"The problem in the United States is about the whole political system, it’s not about one person. Trump’s election has proven again, for us, again and again, that the president is only a performer, he’s not a decision-maker. He’s part of different lobbies and the deep state or the deep regime as we can call it, who implement and dictate on the president what should he be doing, and the proof to what I’m saying is that Trump after he became president, he swallowed most of the promises and the words that he was boasting during his campaign. He made a 180 turn in nearly every promise. So, why? Because the deep state wouldn’t allow him to go in a certain direction. That’s why for me dealing with him as a person, it could be, but can that person deliver? No. In the United States, the president cannot deliver, the whole state, the deep state only is the one who can deliver, and this is the problem. This deep state doesn’t accept partners around the world; they only accept puppets, and they only accept followers, they only accept proxies, that’s what they accept, and we’re not any of these."

 

From President Assad's Indian Wion TV Interview, June 3, 2017

 

"If you want to talk about our war, regardless of the influence of the external wars, ISIS is not very strong, it would take a few months, even with al-Nusra. Now, the problem is that ISIS has been supported by the United States. The United States attacked our army that’s been fighting ISIS three times during the last six months or so, and every time they attacked our forces in that area, ISIS attacked our forces at the same time and took over that area. So, the realistic answer is: that depends on how much international support ISIS will get. That’s my answer."

 

From President Assad's Indian Wion TV Interview, June 3, 2017

 


"There is great cooperation with Russia and China in terms of political action or political positions. Viewpoints are similar, and there is cooperation in the Security Council. As you know, the United States and its allies have tried several times to use the Security Council in order to legitimize the role of the terrorists in Syria and to legitimize their role in the illegitimate and aggressive intervention in Syria. That’s why Russia and China stood together, and China’s role, with the Russian role, was essential in this regard."

From President Assad's Venezuelan Telesur TV Interview, April 27, 2017.

"Neither Russia, nor Iran, nor any friendly state can support an individual at the expense of the people. This is impossible. If he is killing the people, how come the people support him? This is the contradictory Western narrative; and that’s why we shouldn’t waste our time on Western narratives because they have been full of lies throughout history, and not something new."

From President Assad's Venezuelan Telesur TV Interview, April 27, 2017.

 "in the past several years and in more than one region throughout Syria. We have asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to send specialized missions to investigate what happened. And every time, the United States obstructed these investigations or prevented sending such missions in order to carry out such investigations. This is what happened last week when we called for investigations over the alleged use of chemical weapons in the town of Khan Sheikhoun. The United States and its allies prevented OPCW from taking that decision. As far as we are concerned, we still insist on an investigation, and we and our Russian and Iranian allies are trying to persuade OPCW to send a team to investigate what happened, because if it doesn’t, the United States might repeat the same charade by fabricating the use of false chemical weapons in another place in Syria in order to justify military intervention in support of the terrorists. On the other hand, we continue to fight the terrorists, because we know that the objective of all these American and Western allegations concerning chemical weapons is to support terrorists in Syria. That’s why we will continue to fight these terrorists."

From President Assad's Venezuelan Telesur TV Interview, April 27, 2017.

"This is what characterizes American politicians: they lie on a daily basis, and say something and do something different. That’s why we shouldn’t believe what the Pentagon, or any other American institution says, because they say things which serve their policies, not things which reflect reality and the facts on the ground."

From President Assad's Venezuelan Telesur TV Interview, April 27, 2017.

"… the United States always seeks to control all the states of the world without exception. It does not accept allies, regardless of whether they are developed states as those in the Western bloc, or other states of the world. Every state should be an American satellite. That is why what is happening to Syria, to Korea, to Iran, to Russia, and maybe to Venezuela now, aims at re-imposing American hegemony on the world, because they believe that this hegemony is under threat now, which consequently threatens the interests of American economic and political elites."

From President Assad's Venezuelan Telesur TV Interview, April 27, 2017.

"The recent American aggression on al-Shayrat airbase comes as a response to the terrorists' defeats in Hama countryside and to the advances achieved by the Syrian army in the north and east of the country."

