With the fall of the Syrian government to armed groups, many questions and ambiguities arose. The enemies of the resistance axis, who had been continuously and heavily engaged in psychological and media operations against Iran's presence in Syria for years, saw the new space as an opportunity to enter a new phase of these psychological and media operations and widely raised various doubts and lies about the resistance axis, Iran's presence in Syria, the reasons of this fall, and other similar issues.
The Khamenei news has interviewed Dr. Ali Akbar Ahmadian, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, to examine the file of Iran's advisory presence in Syria in more detail.
The logic of presence and its prerequisites, the reasons for reducing Iran's presence in post-DAESH Syria, the differences between DAESH and the armed groups ruling Syria, how Iran dealt with these armed groups in the past and the type of attention to them, the reasons why Iran didn’t intervene militarily in recent events in Syria, and finally the impact of these events on the resistance axis and support for it are among the issues that have been discussed in this detailed conversation, and you can read a selection of it in this article from Pars Today:
What is the theoretical basis of the Islamic Republic's view, and consequently, the security apparatus of the country - all of which converge at the Secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council - on the issue of "national security"?
In our view, the people are the pillar of national security. The Islamic Revolution won with the people, was created with the people, and remained with the people. All the theories that are raised around the issue of "national security" are under the pillar of the people. When I say "people", I mean all the people; Because all the people made the revolution.
This view is also rooted in the theoretical foundations and practical positions of the Leader of the Revolution. It was just a few years ago that the Leader stated the Islamic Republic has no meaning without the people and is nothing without the people. In the words of the Leader, "religious popular rule" means that according to Islam, the "people" are the ruler of society and their affairs.
Regarding Syria, if there are some discussions about this matter, the issue is that we did not bring the Syrian government to power. The government of the Assad family was before us, it was strong and due to the great and commendable commonality in not compromising with the Zionist regime and resistance in the face of the United States and Israel, we had mutual interactions and support.
In the past decade, with the intensification of the growth of terrorist groups in the region, the Islamic Republic of Iran took action to have direct military or advisory presence outside the country's official borders to carry out anti-terrorist military operations. Iran's military and advisory presence is, of course, subject to specific principles and rules. What are these principles?
The first principle is to defend the country, people, and national interests against foreigners.
Another important principle is that it has not been the initiator of aggression against any entity.
The third principle is non-interference in the affairs of other countries. The Islamic Revolution, with all its idealistic slogans and sometimes having a global aspect, has not interfered in any country due to those ideals or even due to national interests, unless with three conditions:
First, the official government there must have made a formal request. We had a formal request from the governments of Syria and Iraq to be present.
Second, there is no confrontation with the people. Whoever invites us to go there today, for example, in their favor, to confront the people there, we will certainly not do such a thing, and this is one of the principles that is observed.
Third, there is a definite interest or ideal. There, we must have a definite national interest or a decisive ideal; For example, "defending the oppressed", which is one of our ideals and principles. If a nation is subjected to oppression and the other two conditions I mentioned exist, there is no reason for us not to enter, because a religious and human duty falls on our shoulders.
The military and security relations between Iran and Syria are not limited to the past decade. What is the philosophy of these relations, and what is the reason for Iran's presence in Syria and then the reason for reducing Iran's military presence?
The ruling system in Syria was like the rest of the Arab systems in the region. The positive and distinctive aspect of the Assad family was that, fairly, they did not back down from the issue of resistance against Israel and defending the rights of the Palestinian people, despite all the international, regional, friendly, and enemy pressures.
If they had given in a little, they would not have faced any of these incidents, and therefore, everything that happened was the price of that resistance. However, while the regime is anti-Zionist, undesirable behaviors are observed within certain parts of the Syrian government system towards its people, which have created a rift between the government and a portion of the Syrian population.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been advising and trying to guide Syria towards social and popular convergence since Hafez al-Assad.
Later, a third phenomenon emerged, which was the emergence of DAESH; The DAESH sedition. We must distinguish the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran during the DAESH period from the period before that. Yes, we decisively entered the war against DAESH, just as we fought against DAESH in Syria and Iraq.
But what characteristics did DAESH have that led us to this conclusion?
Firstly, DAESH was a service-made current. We were aware and knew that they were released from which prison, who worked with them, where they were taken, how they were made, and what kind of legitimate face they were given. In the early stages, DAESH tried to present a legitimate image of itself and aimed to mimic the entire Islamic Revolution movement. Therefore, DAESH did not have any authentic identity of its own.
Secondly, DAESH lacked a homeland; the very important point here was that DAESH did not belong to any specific territory. There was no place that could be said to be their country.
Thirdly, they considered all territories as their own; they viewed the lands of others as their property and regarded other Islamic countries and regional states as belonging to them. Therefore, they were in opposition to all the countries in the region, including Iran.
Fourthly, they held a takfiri ideology towards all Islamic sects. The foundation of DAESH was built on takfir, not just against Shias but against all those who were not part of their own group.
Fifthly, they engaged in mass killings of civilians. DAESH was a terrorist organization by any standard; their primary tactic was terrorism, just as it remains to this day.
Our security apparatus is constantly arresting various teams that are sent into the country, and a permanent and hidden war is going on; Sometimes, for example, they arrest twenty groups of them in the country.
