisting and fighting.

Later, after the occupation of Iraq, he went to the Iraqis who have vision, will, and decisiveness. He did the same when tackling the crises in Syria, Yemen, and other countries. Unfortunately, some people still portray the countries, forces, and movements of the axis of resistance are mere tools or followers of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are resistant, patriotic, and true governments, states, popular forces, and factions that have the utmost readiness to make sacrifices and believe in their homelands, people’s causes, and sanctities. Hajj Qassem came to them and extended a helping hand.

If I were to sum up the past two decades in a nutshell, I’d say that Hajj Qassem Soleimani confronted the American projects with his personal capabilities and the backing of the [Islamic] Republic as well as the backing of the conscious nation, people, and forces in our region.

Thanks to his mind, capabilities, sincerity, constant presence, perseverance, fatigue, and sleeplessness – he only slept for a few hours – he was able to link the forces of the axis [of resistance] and create a strong connection and coordination. He was able to increase the strength of each force and provide it with moral, intellectual, and logistical support.

He contributed greatly to giving hope and raising morale in adversity, difficulties, and crises through meetings and a direct presence on the frontlines.

Hence, martyr leader Hajj Qassem Soleimani embodied the true focal point in which blood, spirit, morale, reason, and thought were flowing in this axis for 20 years.

In the past two decades, Hajj Qassem strongly confronted two versions of the American project. I will talk about them not to glorify Hajj Qassem but so that we know what happened, learn lessons, and prepare to confront the third version. Here, we know why Trump killed Hajj Qassem and Abu Mahdi.

We all know that there is a fixed American project, fixed American goals in our region – I will talk about our region and not the whole world – hegemony, and control over oil, gas, natural resources, markets, and political decisions.

However, they leave the regimes with local margins for kings, princes, and heads of government to act upon. We all know about the Shah. This is found in the memoirs of the Shah's agents in Iran.

The Shah, who was pretending to be great and majestic, did not dare make any move, even in certain internal issues in Iran, before consulting the American and the British ambassadors – the American ambassador later. This was the case of the regimes and still is.

Of course, they are classified. There are presidents, ministers, heads of government, kings, princes, and sultans who talk with charge d’affaires in the American embassy. Others deal with the ambassador. Other people deal with a department official or an assistant minister. However, I do not think that anyone is at the level of directly dealing with the President of the United States of America unless they wanted to milk approximately $450 billion.

The American project in the region is a project of hegemony, domination, control, and grasping everything. At the heart of this project is “Israel”, the advanced American military barracks that must remain superior and strong while everything surrounding it must be weak, meager, and flabby. This is the American project.

At every stage whenever there are conflicts or developments, they [the Americans] draw up a plan to establish these goals. I will call it a version. We will not talk before 2000, we will talk after 2000.

The first version:

Hajj Qassem Soleimani faced the first version with martyr commander Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, martyr commander Hajj Imad Mughniyeh, and the martyred leaders in Palestine, Iraq, and the region. In the first phase, the battlefield was practically in Palestine and Lebanon. I am talking between 2001 to 2011. The first version was the new Middle East project. Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq was the battlefield. Syria and Iran were the arena of steadfastness. Meanwhile, there was nothing important happening in Yemen at the time because all the remaining regimes had good relations with the Americans.

This version began in 2001 after George W. Bush assumed the presidency. The neoconservatives came and were ready. Of course, Afghanistan, it seems, based on everything we read in the notes and documents and what was published, that it was not included in the plan. It was mentioned because of what al-Qaeda did in September 11. Hence, they had to come to Afghanistan. Otherwise, Afghanistan was not in the plan.

What are the reasons for the plan? The 2000 victory of the resistance in Lebanon, the 2000-2001 uprising in Palestine that violently shook the “Israeli” entity, a new leadership in Syria that was refusing to submit to American and “Israeli” conditions and enter into a humiliating settlement, some sort of problem with Iraq, Iran rising as a power in the region. In any case, there were countries not under American control.

The neoconservatives made the decision – documents, confessions, and the senior generals and their memoirs [admit this]. However, in the Arab world, a few of us read. They say that the bestsellers of the book fair are cookbooks. This is in Lebanon; I do not know about the rest of the countries.

In any case, when we read, we will find a clear American admission that there was a plan not to overthrow regimes or to create chaos, but to invade – term invasion was used – and occupy a number of countries, provided that this matter takes place within five to seven years, which is in fact, George Bush’s presidency term.

