Statements in Meeting with Thousands of Students from Across the Country

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Thanks be to God, the Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon our master, Abu al-Qasim al-Mustafa Muhammad, and upon his pure and chosen progeny, especially the Awaited One among the inhabitants of the earth.

This was a very good session. The statements of our dear youth lead me to conclude that the level of thought, analysis, and understanding among the student body is on the rise; that is to say, this year I heard remarks that are of a higher level than those I heard in previous years — for example, last year. This in itself is a hopeful and promising matter; it indicates that the youth of the country and the students are moving forward. Sometimes we are in motion but do not notice our own movement; however, movement is indeed taking place; this is the case now. Fortunately, the prevailing thought in the student environment is one that is maturing and becoming more comprehensive.

Of course, this does not mean that I agree with everything that was said here; I may disagree with some points. For instance, one of the brothers mentioned that those who hold power, such as security and military elements, do not fulfill their duties in critical moments against the Zionist regime and instead become statement writers! This is not correct; no, those who are supposed to act have acted in due time. If the action you expect to be taken is not taken, pursue and investigate — although in some cases it may not be investigable because many of these matters are secret — and you will see that it is justified; that is, the action taken or not taken is completely justifiable.

Regarding the youth, it was said that I have given up on relying on the youth; no, my hope rests solely on you young people. I believe in relying on the youth, but there are many conditions that must be considered — I may refer to this in today’s talk — and the fundamental condition is that you must remain steadfast in your positions, practice ‘istiqamah’ (steadfastness); it should not be that you reach an analysis, make a judgment that is revolutionary, correct, and accepted, and then, due to even a small obstacle or a doubt, you abandon that foundation and become indifferent. Be careful to maintain this spirit, this feeling, this enthusiasm, and this analysis.

I urge the esteemed officials of the Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Health to seriously pay attention to these remarks; even the writings of these brothers and sisters — which contained grievances — should be taken, read, and considered; some of their points are completely correct. We, of course, will certainly take them into account as far as it pertains to us.

I have organized my remarks today into three sections: a brief word about the month of Ramadan and fasting; a discussion about the issue of students, your issue; and another discussion regarding some current political matters that are on everyone’s lips, which I will briefly address.

Of course, let us say that since last year when this session was held until now, various events have occurred; last year we had a different situation. Last year, on a day like today when we had a session with you students, Martyr Raisi was alive, Martyr Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah (may God’s mercy be upon him) was with us, Martyr Haniyeh, Martyr Safi al-Din, Martyr Sinwar, Martyr Dayf, and several prominent revolutionary figures were present among us or beside us, who are not here this year. The incomplete, unsupported, and superficial view from the enemies and opponents of the Islamic Republic leads to a mistaken interpretation of this event. I want to assure you, in contrast to their words, that yes, these brothers were very valuable, and their absence is indeed a loss for us; there is no doubt about that. However, this year, compared to last year on this same day, we are stronger in some matters; we are not weaker in some matters, and if we are not stronger, we are certainly not weaker. This year, thanks be to God, we have various strengths and capabilities that we did not have last year. Therefore, yes, the absence of these dear ones is a loss; the events that have occurred in the region of West Asia are bitter and painful events, but the Islamic Republic, thanks be to God, continues to grow, advance, and increase its power.

In the third year of migration, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lost someone like Hamzah; in the Battle of Uhud, Hamzah left the Prophet’s side. It was not only Hamzah; he was the most prominent among them, but other brave companions also fell. This was in the third year of migration. In the fourth and fifth years of migration, the Prophet was much stronger than in the third year; that is, losing prominent figures does not mean a retreat, regression, or weakening, provided that two factors exist: one is ‘idealism’ and the other is ‘effort’; idealism and effort. If these two factors exist in a nation, the presence or absence of personalities is a loss, but it does not strike a blow to the overall movement.

Now, regarding the month of Ramadan. God the Exalted says: "O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may attain piety"; (2) according to this verse, the goal of fasting is piety. What is piety? Piety comes from the root ‘waqayah’ (protection). Waqayah means preservation. Piety is the means of preservation, the element that provides security; this is piety. Piety protects a person; from what? From evils, from temptations, from ill thoughts, from malice, from betrayals, from immorality, from lust, from neglecting duties, from abandoning obligatory actions; this is piety; this is very important. Fasting gives you a small example, a small manifestation of this state; that is, you are hungry, there is food, you are thirsty, there is water, but you do not eat and do not drink; that is, you exercise self-restraint; this is the same piety, but for a few hours of the day and regarding a few limited matters; this state should become general in our lives, and we should become pious.