Regarding other opposition groups — which, in the cases of Aleppo, Damascus, Eastern and Western Ghouta, Daraa, and Sweida in the south, were primarily these opposition factions — the Islamic Republic of Iran tried to mediate between the government and them. Of course, if we were attacked, we would defend ourselves.
However, it was never our intention to eradicate them like we did with DAESH. Even when they were besieged and it was decided that they would be evacuated, we ensured their security.
Furthermore, in all political agreements, we supported the idea that they should have a place for themselves, where they could settle, a de-escalation zone where no one would confront them.
There are analyses that various groups in northwestern Syria had movements before the recent assault. Did Iran not provide intelligence to Syria about these movements?
This activity was repeatedly communicated to the Syrian government. They themselves also had decent intelligence capabilities and were aware of it. However, there were two key points. First, the Syrian government and military did not believe that these groups could launch a major operation. Second, they were relying on their own army and security apparatus.
Another important point is that after the end of the DAESH regime, we had withdrawn our forces with the consent of the Syrian government and did not have an operational presence in the region.
Some hostile media outlets try to convey the message that Iran's presence and costs in Syria in the past have been in vain. What is your opinion on this claim?
We have no regret about the costs we've made.
The goal of destroying DAESH was achieved, and it was a significant accomplishment that completely disrupted the American plan and rendered their years of investment fruitless. Some may not be aware of the details, but they truly built an army! As they themselves said, they were creating a state and society in opposition to the Islamic Revolution, believing they had wrapped up the issue. With the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this plan was thwarted, and this alone is a sufficient achievement for the cost of that involvement.
In addition, we were ultimately able to strengthen Palestine and Hezbollah, empowering them in such a way that they no longer rely on us.
Regarding Gaza, you see that inside the tunnel, for example, they are producing rockets and missiles for themselves. Hezbollah, which has a wider territory, is certainly more powerful and better equipped in this regard. Hezbollah gained political power, cultural power. You see that today, despite all the destruction, what reception Hezbollah gains in Lebanon! The people who have suffered heavy blows to their lives are all returning under the flag of Hezbollah. These are the blessings and the strategic and cultural depth of the Islamic Revolution.
No one can eliminate Hamas, Jihad, and Hezbollah, no one can eliminate Ansarullah. They have become part of the people; people who have become equipped and mature, and have the knowledge and technology to build the necessary equipment to defend themselves.
It seems that with the current situation, supporting the resistance will become more difficult; isn't that so?
Yes, it will become more difficult. However, in many phases, our work has become more difficult, and in some phases, it has become easier; this is a natural issue, and it has always been the case. But the first point is that Hezbollah, Hamas, and Jihad are no longer dependent on our direct and physical support.
Look! Did we have direct communication with Hamas in Gaza during this time? Never. The Israeli checkpoints and their allies always controlled the situation. Do we have direct territorial contact with Yemen now? Even its sea routes are blockaded. Yet, the people of Yemen do something new every day and build missiles with a range of 1,000 kilometers!
This is also one of the blessings and honors of the Islamic Revolution, which, based on divine beliefs, empowers the people of any country it enters, helping them grow, mature, and gain dignity, not like the Pharaoh-like approach, which seeks to make them dependent and weak.
Pharaoh was like this: “So he [Pharaoh] abased his people and they obeyed him.”; he weakened and degraded his people to make them obey him, just as the United States does with its satellite states today. But the Islamic Revolution, like Prophet Moses and other divine prophets, helps others grow and develop.
Before our involvement, how many years was Syria allied with the former Soviet Union? It was a long period, but even then, they hadn't given Syria the technology to build a single tank part, so they couldn't produce it on their own! However, thanks to the connection with the Islamic Revolution, they became capable of manufacturing missiles. In any case, resistance is not dependent on us for its survival. Moreover, Iran's relationship with the resistance and Hezbollah will never be severed.
From a strategic perspective, who has been defeated? Look at the situation of the Zionist regime 400-500 days after the Operation al-Aqsa Storm. The fake Israeli regime which was portrayed as an official government in the world, has become an occupying, genocidal, and apartheid regime, and its prime minister is under prosecution. On the other hand, the Palestinian people have been recognized as the original inhabitants of this land and as a liberation movement fighting against occupation. Global public opinion and even many official institutions have been forced to defend the fact that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and that Israel has been occupying it for 70 years.
The reality is that Israel is desperate today, and despite all its actions, it has no security, no legitimacy, and its internal conflicts have increased sharply, and its economic situation is bad. Some Westerners say that these children in Gaza and Lebanon will either become Yahya Sinwar or Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah. Therefore, the general movement is the victory of the resistance front and the Islamic Revolution, the empowerment of the Islamic Revolution, and the weakness and humiliation of Israel.
With these interpretations of the strength and reinforcement of the resistance front, does this mean that the main reliance of the Islamic Republic in its fight against the Israeli regime is on empowering the people, the Islamic world, and the Resistance in order to combat this regime, rather than solely relying on military confrontation?
Yes, that's right. The Palestinian people must have the power to defend themselves.
Israel, by its
nature and essence, has the necessary and sufficient potential for
collapse. Israel does not have the potential to survive, because it is
fake. Today, everyone rejects Israel, and everyone in the world confirms
Israel's illegitimacy and the legitimacy of Palestine. Israel has lost
its fake legitimacy and acceptability, and the reality of its
occupation, genocide, and apartheid has become apparent. The general
trend is this.
/129