They considered that he had four years, and it was logical that it’d be renewed for another four. This is usually the case in America. Sometimes this does not happen like Trump’s and George Bush Sr.’s cases, but usually this is how it works. Therefore, he be in office for eight years. Hence, it is assumed that these countries will be occupied and invaded in five to seven years. These countries that were mentioned in the documents and in the confessions are the following:

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia. These countries were supposed to be invaded and occupied in the first version of the American project that we are talking about now. Afghanistan was not included. This confirms that [the invasion of] Afghanistan came as a reaction; it was not included in the calculation.

Of course, why? These countries are not under the control [of the US]. Some of these countries are rebellious; others pose a threat to the American-“Israeli” project, in the foreground are the Islamic Republic, Syria, the resistance movement. This needs a separate discussion, but we are talking out results.

It was supposed to start chronologically. September 11 gave this project a huge push, and very great pressure and media hype were created. The world was divided into two camps, either with us or against us. A state of intimidation took place, and the attack on Afghanistan took place and the Taliban government collapsed quickly.

Then, preparations for Iraq and its invasion began. The regime quickly collapsed, and the American tanks and armies amassed on Afghanistan’s eastern borders with Iran and its western borders with Iraq. They also posed a threat to Syria from Iraq’s western borders. Colin Powell came to the Levant, and they want to carry on.

They worked to strike the resistance in Palestine and in Lebanon. They initiated the 2006 war. You remember the negotiations during the 2006 war – allow me to remind you what occupation and invasion stand for. The “Israelis” entered Lebanon. They wanted the “Israelis” to stay on our land for a few months until the Multinational Force and Observers, not the UNIFIL, deployed on the Lebanese-Palestinian border, on the Lebanese-Syrian border, at the airport, at the ports, and at the border crossings.

What do you call this? It is called the occupation and invasion of multinational forces.

Anyway, there was international silence. Russia, France, China, the entire world was dumbfounded. No one dared open their mouth. In any case, Iraq was occupied. Syria was threatened. The war on Lebanon took place. If it had succeeded, it would have spilled over into Syria and destroyed the Palestinian resistance. This is the first project, the first version.

Enter Qassem Soleimani along with his personal capabilities and those he represents. But he was out of the media spotlight. In this battle, Qassem Soleimani was not a main player as he was during the second version.

A few years ago, we revealed that he was with us during the 2006 war. Otherwise, his presence would’ve remained a secret for many years.

Anyway, Hajj Qassem Soleimani came as a leader sent by the Islamic Republic to the frontlines and battlefields in the region. Of course, Iran stood firm. It was not moved by intimidation or the armies on the borders. Syria also stood firm.

We all remember when Colin Powell came and offered humiliating conditions to President Assad. The latter [Assad] rejected them all. Then, things started rolling. The July war came, in which the “Israeli” enemy failed.

In 2003, the resistance in Iraq was also born. In fact, the Palestinian resistance displayed steadfastness and the enemy was unable to liquidate it, especially in the 2008 Gaza war. The resistance in Lebanon in the 2006 war, in Syria, and in Iraq were also steadfast.

Allow me here to talk about the Iraqi resistance from 2003 until 2011, from the invasion to the withdrawal of the American forces. At that time, it was an oppressed resistance.

Of course, here I am talking about the resistance factions that fought the occupation. I am not talking about those terrorist groups that killed Iraqis – Shiites, Sunnis, Christians – Kurds, and Turkmens and did not spare a race or followers of a certain religion from their crimes. These terrorist groups did not spare mosques, Husseiniyas, schools, markets, libraries, or religious visitors.

I am not talking about the 5,000 suicide bombers brought in by al-Qaeda who then killed tens of thousands of Iraqi people with the support of well-known Arab countries.

Rather, I am talking about the resistance factions, Shiites and Sunnis, who fought rightfully and sincerely against the occupation forces and did not receive sufficient media coverage.

I remember during those days, operations targeting the American occupation forces in Iraq were excellent and extensive. The resistance factions used to send live recordings of any news worthy of distribution, and yet the Arab satellite channels did not broadcast them.

There was American pressure (to prevent the distribution of the content). So, they’d send it to us. Only Al-Manar broadcast it; I do not know if anyone else did. During the years of resistance, the Iraqi resistance is the one that forced the American administration to sign an agreement with the Iraqi government in 2008 and set a timetable for withdrawal. When it began to procrastinate, the resistance escalated its operations until it forced the American forces to leave.