From President Assad's statements to the Central Committee meeting of the Baath Arab Socialist Party, April 22, 2017.

"The western countries, namely the United States, interfere to help the terrorists every time the Syrian army achieves gains in the battle against terrorist groups."

From President Assad's statements to the Central Committee meeting of the Baath Arab Socialist Party, April 22, 2017.

 

"We always try to look at the full half of the cup, but we couldn’t find it. We tried to see anything positive, we said that what this president, Trump, what he said, we said “promising,” I described it as promising, a few months ago. But actually, it’s not about what they promise, because we all know that the American officials say something and do something different, they’re never committed to their promises or their words. So, that’s what have been proven recently after the attack on Shairat; they say something and they do something different. So, in politics you don’t say “I wouldn’t do this.” Whenever there is a window of hope that this state or this regime can change its attitude toward respecting your sovereignty, toward more preventing of any blood-letting in your country, you have to cooperate. It’s not a personal relation, it’s not hate and love; it’s the interest of your own people. So, I cannot say this escalation has changed anything, because this escalation is the real expression of the reality of the American regime that’s been there for decades, it’s not new for the United States to do such a thing, but you need to deal with the United States as a great country, at least to make it refrain from any harmful effects, generally, I’m not talking only about Syria. When they change their behavior, we are ready, we don’t have a problem."

 

From President Assad's Russian RIA Novosti and Sputnik Interview, April 21, 2017

 

"Not really, we don’t have any channel now between Syria and the United States regime or administration, we don’t have."

 

From President Assad's Russian RIA Novosti and Sputnik Interview, April 21, 2017

 

 

''I said “if”. It was conditional. If they are serious in fighting terrorists, we’re going to be partners, and I said not only the United States; whoever wants to fight the terrorists, we are partners. This is basic for us, basic principle, let’s say. Actually, what has been proven recently, as I said earlier, that they are hand in glove with those terrorists, the United States and the West, they’re not serious in fighting the terrorists, and yesterday some of their statesmen were defending ISIS. They were saying that ISIS doesn’t have chemical weapons. They are defending ISIS against the Syrian government and the Syrian Army. So, actually, you cannot talk about partnership between us who work against the terrorists and who fight the terrorism and the others who are supporting explicitly the terrorists.''

From President Assad's AFP Interview, April 13, 2017 

''Anyway, I was very cautious in saying any opinion regarding him before he became President and after. I always say let’s see what he’s going to do, we wouldn’t comment on statements. So, actually, this is the first proof that it’s not about the President in the United State; it’s about the regime and the deep state or the deep regime in the United States is still the same, it doesn’t change. The President is only one of the performers on their theatre, if he wants to be a leader, he cannot, because as some say he wanted to be a leader, Trump wanted to be a leader, but every President there, if he wants to be a real leader, later he’s going to eat his words, swallow his pride if he has pride at all, and make a 180 degree U-turn, otherwise he would pay the price politically.''

From President Assad's AFP Interview, April 13, 2017 

''As long as the United States is being governed by this complex of military industrial complex, the financial companies, banks, and what you call deep regime, and works for the vested interest of those groups, of course. It could happen anytime, anywhere, not only in Syria.''

From President Assad's AFP Interview, April 13, 2017 

''There is no reign of Assad family anyway in Syria. He’s dreaming, or let’s say, he’s hallucinating, so, we don’t waste our time with his statement. In reality, no. Actually, during the last six years, The US was directly involved in supporting the terrorists everywhere in Syria, including ISIS, including al-Nusra, including all the other like-minded factions in Syria, this is clear, and this is proven in Syria. While if you want to talk about the direct attacks, actually only a few months ago, there was a more dangerous attack than the recent one, just before Obama left, I think a few weeks before he left, it was in Deir Ezzor in the eastern part of Syria when they attacked a very strategic mountain, it was a Syrian base, a regular Syrian Army base, and that helped ISIS to take over that mountain, and if the Syrian Army wasn’t resilient and strong enough to repel ISIS, the city of Deir Ezzor would have been now in the hands of ISIS, means a direct link between Deir Ezzor and Mosul in Iraq, which would have been a very strategic gain to ISIS. So, actually, no, the American government was directly involved. But this time, why did they attack directly? Because, as I said, the terrorists in that area were collapsing. So, the Unites States didn’t have any other choice to support their proxies, the terrorists, but to directly attack the Syrian Army because they sent them all kinds of armaments and it didn’t work.''