Throughout the Quran, the effects of piety are numerous, but now I will mention two of these effects. First: "And whoever fears Allah — He will make for him a way out * And will provide for him from where he does not expect"; (4) if piety is achieved, it creates openings, ‘worldly openings’. Piety creates worldly openings; that is, it affects the economy, it affects security; this is how piety works. A community that is pious will have openings created for it; this piety creates openings for it. Second: "Guidance for the God-fearing"; (5) the Quran is guidance for the pious; ‘divine guidance’. This is not a small matter; the most important thing is this. Do we not want to reach salvation and success? Well, there is a goal; we want to reach this goal; someone must guide us, assist us; it is God. God assists; when? When we observe piety. Therefore, make fasting a means to strengthen piety within yourselves; this is the essence of the matter. Today, both of these results, that is, both openings and guidance, have practical significance for us. We need both openings and divine guidance.

Well, how do we attain piety? In this regard, there have been discussions, solutions have been proposed, and what I want to say in one sentence is that piety is in our own hands; it requires our determination and will; we must be determined. Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified) in one of his ethical books — perhaps ‘Forty Hadith’ or ‘Secrets of Prayer’ — repeatedly addresses a reader who wants to advance on the path of monotheism and says: "Make a resolute decision, make a firm decision"; (6) with your decision, with your consideration, with your vigilance, piety is achieved. The young person who preserves himself in a highly attractive situation for the youth but is forbidden, this act strengthens his piety and increases that state of protection, that self-restraint. This is the discussion about the month of Ramadan.

Now, regarding the students; the remarks you made about student issues and the hope that exists for student movements in the hearts of those who believe in universities are completely correct, and I affirm all of these. I have noted a brief point here — if I can, God willing, express it briefly today — and that is the issue of ‘student identity’. You see, over the two centuries since Western civilization entered our country and interacted with us and dealt with Westerners and Western civilization, the Iranian youth has had two different experiences in confronting Western civilization: one experience is his first experience, the result of which is infatuation and self-abandonment; the other experience is his subsequent experience, the result of which is awareness, selective confrontation, and a sense of independence, and in some cases, a complete feeling of separation and distance. Let me briefly explain these two confrontations.

In the first confrontation, the first encounter, when he dealt with Westerners, with Western elements, with some symbols of the West, the Iranian youth — the discussion is about youth; I am speaking about the youth; the feelings of other classes of people are somewhat similar to those of the youth; I want to speak about the youth now — in that first encounter, when he faced the West, a preconception arose for him, a definite perception emerged, which was the duality of ‘advanced West and backward, weak Iran’; ‘successful West and degenerate Iran’; this became established for him. When the Iranian youth observed himself in the face of Western advancements, Western science, and Western technology, he felt that he was backward, degenerate, and incapable; they are advanced, and he must follow them, he must set out after them.

Well, the reality was indeed that Iran a hundred years ago was truly much further behind than the West a hundred years ago. Now, the reasons and causes for this are detailed, and today’s discussion is not the place for them, but this reality existed. However, an important point exists here: if you look at the other side — for example, look at the West — and see its strengths, if these strengths make you aware of your own weaknesses and lead you to think, this is good. One should look to see what they did, what we should do; for example, they achieved scientific advancement, we too must achieve practical advancement; if this happens, it is good, but this did not happen. The view of the West as a successful entity caused us to forget our own strengths! We had strengths; the Iranian nation had strengths: it had faith, purity, brotherhood, family, loyalty, modesty; these are our strengths. We neglected these, the youth of that day neglected these; they neglected themselves, and some individuals either emerged or were present in the country who intensified this neglect; that is, instead of reaching self-awareness, they reached self-abandonment and spread this understanding among the general public that if you want to reach somewhere, your life, your knowledge, your abilities must reach the level you observe in the West, you must become like them in all matters, you must become Westernized; you cannot reach anywhere by relying on your own authenticity! This is the famous statement of Taghizadeh (7) who said that from head to toe, one must become Westernized; clothing must become Western, ethics must become Western, life behaviors must become Western, everything must become Western in order for us to reach them.