You can read all the memoirs of the American officials at that stage and what the American military experts and politicians said. They admitted that the extent of the losses and the shock that befell them in Iraq is what forced them to leave; otherwise, they would’ve stayed, not just in Iraq but the entire region, for decades, if not for hundreds of years.

Here, we must highlight the great historical role of the Iraqi resistance in achieving this victory and in defeating not only the American occupation in Iraq, but also the American project in the region.

If we combine what the Iraqi resistance did, the steadfastness in the July war, the resistance in Palestine, the steadfastness of Iran, and the steadfastness of Syria, we conclude that this version has ended, fallen, and failed.

We can say that it [the first version] ended with the withdrawal of American forces in 2011 from Iraq and the change in the face of the region. If we want to talk about the last repercussions of the first version that came perhaps as an appendix, it is last year’s American withdrawal from Afghanistan.

What was the result? The deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and the region as well as $7 billion or $7 trillion that the US spent in the first phase of this war, the first version of this project.

Financing the second stage was on the Arab regimes. The Americans did not pay. In the first stage, the Americans paid. Whether they later got reimbursed secretly or publicly is another discussion.

What did Trump say following all these sacrifices? I am the president of the United States, and if I wanted to visit Iraq, I am forced to close the windows and turn off the lights in the plane as soon as it enters the Iraqi airspace. We descend secretly and not inform the Iraqi president, the prime minister, or any Iraqi official. When I’m at the military base, they are summoned. Of course, there are people who did not go. This is the result of the first version.

This is where Hajj Qassem Soleimani came in. Of course, I am not revealing a secret. This was said, and the Americans know this well. It is not correct for anyone to say that Iran came and unleashed the resistance in Iraq. Rather, the ones who unleashed the resistance in Iraq are the Iraqi leaders, scholars, factions, cadres, currents. I do not want to mention names; we respect them all.

The Islamic Republic supported this trend, Hajj Qassem provided moral, intellectual, and logistical support, training, coordination, interdependence. Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis had a strong and effective presence alongside Hajj Qassem Soleimani. He secretly played the role of the main coordinator between the resistance factions between 2003 and 2011.

When we talk about the role of the Iraqi resistance in defeating this version of the project, we have to point to Hajj Qassem and Hajj Abu Mahdi’s strong presence. Of course, there are many martyrs. Resistance leaders in Iraq fell before Daesh came. The same in Lebanon and our region.

We conclude talking about this version and realize the greatness of what has been achieved. However, the question is what would have happened if this was not the position of the Islamic Republic? What would have happened if Syria did not stand firm? If there was no will to resist among the peoples of the region? If Qassem Soleimani did not come with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Imad Mughniyeh in Lebanon and brothers in other places in Palestine?

Some of them were martyred. Others are still alive. Had all this not taken place – America occupied our region, including Lebanon and Syria, stayed in Iraq, occupied Iran, and settled the issue of Palestine (since the neoconservatives do not believe in a two-state solution and this is not present in Greater “Israel”, which is the crown jewel in the region) – and this version succeeded, what could have happened?

The second version:

The second version began with [Barack] Obama. After an evaluation, they discovered that large-scale military wars, if carried out by America, are very costly and a failure. The Americans followed the strategy of getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq and reducing their military presence in the region. Trump came after to continue in this direction. Later, [Joe] Biden implemented it.

They also discovered that relying on “Israel” in wars is a failure. All of “Israel’s” wars, at least after 2000, did not achieve any of their objectives. Yes, it kills children and women and destroys homes and infrastructure, but it fails to achieve the goals of these wars. This happened in in Lebanon and Palestine (in Gaza and in the repeated wars).

What did they resort to? The resorted to something new. They took advantage of the events [the Arab Spring] in Tunisia at the beginning of 2011. Things rolled quickly and led to the fall of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s regime and his escape to Saudi Arabia. The events began to roll in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and knocked the doors of many Arab countries.

You remember at that time something happened in Oman and in Kuwait. Some political forces began threatening, even in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Indeed, there was a state of terror even among America's allies, because when America's allies in the region saw that America had dispensed with Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, etc., they figured they’ll be treated the same.

There was a state of extreme terror among these regimes. However, we still believe, as we used to say, that they were real popular revolutions. Then, the American administration came, in cooperation with some regimes and with specific political, media, and financial coordination, took advantage of these revolutions. It pushed the region towards a very dangerous direction and created a new reality that serves its project, interests, and new hegemony over the region after realizing that these regimes are outdated.