From President Assad's AFP Interview, April 13, 2017 

''Look, there’s a big difference between the process being active, which could happen anytime, to reactivate the process and to be effective. Till this moment, its’ not effective. Why? Because the United States is not serious in achieving any political solution. They want to use it as an umbrella for the terrorists, or they want to get in this forum what they didn’t get on the ground in the battlefield. That’s why it wasn’t effective at all. Now, it’s the same situation, we don’t see this administration serious in that regard, because they still support the same terrorists. So, we can say yes, it could be reactivated, but we cannot say we expect it to be effective or productive. No.''

From President Assad's AFP Interview, April 13, 2017 

"The United States failed in achieving its objectives behind its aggression as to raise the morale of its backed terrorist group following the victories achieved by the Syrian Army."

From President Assad's phone call with  His Iranian Counterpart, Hassan Rouhani, April 9, 2017.

 

 

 

"the US attack  -the USA carried a flagrant  aggression at dawn today  against a Syrian military Airbase in the central region of Syria causing the martyrdom of 6 persons , scores of injured  and inflicted heavy material damage- is but an irresponsible reckless shorted-sighted disillusioned military and political blind act."

From President Assad's Statement, April 7, 2017

"The US aggression is but a fool act misled behind an elusive campaign of lies which led to such a reckless political and military aggression."

From President Assad's Statement, April 7, 2017

"The consequence of different US Administrations does not change the policies of the consequent  US  hegemony bids over the world, subjugation of people,"

From President Assad's Statement, April 7, 2017

"If the US regime thinks that it has been able through this aggression to support its lackeys of the gangs and terrorist organizations on the ground, the Syrian Arab Republic reiterates that this flagrant aggression has but increased Syria's determination to strike at those lackey terrorists and to pursue purging every span of Syrian territories from them,"

From President Assad's Statement, April 7, 2017

 

 

"Any intervention, even the existence of any individual soldier, without the permission of the Syrian government, is an invasion in every sense of the word. And any intervention, from the air or otherwise, is also an illegitimate intervention and an aggression on Syria."

 

From President Assad's Croatian Newspaper Vecernji Interview, April 6, 2017

 

"In general terms, the American policy is based on creating chaos in different parts of the world and creating conflicts among states. This is not new. It has been going on for decades, but in different forms."

 

From President Assad's Croatian Newspaper Vecernji List  Interview, April 6, 2017

 

"As to our evaluation of the new American administration, and despite the fact that it is still in its early days, we have learned something important since relations were resumed between Syria and the United States in 1974, when former American President Richard Nixon visited us. We learned not to bet on a good administration. We always say which is a bad administration and which is worse. We do not say which is good and which is better or which is bad and which is good.
What we see in America now are endless conflicts: conflicts inside the administration and conflicts outside the administration with the administration. That’s why we see only one thing in this administration, regardless of the statements which seem to be better than those of other administrations. Since they sent troops to Syria without coordination and without a request from the legitimate Syrian government, it means that this administration, like other administrations, does not want stability to be restored in Syria."

 

From President Assad's Croatian Newspaper Vecernji List  Interview, April 6, 2017

 


 "The American policy is based on many standards, not double; they have maybe ten standards because they don’t base their policy on values or on international law; they base it on their own vision, their own interests, sometimes on the balance of different lobbies and powers within the American institutions. We all know that. So, we don’t talk about double standards, this is very normal for the US. For example, their raids against ISIS in Mosul in Iraq were something good, or let’s say, positive, while the same raid by the Syrian and Russian army airplanes or troops on the ground in Aleppo to liberate the people of Aleppo is against human rights according to their political discourse. So, this is natural for the American policy and for the West in general, not only the Americans. White Helmets are Al Qaeda, they’re Al Qaeda members and that’s proven on the net; the same members are killing or executing or celebrating over dead bodies, at the same time they are humanitarian heroes, and now they have an Oscar as you know. So, that’s to be expected by the Americans, we have to ignore all their narratives, their own public doesn’t believe their narrative anymore. They don’t know the truth yet; the public opinion in the West in general, they know there’s a lie, but they don’t know what the truth is, and that’s why they have a problem with RT for example, for that reason."