At that time, the important thing is that imitation of the West occurred in these moral and ethical traits and intellectual matters, but in the fundamental issues that the West relied upon, nothing happened. Yes, a university was formed, but no distinguished human being, no invention, no new work, no scientific advancement emerged from that university during the reign of Reza Khan. The Westerners also reinforced this; they also strengthened this feeling, this belief that one must follow the West, submit to the West, and dissolve and integrate into the material civilization of the West among the people, they promoted it, established it, and implemented it in our economy, in our various issues, in our social matters. The banner of support for the West was actually taken up by these individuals.

Reza Khan was the embodiment of destructive Westernism; destructive Westernism; that is, they actually placed everything in the hands of the Westerners, and the result was that the country became hollow from within. Therefore, when after twenty years the same British once again removed Reza Khan from power and took him away, our country had neither a national army, nor a national economy, nor national security, nor a national internal policy, nor a national foreign policy, nor even a national dress! They summarized the country’s advancement in changing clothing, in wearing a certain type of hat, in these things. This is how they confronted the West. It is reported from one of these officials, the political figures of the Qajar and Pahlavi periods, that he said that the gaze was towards the boulevards of Western cities, not towards the laboratories, not towards the libraries; this was the type of approach.

Of course, those intellectual figures, such as Taghizadeh, Foroughi, and Hakim, are the greatest culprits of that period, and they kept our country backward for decades. Be aware, certainly, if a group of caring and interested individuals had existed instead of them, they could have advanced the country. They kept the country backward. This is the first approach and perception regarding the West.

The second experience — which I think is important; it has brought us to this point — gradually emerged for the people through the bitter events. The oppressive and unjust actions of the Westerners in our country; the occupation of some parts of the country by the British and Tsarist Russians, who were also part of the West at that time; then, of course, the Soviets occupied parts of Iran; the consequences of these dominations; they gained control in the north, in the south, in the east of the country, occupied places, suppressed, and caused famine. Thousands of people — now the exact number is not available to us, but some say several million [people] — died from the famine that the Westerners caused in the country; due to the famine they created. They suppressed internal movements; in Tabriz in one way, in Mashhad in another way, in Gilan in another way; and various betrayals: the Vosoogh al-Dowleh agreement (8), the extension of the Darsee oil contract (9) by Reza Shah and others. These actions gradually made intelligent individuals and the masses, especially the youth, aware of the true nature of the Westerners; that is, it became clear that beyond this polished, sometimes smiling exterior, there exists a wicked essence, a treacherous essence; they felt this. Gradually, the enthusiasm and infatuation with Western civilization diminished among many of the masses and the youth.

The national oil movement in 1929 and 1930 was certainly a significant turning point; it was a historic moment that could reveal the true nature of the Westerners to us; the entirety of the West, the essence of the entirety of the West was clarified for the Iranian people through this movement, with its precedents, consequences, and repercussions. Mossadegh, in his struggle against the British regarding oil, relied on and hoped for America; openly, he was explicitly hopeful that America would support him against the British, but the blow was dealt to Mossadegh by America; that is, the same America that Mossadegh hoped would help him, that America staged a coup. Kim Roosevelt, the famous coup plotter who came and orchestrated the coup of August 28, was an American; with American money, with American resources, they staged this coup and enslaved the country for several more decades.

Well, these events yielded a result; that result was that for progress, reliance on the West is not only unhelpful but also obstructive; that is, reliance on the West not only does not lead us to progress but also hinders progress. It became clear that in Iran, any phenomenon that conflicts with the greed of the West, with the interests of the West, they ruthlessly confront it; either they confront it directly, as they did on August 28, when they staged a coup; or they confront it indirectly, that is, through their puppet government, like on June 15, 1963; there too, they confronted, massacred, but at the hands of Mohammad Reza.

Well, this state, that is, the recognition of the essence of Western material civilization for the Iranian nation, for the Iranian youth, led to reactions beginning; some individuals stood firm. The coup occurred in August, and in December of the same year, (10) at Tehran University, some young students rose up against the arrival of Nixon, who was the Vice President of the United States at that time, stood firm, and three students were killed by the agents of the government; that is, they lost their lives. From that day, it began. Of course, the university has played a significant role in many great events; keep this in mind. Yes, today’s university is very different from the university before the revolution and even from the university twenty years ago; today’s university is ahead, its progress is greater, its understanding of various complex issues is deeper, and its resistance is also good. Contrary to what is advertised and sometimes said that the new generation of students and Iranian youth is not as prepared as the generation of the 60s, this is not the case; this preparedness exists today as well. We have observed this in various events, and we are currently witnessing the preparedness of the Iranian youth to be present in the front lines; they are ready to confront the enemy, they are prepared; their understanding of issues is better, and their readiness is, thanks be to God, very good.