We talked about this a lot in the past, and there is no need to re-explain it. But this stage was more dangerous than the past wars in the first version. Here, you are fighting the American and “Israeli” occupying forces.

But in this version, the wars took on an internal and civil nature. The region, its peoples, its states, and its governments are fighting among themselves, and the worst is the use of sectarian titles and bringing whoever could be brought, including the takfiris around the world, to fight this battle, especially in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Therefore, we were talking that this version is a version of destruction, the destruction of states, the destruction of peoples, the destruction of armies, the destruction of societies, and the destruction of everything in the region so that America could return as a savior, just as it tried to present itself in Iraq and Syria. Then, it will re-achieve the objectives of the project that failed in the first version.

Here, too, Qassem Soleimani was present. But here, it was public because he was forced to go to the field to fight. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was also present publicly because he was forced to go to the frontlines, mobilize, train, and lead operations. Working in public was also required for moral, spiritual, cultural, and voluntary reasons.

Hajj Qassem and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis were both present in all the events of the past decade, from 2011 to 2020, until their martyrdom in this battle.

Hajj Qassem was present with the axis in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Of course, they used the Takfiris in our region and their allies in the war on Yemen, the aggression that is still going on.

Hajj Abu Mahdi’s presence in Iraq was great. The honorable, blessed, and rational religious authority issued the historical fatwa. The Iraqi people rose and showed solidarity. The resistance factions were present, and Hash Al-Shaabi [the Popular Mobilization Units], which is still continuing until now, was formed.

The years-long fighting in Iraq in the face of Daesh, the years-long fighting in Syria, the years-long fighting in Lebanon, and the years-long steadfastness in Yemen led to the failure of the second version achieving its goals.

It failed to achieve its goals. It failed to subjugate Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the Palestinians. Rather, it unleashed new and additional elements of force in our region.

While these battles were being waged – the battle in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon – the “Israeli” enemy continued to single out the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian people. The second version was defeated.

A similar question arises: What if this was not Iran's position? What if Syria and the Syrian leadership were not steadfast? What if this historical fatwa was not issued by the religious authority in Najaf? What if the Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Yemenis, and Palestinians did not have the will to fight and confront? What if there were no Qassem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and many leaders? What would the region look like today?

Previously, this question was asked and answered, but I am trying to stimulate the mind.

We are in the face of two major and historic failures of the American project.

Now, we reach Trump, who felt that he must deliver a decisive blow to this axis – or front – and its central point.

The assassination of these two leaders on the eve of Friday January 3, 2020, publicly was also Trump’s doing. He also publicly adopted the assassination.

There is no doubt that the US administration has studied this step very well. Trump did not make this decision on his own because it is clear that the secretary of state said that he encouraged Trump, the CIA, and others.

This matter was studied, and the assassination was carried out. It [the assassination] was required to achieve goals. Among these goals was breaking the axis of resistance. The matter was bigger than Iran.

The goal was to break the axis of resistance and dismantle it because they considered that the link, the spirit, and the bond that coordinated between the axis was Qassem Soleimani and Hajj Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis. Hence targeting him [Al-Muhandis] constituted the targeting of the spirit of resistance in Iraq and the Hash Al-Shaabi.

They (the Americans) wanted to break Iran, terrorize it, push it to retreat, submit to American conditions, and negotiate with Trump according to his terms. This is what he used to openly say. I am waiting for you. He kept waiting until he left office.

They also wanted to terrorize the Iraqis and subjugate them to the American will. The Americans had returned under the pretext of Daesh and wanted to stay. Trump used to say that his real project was to seize the oil wells in Iraq, to break the Iraqis, to kill Hajj Qassem, to kill Abu Mahdi, to terrorize the Iraqis. By doing so, he thought he would make them accept his belief that Americans stay or the Iraqis will allow the Americans to stay.

They wanted to weaken the parties of the axis of resistance in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen by killing an official general. It is not like us, a popular movement. Hajj Qassem was an official general in an internationally recognized regime.

Hajj Abu Mahdi was the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Authority. This means that he was an official general in the Iraqi government.

Killing both men in such a manner is a message to all leaders in the region – eliminating Qassem Soleimani, the most important strategic threat to "Israel". It’s been three years since his martyrdom.

When we talk about the victory of blood over the sword, the result is that Iran made strong positions. It did not submit and was not afraid. His Eminence the Leader and Iranian officials made important positions.

Another result is the historic and unprecedented million-man funeral procession in the history of mankind.