From President Assad's Statements to Russian Media, March 20, 2017.

"So, the question is: how can they cooperate, and I think the Russians have hope that the two parties join the Russians and the Syrians in their fight against terrorism. So, we have more hopes now regarding the American party because of the new administration, while in Turkey nothing has changed in that regard."

 From President Assad's Chinese PHOENIX TV Interview, March 11, 2017

 

 "We didn’t. Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one. And we don’t think this is going to help. What are they going to do? To fight ISIS?  The Americans lost nearly every war. They lost in Iraq, they had to withdraw at the end. Even in Somalia, let alone Vietnam in the past and Afghanistan, your neighboring country. They didn’t succeed anywhere they sent troops, they only create a mess; they are very good in creating problems and destroying, but they are very bad in finding solutions."

 

From President Assad's Chinese PHOENIX TV Interview, March 11, 2017


 ''No, I cannot feel comfortable unless I see his policy towards Syria; I haven’t seen it yet. So, again we have to be cautious with every Western leader because they can say something and do the opposite, and then they can say something… do something in the morning and do the opposite in the evening. They wouldn’t commit to anything; they are very pragmatic till they sell their values, they don’t have values in their policies.''

 

 From President Assad's Interview with the French TF1 and Europe 1, February 16, 2017

 

 

"The position of President Trump since he started his campaign for presidency till this moment is that the priority is to fight terrorism, and we agree about this priority, that’s our position in Syria, the priority is to fight terrorism, and that’s what I meant by promising."

From President Assad's Yahoo News Interview, February 10, 2017

Against terrorists, and against terrorism. That’s self-evident for us. This is beside having cooperation between any two nations, but in the meantime, in these circumstances, the priority is to have cooperation in fighting terrorism between the different nations, including Russia, Iran and Syria, of course."

From President Assad's Yahoo News Interview, February 10, 2017

"Could the American prowess defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan or in other places? No, you cannot… it’s not enough to have this Apache or F-16 or F-35, whatever you want to label it, to defeat terrorists. There has to be a more comprehensive way of dealing with that complicated issue. So, if you want to start genuinely, as United States, to do so, it must be through the Syrian government. We are here, we are the Syrians, we own this country as Syrians, nobody else, nobody would understand it like us. So, you cannot defeat the terrorism without cooperation with the people and the government of any country."

From President Assad's Yahoo News Interview, February 10, 2017

  "We invited the Russians, and the Russians were genuine regarding this issue. If the Americans are genuine, of course they are welcome, like any other country that wants to defeat and to fight with the terrorists. Of course, with no hesitation we can say that."

From President Assad's Yahoo News Interview, February 10, 2017

"Troops is part of the cooperation. Again, let’s go back to the comprehensive, you cannot talk about sending troops if you’re not genuine, if you don’t have a clear political position toward not only the terrorism; toward the sovereignty of Syria, toward the unity of Syria. All these factors would lead to trust, where you can send your troops. That’s what happened with the Russians; they didn’t only send their troops. First of all, there’s a clear political position regarding those factors. This is where the Russians could come and succeed in fighting the terrorists in Syria."

From President Assad's Yahoo News Interview, February 10, 2017

"''his question has two aspects: the first one is American, this is an American issue and it’s related to the sovereignty of the American nation. Every country has the right to put any regulations to enter their country. We can disagree or agree, but if you ask me as president, as official in the Syrian state, my responsibility is not to go and ask any president to allow the Syrians to go there and to have refuge in that country. My responsibility is to restore the stability, in order to bring them back to Syria and find refuge in their country. So, I’m not going to discuss that this is right or wrong; this is American issue.''