Of course, that deviant line was not cut off by this action; that line continued; that line until the start of the revolution explicitly influenced various aspects of people’s lives; that is, if the revolution had not occurred in 1979, the movement of the country, the movement of the government officials of that day and the cultural officials of that day was such that it would have deprived the country of all its moral and ethical advantages and its spiritual wealth; that is, dependency — both material dependency and spiritual dependency — on the outside, on America, on various other countries would have increased day by day, and their hands would have been freer in looting; the revolution saved the Iranian people, saved the country, and was able to halt this assault. They continued until the revolution.

I place great importance on this: the great art of Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified) was that he first spoke to the ‘nation’, not to a specific class, not to a party or a specific group; he spoke to the Iranian nation, gave identity to the nation, demanded and expressed expectations from the nation; he brought the nation into the field, engaged them; this was the great art of the Imam. In none of the past events has this great national movement occurred with the invitation of someone like the Imam — who, of course, we had no one like the Imam.

This was how he gave the nation a sense of identity, expected them to participate, trusted them, reminded them of the cultural and historical identity of the nation, and awakened us all from negligence. We were not aware of our own capabilities; the Imam made us aware of our capabilities, of our pursuits, brought us into the field, brought the nation into the field, and truly struggled in this endeavor; God the Exalted also blessed it. The nation was not intimidated, they were not cowed; the Imam removed the feeling of intimidation from the nation. Well, this is the general state of the second approach among mainly the youth of our country towards the presence of the West and the material civilization of the West in the country, which we have spoken about extensively.

However, the bullies of the world do not relent; what is important is this. The bullies of the world, those who for many years did whatever they wanted in Iran, brought fifty thousand military and non-military advisors here, took whatever they wanted from the country’s resources, imposed whatever they wanted: "To whom should you sell oil, to whom should you not sell oil, with whom should you have relations, with whom should you not have relations, who should be brought to power as prime minister, who should not be brought, how to deal with the clergy, how to deal with the university" — for many years, they lived in this country in this manner — their hands have been cut off, and they cannot remain silent. From the beginning of the revolution until today, they have fought against the revolution, confronted it, conspired, and did whatever they could.

Of course, throughout this period, by the grace of God, the revolution has triumphed over them. The bullies of the world say that the world must obey us! You see, today you are witnessing one example of this in the world. (11) [They say] everyone must obey us, everyone must prioritize our interests over their own; first us. Today, the world is showing this to everyone; in fact, they are placing the essence of the West before everyone’s eyes. Of course, I think — this is how I perceive it — that the Islamic Iran is the only country that has firmly rejected this; we have firmly stated that we will never prioritize the interests of others over our own.

Well, now let us return to the issue of the Iranian student youth. Today, I want to tell you that the enemy’s policy of promoting the same spirit of submission and passivity and dependency has become seriously active on the part of the enemy; that is, with new methods, especially with the scientific advancements that have occurred and the internet and other things that exist, they are working in this area; they are trying. Where does our student stand? Of course, the feelings expressed here, the points made, this spirit that has been shown here is a very good spirit. The remedy for confronting the enemy’s conspiracy that seeks to infiltrate and seize back the lost dominance over our dear country is only this spirit and this feeling and this overall student movement; there is no doubt about that.

In contrast to the enemy’s movement — this movement that I said is being pursued today with new methods — the Islamic movement is also fortunately advancing. Today, we have good innovations in religious, ethical, and even mystical matters. Good intellectual elements have fortunately grown today in the religious seminaries, in the universities, in various sectors of society; they have been able to find and utilize an appropriate language for conveying Islamic concepts. The very points you mentioned here — which can certainly be multiplied tenfold in the context of student gatherings — are the very things I recommended some time ago in one of these meetings: “content production”; (12) content is these things. The works you can do, the thoughts you can produce, the deep analyses you can have regarding issues and present, are the very content we expect.

The student must be positioned here; the place of the student is here. The student can act like a teacher, like a warning signal, like a guiding light; to the extent of his ability in his suitable environment. You can act. This is what I believe is the identity of our dear students; this ability to express, to clarify, and to explain.