We can conduct a census. Many reports later said that Trump was waiting for a weak funeral turnout in Iran for Hajj Qassem Soleimani and for the Iranian people to retreat. He was surprised by these huge crowds.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran was reborn – the Iranians were brave enough to bomb Ain al-Assad (a country targeting a murderous country’s base), declaring readiness for war and threatening Trump with it if he responded to that bombing, refusing to negotiate with Trump completely on any file.

Hajj Qassem Soleimani became an inspiring national symbol for all Iranians and an Islamic and international symbol. This is in Iran.

The opposite of what Trump was seeking happened. The results were completely the opposite of the desired goal. These are the results of true martyrdom. This blood that falls in the hands of God Almighty.

In Iraq, the Americans assumed that the Iranians would take the remains of Hajj Qassem Soleimani, which were cut into pieces, at night and bury him in Iran. The, some Iraqis would come and take Hajj Abu Mahdi.

They were surprised by the huge crowds in Baghdad, in Karbala, in Najaf al-Ashraf, in the holy Karbala, and on the roads, by the wonderful statement of the religious authority at that time, by the sympathy of the religious authorities, the hawzas, the political forces, and the Iraqi people from all sects. They still express sympathy until now.

Indeed, the Iraqi people showed great loyalty to these two leaders.
We know where the people burning the picture of Hajj Qassem and Abu Mahdi in October, in 2019, and afterwards are now. The real scenes are those expressed by people at the funeral of the martyrs.

In the million-man marches of this year’s Arbaeen, the presence of Hajj Qassem and Hajj Abu Mahdi was very prominent.

The million-man demonstration in Baghdad to demand the removal of the American forces, the decision of the Iraqi parliament to expel the American forces, the targeting of the American forces by the resistance factions. They are not safe in Iraq. The Americans killed them [Hajj Qassem and Abu Mahdi] so they can stay in Iraq for years and decades. In the end, the decided to leave Iraq.

In Palestine, after Hajj Qassem Soleimani, the Al-Quds Sword battle took place and the arenas united. I am mentioning all of this in order to reach a conclusion that our axis has grown stronger with this blessed blood and great martyrdom. Martyrs become the motive and inspiration; they give strength from a different position they were once in.

There is resistance today in the West Bank and in Palestine. The Deal of the Century fell after the martyrdom of Qassem Soleimani. There is overwhelming popular support for the resistance in Palestine after 75 years of occupation and wars and settlement projects. We saw the “Israeli” comments on everything that happened in the World Cup in Qatar and the demonstrations in Bahrain in the face of normalization.

In Lebanon, the rules of deterrence has been established in recent years. Victory in the file of maritime borders, oil, and gas was also achieved.

In Syria, more consolidation of the political situation in the state has taken place. The security state was stabilized, which surprised the enemy. We’re at a point where Turkey was the only one left in the battle front against the Syrian state. Now, it is seeking, in one way or another, to mend the relationship with the Syrian state and leadership. This in itself is a research.

In Yemen, equations were establishment and imposed. They are in a position of power now. More lands have been liberated. The forces of aggression retreated.

Brothers and sisters, on the third anniversary of the martyrdom of these two great leaders, I tell you that the office of Hajj Qassem Soleimani is continuing with strength through the new leadership of the Quds Force and the patronage of His Eminence the Leader.

The trust that martyr Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis left behind in Iraq is being preserved by the leaders and members of the Hashd Al-Shaabi.

The Hashd is increasing in strength, number, and experience, and the Iraqi popular embrace as a real guarantee for the state, security, stability, and independence in Iraq is also intensifying.

With the blessings of all these sacrifices and pure blood, none of Trump's goals were achieved. Yes, Hajj Qassem had a goal that was achieved on such a night, and Abu Mahdi had a goal of meeting God, His prophets, and messengers and joining them that year.

Today, we have in our hands this great legacy that this pure blood left behind – the axis of resistance. We must strongly preserve it and take care of it. We must also take care of its intertwining, interdependence, and cohesion and on strengthening it.

In this context, the last meeting of the Palestinian resistance factions, including Hamas, with Mr. President Bashar al-Assad in Syria was to complete this cohesion and interdependence. We no longer have a place in which there is a vacuum. Today, this axis stands in a position of strength.

The third version:

Of course, this is where the third version begins. It is related to the economy, the living conditions, the blockade, and sanctions. This alone needs a separate address, but what I would like to emphasize is that we must look at it as part of the battle.