From President Assad's Yahoo News Interview, February 10, 2017

 

"Let me be frank with you, when you talk about contribution in the operation against ISIS, actually there was no operation against ISIS; it was a cosmetic operation, if you want to talk about the American alliance against ISIS. It was only an illusive alliance, because ISIS was expanding during that operation. At the same time, that operation is an illegal operation because it happened without consulting with or taking the permission of the Syrian government, which is the legitimate government, and it’s a breaching of our sovereignty. Third, they didn’t prevent any Syrian citizen from being killed by ISIS, so what to be grateful for? To be frank, no."

From President Assad's  Interview with Belgian Media, February 7, 2017.

"No, because there was bad intention regarding the different countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, UK, and the US in order to destabilize Syria, so it wasn’t about the Syrians. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have many flaws before the war and today as a country that allow many of those countries to mess with our country. I’m not excluding, I’m not saying it’s only about them, but they were the one who took the initiative in order to wage this war, so I don’t think it was avoidable."

From President Assad's  Interview with Belgian Media, February 7, 2017.

 

"So, it’s very clear today that they are going to put obstacles and to impede any direction of the policy of the new President regarding either fighting terrorism or respecting the sovereignty of other countries, or even having detente around the world through the good relation with Russia, or with any other great power, like China, for example."

From President Assad's  interview to the Japanese TBS TV, January 20, 2017.

 

"Yeah, if you want to talk realistically, because the Syrian problem is not isolated, it’s not only Syrian-Syrian; actually, the biggest part… or let’s say the major part of the Syrian conflict is regional and international. The simplest part that you can deal with is the Syrian-Syrian part. The regional and the international part depends mainly on the relation between the United States and Russia. What he announced yesterday was very promising, if there’s a genuine approach or initiative toward improving the relation between the United States and Russia, that will affect every problem in the world, including Syria. So, I would say yes, we think that’s positive, regarding the Syrian conflict."

From President Assad's Statements to French Media, January 8, 2017.

 

"We don’t have a lot of expectations because the American administration is not only about the President; it’s about different powers within this administration, the different lobbies that they are going to influence any President. So, we have to wait and see when he embarks his new mission, let’s say, or position within this administration as President in two months’ time. But we always say we have wishful thinking that the Unites States would be unbiased, respect the international law, doesn’t interfere in other countries around the world, and of course to stop supporting terrorists in Syria."

From President Assad RTP TV Interview, December 14, 2016

"Of course, I would say this is promising, but can he deliver? Can he go in that regard? What about the countervailing forces within the administration, the mainstream media that were against him? How can he deal with it? That’s why for us it’s still dubious whether he can do or live up to his promises or not. That’s why we are very cautious in judging him, especially as he wasn’t in a political position before. So, we cannot tell anything about what he’s going to do, but if, let’s say if he is going to fight the terrorists, of course we are going to be ally, natural ally in that regard with the Russian, with the Iranian, with many other countries who wanted to defeat the terrorists."

From President Assad RTP TV Interview, December 14, 2016

" So, you will cooperate with the Americans in the fight against terrorists?

Of course, definitely, if they are genuine, if they have the will, and if they have the ability, of course we are the first ones to fight the terrorists because we suffered more than any other one in this world from terrorists."

From President Assad RTP TV Interview, December 14, 2016

"This is against the international law again, and that’s the problem with the American position; they think that they are the police of the world. They think they are the judge of the world; they’re not. They are sovereign country, they are an independent country, but this is their limit; they don’t have to interfere in any other country. Because of this interference for the last fifty years, that’s why they are very good only in creating problems, not in solving problems. That’s the problem with the American role. That’s why I said we don’t pin a lot of hopes of changing administrations because that context has been going on for more than fifty years now, and that’s expected. If they want to continue in the same position of the United States creating problems around the world, that’s what they have to do: only interfering in the matters of other nations."

From President Assad RTP TV Interview, December 14, 2016

"In principle, we have spoken about the necessity of forming an alliance against terrorism since 1985. And we continuously announce that Syria is ready to cooperate with any party seeking seriously to fight terrorism. This is a general principle which applies to the United States and all countries. But realistically, can the United States move in that direction? Talking about the issue which you mentioned, it shows that the Pentagon plays a role contrary to that of the White House, and the White House follows a policy different from that of the State Department."