Of course, I also have recommendations. Last year, I made several recommendations; I mentioned some points here. (13) One of the recommendations was that student organizations should engage within the university; I emphasize this. This work, as I have been informed, has not been done as it should be; my expectation from you young people is this. There are obstacles; all great works, all good works encounter obstacles. Do not imagine that we are moving on an asphalt road; no, there are twists and turns, ups and downs, and problems; overcome the problems. Overcome the problems! If you can use the appropriate language of explanation, you can make an impact in the university. Your audience, your counterpart is a student, a young person, who has no animosity, no hostility, is ready to listen, and is ready to accept. The same expectation that one of the brothers expressed here, saying that “the centers that should explain, should express, do not reach their work, do not do that work,” well, this expectation is also from yourselves; [you] organizations should study, prepare, and influence the university environment with your correct thoughts; this is one recommendation.

One recommendation is that you should have serious brainstorming sessions; that is, really think about an issue, use reliable intellectual elements that exist today — we have reliable intellectual elements — in brainstorming sessions; raise important current issues. Some of the discussions that are raised are not first-rate discussions; they are second and third-rate topics. The main issues of the country, those issues that relate to the movement of the revolution and the overall movement of society — internal issues, external issues — find these and make them the subject of discussion. In various matters, various analyses are presented; in newspapers, in the virtual space; do not let these analyses create doubt in you; that is, do not become confused and doubtful in the face of various analyses. Take your own analysis, your own understanding, your own research into your own hands and overcome the incorrect statements that are made.

One of my recommendations is that some of the criticisms and objections of students towards the officials arise from ignorance. For example, suppose you ask why the promise of the second phase was not fulfilled at a certain time, why it was fulfilled at another time; if it had been fulfilled at that time, a certain incident would not have occurred; well, this is not correct; this is not correct. Those who are responsible for these matters have no less attachment, dependency, love, and readiness for the revolution than you and I; they cannot be accused; they have calculations, they work with calculations; what they do, if you were in their place, you would do the same; always keep this possibility in your mind and do not accuse individuals; that is, in the incidents you observe, if there is an ambiguity for you, always consider the possibility of a correct calculation; that there may be a real correct calculation behind this decision-making.

In criticizing, last year one of my recommendations was to criticize; criticism is not a problem; questions have been raised in this regard about how to criticize? For example, in a wartime situation, in a situation of opposition to the enemies, how should we criticize so that it does not offend them? Criticism is not a problem, but criticizing is different from slandering; be careful that when you criticize, do not accuse anyone. Questions can be raised; it is not a problem to raise questions; ambiguities can be raised, and opportunities for answering can be created. Sometimes the other side cannot answer some questions; that is, they do not have the opportunity to answer or cannot answer regarding this matter; in such cases, do not even raise ambiguities. With such methods, do not take hypothetical assumptions as certainties.

In my opinion, in criticisms, be careful not to create a sense of deadlock; that is, do not criticize in such a way that when ordinary people hear it, they feel a sense of deadlock; no, sometimes the problem that is expressed is such that when one hears it, they feel that there is really no way out; well, this is wrong. It is wrong to imply that there is a deadlock in a certain economic issue or a certain cultural issue or a certain educational and university issue; this discourages people; this must be avoided seriously. Creating division, polarization, discouragement, and distrust towards decision-making officials should not be present in criticisms.

Sometimes I am asked questions; of course, direct questions are not asked, for example, in the virtual space or in statements made to our office: suppose why did he express happiness when all the ministers were approved, while some of these ministers may not agree with his criteria? This is one of the questions. Well, yes, this is a question; the answer is that the approval of all ministers in the parliament is a desirable phenomenon; if they do not get approved, that whole group, every minister who is not approved, remains without a leader for a long time. Remaining without a leader is much worse than having someone who may not meet some criteria; that is, chaos arises. It is very good for the government to be able to form at a suitable opportunity, at a specific time, and be able to manage the country. The government must be able to manage the country; this parliamentary approval has this great virtue. Well, naturally, one becomes pleased. It is also possible that at the same time, one may not fully approve of the performance of a certain minister; or may not consider some of his characteristics to be positive; these do not contradict each other. There are ultimately things like this. In short, the main concern of the student should not be these; these are not the main issues of the country; the main issues of the country, as I mentioned, are other things.