In the remaining time and based on all of the above, I want to conclude with two titles.

The first title is sending a message to the new “Israeli” government, and the second title is related to the presidential elections and the political file in Lebanon.

The new “Israeli” government:

1- Of course, we have tested this new government many years ago. This is to say if someone wanted to scare us with Netanyahu or any new war minister. No, they’ve all been tried and tested in the past.

Yes, what is new is that there is a government that is a mixture of corrupt people, some of whom were tried and imprisoned on charges of corruption. There are also madmen and extremists. This is what’s new.

Hence, we are facing a government of corrupt people, criminals, and extremists. Of course, this government does not frighten us, nor did these governments ever frighten us at all.

Rather, one can be optimistic – contrary to everything they are talking about. When a government made up of corrupt and insane people, this will, God willing, hasten the end of this temporary entity.

Those madmen, including their Minister of National Security, who stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque early this morning, making up this administration, God willing, will hasten the end of the Zionist entity.

We’ve spoken a lot about the internal threats to the “Israeli” entity, including sharp divisions, lack of confidence in the political leadership, the military leadership, and the religious leaders, the victory of corruption, etc. There is also talk about the existential crisis – will “Israel” still exist after 80 years or not.

God willing, the new “Israeli” government and these crazy madmen will hasten the end of this entity by committing mistakes and foolishness that may lead them to the abyss.

This is how we see the scenes. We are not looking at anything frightening. On the contrary, we see great hope in this misfortune. This is first.

2- The primary concern of these madmen and extremists is internal in Palestine, the issue of settlements in the West Bank, the issue of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the issue of Al-Quds.

What happened today and the Palestinian positions as well as many Arab, Islamic, and international positions confirm that they are pushing towards a dangerous situation.

Tonight, I want to add the voice of the resistance in Lebanon to the voice of all the resistance factions in Palestine and say:
The attack on Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Islamic and Christian sanctities in Palestine and in Al-Quds in particular by these Zionists will not only blow up the situation inside Palestine but may also blow up the entire region.

Our people will not tolerate this level of attack by these madmen against Islamic and Christian sanctities. We have said this before, and we confirm it again.

We tell all the countries in the world and to the sponsors of this usurping entity: If you do not want a second war in the region amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, then you must rein in these insane extremists.

Regarding the rules of engagement with the new government, I said that Netanyahu is nothing new.

However, with the beginning of a new government, we tell them:

We are wide-awake, present, and alert, and we will not allow any changes in the rules of engagement and the balance of deterrence with Lebanon in any way, shape, or form.

Therefore, no one should make a mistake, think, or be delusional. In any case, they saw us a few months ago how far we were willing to go in the battle of the maritime borders, oil, and gas. We were willing to engage in confrontation with the enemy.

They certainly knew that we were ready and present. Therefore, we will not tolerate any change in the rules of engagement or any prejudice to the status quo of protection for Lebanon, its capabilities, security, and sovereignty.

I also stress the importance of the continued responsibility of the Lebanese state in the issue of oil and gas extraction. There were fears among some that when Netanyahu comes, he will cancel [the deal]. He announced his commitment to this understanding. The indications by the concerned companies call for optimism, so from this angle we are not concerned. In fact, when it comes to this government, we should look more to the inside occupied Palestine, to Al-Quds, the West Bank, and first and foremost Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The Lebanese presidential elections:

I’ve taken up a lot of your time but allow me to speak for a few minutes. In my most recent speech, I spoke about the presidential elections. I brought the text with me, but I’ve memorized it. I said that we have the right to elect a president. I was clear.

1- I said we do not want a president who defends the resistance or protects it or protects the back of the resistance. I even used this expression. It is our natural right to demand a president who does not stab the resistance in the back.

Look, for example, at the misery of politics in Lebanon. Although I said this on television and was reported by several channels, published by newspapers, and not leaked from a session, yet most of those who commented later said that Hezbollah wanted a president who would protect the back of the resistance.

Therefore, some theorized that we do not want a president who protects Lebanon, etc.

I never said that, and the text is right here. We do not want a president that provides cover for the resistance. We do not want a president who protects the resistance. The resistance in Lebanon does not need a cover and protection. This text was brought by the boys from the recording.
What we want is a president who does not stab the resistance in the back, does not conspire against it, and does not sell it. This is our natural right. The right of the supporters of the resistance in all its factions is to have a president with these qualities, at the very least.