 

President Assad's Interview with Al-Watan Daily, December 7, 2016.

 

"The fact is that the American state has appeared during the past year in a state similar to that of the armed factions in Syria, when they fight for spoils. This is not new, but has appeared more clearly. That’s why you see statements in the morning which differ from their policies in the evening, and their policies in the evening differ from what they do in implementation of that policy the next day, and so on. There are contradictory statements among the different lobbies and administrations. You feel that there is no specific policy, but different conflicts. This is the truth. Can the new President control these things? This question is difficult to answer. Can he face the media, which is part of the lying and deceptive propaganda? Was electing Trump a reaction on the part of the American people against the existing political institution? There are many complicated questions. If Trump was able to implement what he announced during his election campaign, that he will fight terrorism, and that his priority is ISIS, and was able to bring all American forces, movements, and institutions in that direction, what he said will be realistic. But we have to wait and see what will happen in the United States."

 

President Assad's Interview with Al-Watan Daily, December 7, 2016.

 

 "We don’t have a lot of expectations because the American administration is not only about the President; it’s about different powers within this administration, the different lobbies that they are going to influence any President. So, we have to wait and see when he embarks his new mission, let’s say, or position within this administration as President in two months’ time. But we always say we have wishful thinking that the Unites States would be unbiased, respect the international law, doesn’t interfere in other countries around the world, and of course to stop supporting terrorists in Syria."

 

From President Assad's  RTP Portuguese TV Interview, November 16, 2016

 

"Of course, I would say this is promising, but can he deliver? Can he go in that regard? What about the countervailing forces within the administration, the mainstream media that were against him? How can he deal with it? That’s why for us it’s still dubious whether he can do or live up to his promises or not. That’s why we are very cautious in judging him, especially as he wasn’t in a political position before. So, we cannot tell anything about what he’s going to do, but if, let’s say if he is going to fight the terrorists, of course we are going to be ally, natural ally in that regard with the Russian, with the Iranian, with many other countries who wanted to defeat the terrorists."

 

From President Assad's  RTP Portuguese TV Interview, November 16, 2016

 

"When you talk about cooperation, it means cooperation between two legal governments, not cooperation between foreign government and any faction within Syria. Any cooperation that doesn’t go through the Syrian government is not legal. If it’s not legal, we cannot cooperate with, and we don’t recognize and we don’t accept."

 

 From President Assad's  RTP Portuguese TV Interview, November 16, 2016


 

"It was premeditated attack by the American forces, because ISIS was shrinking because of the Syrian and Russian and Iranian cooperation against ISIS, and because al-Nusra which is Al Qaeda-affiliated group had been defeated in many areas in Syria, so the Americans wanted to undermine the position of the Syrian Army; they attacked our army in Deir Ezzor. It wasn’t by coincidence because the raid continued more than one hour, and they came many times."

 

From President Assad's the Serbian Politika Interview, November 3, 2016

 

" More than one hour. There were many raids by the Americans and their allies against the Syrian position. At the same time, they attacked a very big area; they didn’t attack a building to say “we made a mistake.” They attacked three big hills, not other groups neighboring these hills, and only ISIS existed in Deir Ezzor. There is no… what they called it “moderate opposition.” So, it was a premeditated attack in order to allow ISIS to take that position, and ISIS attacked those hills, and took those hills right away in less than one hour after the attack."

 

From President Assad's the Serbian Politika Interview, November 3, 2016

 

  " Less than one hour, in less than one hour, ISIS attacked those hills. It means that ISIS gathered their forces to attack those hills. How did ISIS know that the Americans would attack that Syrian position? It means they were ready, they were prepared. This is an explicit and stark proof that the Americans are supporting ISIS and using it as a card to change the balance according to their political agenda."