However, a few sentences regarding the recent issue of America and this invitation to negotiate and such statements. First, when the President of America (14) says we are ready to negotiate with Iran and invites to negotiate [and] claims that he has sent a letter — which, of course, has not reached us; that is, it has not reached me — in my opinion, this is a deception of world public opinion; this means that we are negotiable, we want to negotiate, we want peace, there should be no conflict, Iran is not ready to negotiate. Well, why is Iran not ready to negotiate? Look back at yourselves. We sat for several years negotiating; this very person threw the completed, signed negotiation off the table and tore it up; (15) how can one negotiate with such a person?

In response to my statement, the internal element of the writer of a certain newspaper says, “Well, two people who are at war with each other and sit down to negotiate for peace, they do not trust each other; lack of trust does not prevent negotiation”; this is a mistake; the same two people who are negotiating for peace, if they are not sure that the other party will fulfill what they commit to, they will not negotiate; because they know it is a futile endeavor, a meaningless task. In negotiation, one must be sure that the other party will act on what they committed to. When we know they will not act, what negotiation? Therefore, the invitation to negotiate and the declaration of negotiation is a deception of public opinion.

Regarding the American sanctions — which, well, our negotiation in the issue of the JCPOA in the 90s was initially aimed at lifting the sanctions — fortunately, the sanctions are becoming less effective in the world. When sanctions continue, they gradually lose their effect. They themselves admit this; that is, they themselves admit that the sanctioned country can gradually find ways to neutralize the sanctions and neutralize them. We have found many of these ways, we have neutralized the sanctions. Yes, sanctions are not without effect, but it is not the case that if our economic situation is bad, the sole cause of it is the sanctions; no, our own negligence sometimes has an effect; not sometimes, [but] most of the problems arise from our own negligence. Of course, a part of it is also related to the sanctions, which are gradually becoming less effective; this is also a certainty.

Regarding nuclear weapons — which is constantly said that we will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons — if we wanted to create nuclear weapons, America could not stop us. The fact that we do not have nuclear weapons and are not pursuing them is because we ourselves do not want to, for reasons we have previously stated and discussed. We did not want to; otherwise, if we wanted to, they could not stop us.

The next point: America threatens with militarism! This threat, in my opinion, is irrational; that is, war, creating war, inflicting damage, is not one-sided. Iran is capable of delivering a counter-strike and will certainly do so. I even believe that if a wrong move is made by the Americans and their agents, they will suffer more damage. Of course, war is not a good thing; we are not seeking war, but if someone takes action, our response will be decisive and certain.

The next point is that America today is on the path of weakening, not strengthening; this is a reality. Both in terms of economy, it is on the path of weakening, and in terms of its political position in the world, and in terms of its internal politics, and in terms of social issues within itself; all factors are weakening America. America does not have the power it had thirty years ago or twenty years ago, and it will not have it, nor can it have it.

The next point is that some individuals inside continuously amplify the issue of negotiation: “Why do you not respond? Why do you not negotiate? Why do you not sit down with America? Well, sit down.” I want to say that if the goal of negotiation is to lift sanctions, negotiating with this American government will not lift the sanctions; that is, it will not remove the sanctions, but will tighten the knot of sanctions; it will increase the pressure. Negotiating with this government will increase the pressure. A few days ago, I mentioned this in a talk with officials. (16) They present new matters, raise new expectations, present new excessive demands; the problem will be greater than what it is today. Therefore, negotiation will not solve any problem, will not open any knots. This is also a point.

The last point; contrary to the enemy’s expectations, neither the resistance of Palestine nor the resistance of Lebanon has been weakened but has become stronger, more motivated. These martyrdoms inflicted human losses on them, but in terms of motivation, they have strengthened. You have observed, someone like Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah (may God’s mercy be upon him) leaves this group, flies away, his place remains vacant, and yet, at the same time, in the days following his martyrdom, the movement that Hezbollah undertakes against the Zionist regime is stronger than its previous movements. In the Palestinian resistance, someone like Haniyeh, someone like Sinwar, someone like Dayf leaves among them, and at the same time, they can impose their conditions on the opposing side in the negotiations that the Zionist regime and its supporters and America have insisted upon; this indicates that motivations have become stronger.

This is my last sentence; let us also say this: with all our strength, we will support the resistance of Palestine and the resistance of Lebanon. This is a consensus among the country’s officials. The government, the esteemed president, and others agree on these matters; there is no problem. And God willing, the Iranian nation will be able to continue to be recognized in the future, as in the past, as the flag bearer of resistance against oppression in the world.

Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.