They said that the party only wants a president who protects the back of the resistance. No! At that time, I said that this is a prerequisite. Of course, other qualities are also required.

Many [presidents] may not challenge the resistance, but they do not have the competence, personal ability, and personal decency to assume the position of president.

I did not mention qualities in that speech. After that, the brothers set the qualities. After all, there are natural qualities required in for an individual to be the president. I wanted to add this quality above the natural qualities.

Therefore, no, we are not looking for a president who will protect the back of the resistance. We are very humble in this goal.

I said that a large segment of the Lebanese people have the right, just as there are segments of the Lebanese people who have the right to demand a president with certain qualities.

This is our natural right, and it is our right to adhere to this quality. We are not calling for this quality to cause debates. On the contrary, this is a natural matter. A president who does not backstab the resistance will not take the country into a civil war.

A president who does not backstab the resistance means a president who wants reconciliation and dialogue in this country. A president who does not backstab the resistance means a president who helps protect Lebanon in the face of “Israeli” threats and dangers. This is a national interest and not ours as a resistance.

We are not afraid of being stabbed by anyone. We are afraid for the country and the people, and we are not afraid for ourselves. This is one part of the presidency.

2- During all this period, we have read and heard many who say that the presidential elections are postponed pending the results of the US-Iranian nuclear negotiations. It’s the same broken record.

We’re exhausted of telling the Lebanese people, the politicians, the decision-makers, and writers in Lebanon that this is a misconception. It is incorrect.

I’ll tell you this. Regardless of whether there are negotiations or not – indirect negotiations since there are no direct negotiations – or whether these negotiations reach a conclusion or not, the negotiations are only on the nuclear file. From the first day of the Iranian nuclear negotiations until the last day, the Islamic Republic is negotiating only on the nuclear file, and that’s it.

We have said this a thousand times, and this has been proven in the past years. The Americans are trying to bring other files into the negotiations. They are talk about the region's files, missiles, and drones. Now, they want to talk about the position on the Russia-Ukraine war. They are adding other files.

As for the Iranians, they are only discussing the nuclear file. That’s it.

Whoever is waiting for the nuclear negotiations between Iran and America, is not only going to wait for a month, two, and a year. They will be waiting for dozens of years. Should we remain without a president then?

This is a false, insufficient, and ignorant understanding. Do you remember the issue of Karish? Many in Lebanon, including politicians, media figures, individuals, and experts made their analyses.

They said that the outcome of the negotiations on the maritime borders and the issue of oil and gas in the territorial waters are linked to the results of the nuclear negotiations. If the [nuclear] negotiations succeed, then these negotiations will too. If not, then these negotiations will fail. If they stop, these will stop as well.

But I said at that time that this has nothing to do with that, and only time will tell. Eventually, an understanding on the maritime borders, oil, and gas was reached, while the nuclear negotiations faltered. There is no relationship between the two matters.

3- Also, to those who are waiting for a Saudi-Iranian agreement, you will be waiting for a long time.

This means that you should sort out your affairs as if there is no president if you are waiting for a Saudi-Iranian agreement for two reasons.

1- The first reason is similar to the aforementioned one. Iran does not discuss the presidential elections in Lebanon with anyone, and it does not interfere in Lebanese affairs or in the internal affairs of any country.

For 40 years, Iran has never interfered in Lebanese internal affairs, electing a president or a prime minister, setting the electoral law, or the formation of the government.

All those who used to consult Iran during the past decades in any of these matters used to say that this is a Lebanese matter. Talk to our friends in Lebanon, and you’ll hear the same answer. This is what our Iranian brothers informed me of and said, “Some countries are calling us and will call us. We will tell everyone, as usual, that this is a Lebanese matter, so talk to our friends in Lebanon.”

2- Secondly, even if the Iranians meet with the Saudis, the Saudis' priority is not Lebanon but Yemen, although Iran will not interfere in the Yemeni issue. If the Saudis want to solve the Yemen issue, they must talk to the Yemenis. They must talk with Sayyed Abdul Malik, with Ansarullah, and with Yemen’s Supreme Political Council. Anyway, what are you waiting for?

I tell the Lebanese, who agree with us on the importance of electing a president – since the president, his position, and stature are very important in our political system and since he is the gateway to reshaping the state, the government, etc. – that we must return to each other. As long as we engage in internal bilateral and tripartite dialogue.

We believe that some of the bilateral meetings that took place in the past few weeks are good and required, and we support that.