 

From President Assad's the Serbian Politika Interview, November 3, 2016

 

 

"The US administration's policy in the Middle East contradicts the interests and values of the American people as it tends to be increasingly violent and illogical. The role of the United States, as a super power, should be positive and based on disseminating knowledge, culture and technology instead of chaos and destruction in other countries of the world."

 From H.E. President Assad's statements to a visiting US Peace Council delegation , July 28, 2016.

 

 

''We resumed our relation with the United States in 1974. Now, it has been 42 years since then and we witnessed many American presidents in different situations and the lesson that we have learned is that no one should bet on any American president, that is the most important thing. So, it is not about the name. They have institutions, they have their own agenda and every president should come to implement that agenda in his own way, but at the end he has to implement that agenda.
All of them have militaristic agendas, and the only difference is the way. One of them sends his army like Bush and the other one sends mercenaries and proxies like Obama, but all of them have to implement this agenda. So, I do not believe that the president is allowed completely to fulfill his own political convictions in the United States, he has to obey the institutions and the lobbies, and the lobbies have not changed and the institutions’ agenda has not changed. So, no president in the near future will come to make a serious and dramatic change regarding the politics of the United States.''

From H.E. President Al-Assad’s interview with Cuba’s Prensa Latina. July 21, 2016.

 

''Syria is paying the price of its independence because we never worked against the United States; we never worked against France or the UK. We always try to have good relations with the West.;;

From H.E. President Al-Assad’s interview with Cuba’s Prensa Latina. July 21, 2016.

 

''The question is not how many strikes. What is the achievement? That’s the question. The reality is telling, the reality is telling that since the beginning of the American airstrikes, terrorism has been expanding and prevailing, not vice versa. It only shrank when the Russians intervened. So, this is reality.
We have to talk about facts, it’s not only about the pro forma action that they’ve been taking.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''No, first of all it’s not about being ruthless; it’s about being genuine. It’s about the real intentions, it’s about being serious, it’s about having the will. The United States doesn’t have the will to defeat the terrorists; it had the will to control them and to use them as a card like they did in Afghanistan. That will reflected on the military aspect of the issue. If you want to compare, more than a hundred and twenty or thirty Russian airstrikes in a few areas in Syria, compared to ten or twelve American allies’ airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, it means militarily nothing. But that military ineffectiveness is a reflection of the
political will.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''No, because the problem with the American officials is that they say something and they mask their intentions, they go in a different way. They say something, they say the opposite. They say something, they do something different. So, you cannot tell what are their real intentions. What I’m sure about is that they don’t have good intentions towards Syria. Maybe they are making tactics, maneuvers, but they haven’t changed their intentions, as I believe.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''… we are genuine in fighting not only ISIS but al-Nusra and every affiliated to Al Qaeda organization within Syria. All of them are terrorists. So, if you want to talk not about ISIS, about the terrorist groups, we wanted to get rid of the terrorists, we wanted to defeat those terrorists, while the United States wanted to manage those groups in order to topple the government in Syria. So, you cannot talk about common interest unless they really want to fight those terrorists and to defeat them, and they didn’t do that. They’ve been in Iraq in 2006, they didn’t try to defeat them.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''Because ISIS has been set up in Iraq in 2006 while the United States was in Iraq, not Syria was in Iraq, so it was growing under the supervision of the American authority in Iraq, and they didn’t do anything to fight ISIS at that time. So why to fight it now? And they don’t fight it now. It’s been expanding under the supervision of the American airplanes, and they could have seen ISIS using the oil fields and exporting oil to Turkey, and they didn’t try to attack any convoy of ISIS. How could they be against ISIS? They cannot see, they don’t see? How the Russians could have seen it from the first day and started attacking those convoys? Actually, the Russian intervention unmasked the American intentions regarding ISIS, and the other terrorist groups, of course.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''because if you want to talk about the core, which is the war attacking Syria, they’ve been attacking Syria through proxies. They didn’t fight ISIS, they didn’t make any pressure on Turkey or Saudi Arabia in order to tell them “stop sending money and personnel and every logistic support to those terrorists.”
They could have done so, they didn’t. So, actually they are waging war, but in a different way. They didn’t send their troops, they didn’t attack with missiles, but they send mercenaries.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''But this credibility hasn’t ever existed for us, at least since the early 70s, to be frank with you, since we restored our relations with the United States in 1974 we never saw any administration that has real credibility in every issue we dealt with. They never had it. So, I cannot say that it is harmed. Many of their allies don’t believe them. I think the American credibility, not because of what you mentioned, because of their politics in general, their mainstream politics, are at an all-time low. That’s how we see it.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''It means nothing for us, because if you change administration but you don’t change politics, it means nothing. So, it’s about the politics, and in Syria we never bet on any president coming or any president going. We never bet. Because what they say in their campaign is different from what they practice after they are elected.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.        