Some Lebanese see these meetings as games and a political plots, but we don’t. On the contrary, this is what we hope for, for bilateral and tripartite meetings and dialogues to take place since it is not yet possible for an inclusive dialogue to take place in the manner called for by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

There must be more dialogues and meetings. I tell you, do not wait for the outside. A lot of what is written in the media, even about a French role or a Qatari role, are exaggerated. That is according to our information. The basis is here.

We all must agree that time is pressing. The country’s circumstances today are different. The economic situation, the situation of the lira, the status of people’s salaries, the public sector, the high prices, the internal conditions, the disruption of state institutions, all of these put pressure on everyone.

Usually in Lebanon they tell you, let us try inside. When we get tired, the outside comes to pressure us or help us. Until now, it does not appear that there is someone from the outside.

It is not known what this outside can do, and it is not known whether this outside is actually capable of pressuring its allies and bringing matters to a conclusion.

Last time, following two years and a half of delays, the treatment turned out to be internally – an internal settlement that obtained external support or silence.

If we were waiting for the outside world at that stage, i.e., electing His Excellency President General Michel Aoun as President of the Republic, we would still be in a state of stagnation.

However, today the situation is more difficult. Therefore, the responsibility of the political leaders and the parliamentary blocs today is greater than ever.

In this context, let me just comment on the following matter. This is the first time I am talking about it in the media after the problem or the disagreement between Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement.

Of course, my brothers spoke about this issue. Hezbollah issued a statement. We are keen on addressing it through communication. Of course, there will be meetings soon. It is worth discussing and worth an internal evaluation. I confirm that we are keen on the relationship.

When discussing this issue, one of our brothers in Hezbollah’s Shura reminded us of something beautiful. He said, “We are like our Prophet (PBUH). Some narrations talked about his high qualities. One of which is when he used to shake hands with somebody, he’d never initiate to pull his hand. He’d wait for the other person to pull his hand, then he [the Prophet] would pull his.” This is found in the narrations that highlight the Prophet’s demeanor.

In politics, too, we follow this demeanor. If we place our hand in someone's hand, we do not initiate to pull it. If the other party wanted to pull their hand, we do not oblige anyone to keep it. We do not force an alliance, friendship, or understanding onto anyone.

Whenever misunderstandings took place at any stage, I used to tell the head of the FPM, our friend Minister Gebran Bassil, in internal meetings, “at any time you feel embarrassed, distressed, or burdened or find that continuing with this relationship or understanding is not in your best interest anymore and has become a burden on you and an embarrassment for you, rest assure. We will not be annoyed. We can work out another formula, in which we continue to be friends and cooperate.” This is what we used to always say.

Of course, our main observation is that this is how we’ve always been with all our allies and friends. Some of our allies and friends criticize us in public, but we do not criticize them. They engage in discussions us in public, but we do not do so, except rarely. I am saying ‘rarely’ just to be on the safe side.

But often, with our allies and friends, we prefer internal discussion. Even if we criticized them publicly, we are careful about the literature and language that we use.
There is no doubt that something went wrong between us in politics and in the media. God willing, we will deal with this matter. Many have been betting on and waiting for – some since February 2006 – the fall of this understanding, the breakup of this alliance, and the end of this friendship. However, it withstood all these years very difficult circumstances.

Today, the Lebanese are in dire need of more friendships, more understandings, and more alliances and meetings. Whatever the difficulties, misunderstandings, or problems, they can be addressed through direct communication and from a position of care and responsibility.

Anyway, the Lebanese are creative. They can create solutions that no one might think of.

In any case, I would like to emphasize our keenness to preserve this relationship and address any flaw that occurred there or with any ally or friend.

Let the Lebanese people know that we, like the Messenger of God, will not pull our hand before the hand of our friend or ally, and we are keen on this relationship.

I’ve already taken up too much of your time, but the nature of the occasion and my month and a half-long absence from you forced me to speak longer.

In the end, I tell you, of course, we are in facing challenges. We are in a situation where the confrontation is difficult. This is the third version [of the American project] that has to do with the economic and living situation.

In a few days, I will be delivering another address. God willing, I will talk about this subject – the school of Hajj Qassem Soleimani and martyr Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis.
With your presence, support, love, sacrifices and patience, this axis, God willing, with its strength, determination, will, and steadfastness will march towards victory.

The blood of the two martyr leaders launched a new qualitative historical phase in the history of the conflict in our region that will lead to final victory, God willing.

May God reward you greatly. May God grant you wellness and accept your deeds. May God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you.