 

''Yeah, of course. We always hope that the next president will be much wiser than the previous one, less pyromaniac as I said, less militaristic, adventurist president. That’s what we hope, but we never saw. I mean the difference is very marginal. So, we keep hoping, but we don’t bet on that hope.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''Just what I heard in the media, and during the campaign. That’s what I say, we don’t have to waste our time hearing what they say in their campaign; they’re going to change after they are elected, and this is where we have to start evaluating the president, after the campaign, not during the campaign.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''You have to fight ISIS in different ways. ISIS is not only fighters you have to attack with the strongest bomb or missile. It’s not like this. The issue of terrorism is very complicated, it’s related to the ideology. How can you be tough against the ideology of ISIS? That’s the question. How can you be tough regarding their economy, how they offer money and donations? How can you deal with that?''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''I don’t follow the American elections as I said, because we don’t bet on it. We don’t follow it.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''No, because since the beginning of this crisis we heard the same motto “Assad must go” many times from nearly every Western official in different levels, whether leader or foreign official or any other official. We never cared about it. So you cannot talk about this as a threat; this is interfering in our internal issues we’re not going to respond to. As long as I have the support of the Syrian people, I don’t care about whoever talks, including the president of the United States himself. Anyone. So it’s the same for us. That’s why I say Clinton and Trump and what Obama said, for me, nothing. We don’t put it on the political map, we don’t waste our time with those rhetoric, or even demands.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''When they started supporting the terrorists with such projects or plan or step, this is where you can have more chaos in the world. That’s another question: does the United States have an interest in having more chaos around the world, or the United States have more interest in having stability around the world? That’s another question. Of course, the United States can create chaos. They’ve been creating chaos for the last 50-60 years around the world. It’s not something new. Are they going to make it worse, more prevailing? That’s another question. But it’s not about me. It’s not about the president. It’s about the whole situation in the world, because you cannot separate the situation in Syria from the situation in the Middle East, and when the Middle East is not stable, the world cannot be stable.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''As a principle, yes, because they may attack civilians, and I cannot blame the innocents in the United States for the bad intentions of their officials. This is not correct. And as I said many times, I don’t consider the United States as a direct enemy as they don’t occupy my land. But at the same time, this is, let’s say, not realistic, for one reason; because there’s no relation between us and the United States. This kind of information or cooperation needs security cooperation based on political cooperation. We have neither.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

''If we defeat ISIS we are helping the rest of the world, because those terrorists coming from more than a hundred countries around the world, including the Western countries, if they aren’t defeated they will go back with more experience, more fanaticism, and more extremism, and they’re going to attack in those countries. So, if we defeat them here, we are helping every other country, including the United States.''

 

From President Assad's Interview with NBC News, July 14, 2016.

 

 

 

''The American administrations since the 50s are very famous of creating problems but they never solve any problems, and that’s what happened in Iraq. Bush invaded Iraq, in a few weeks he could occupy Iraq, but then what’s next? It’s not about occupying. This is a great power. We’re not a great power. So, it’s not about America occupying Syria. What’s next? What do they want to achieve? They haven’t achieved anything. They failed in Libya, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Syria, everywhere. They only created chaos. So, if the United States wants to create more chaos it can, it can create chaos, but can they solve the problem? No.''

From President Assad's Interview with the Australian SBS TV, July 1, 2016.

 '' Actually no, we never bet on any American president, because usually what they say in the campaign is different from their practice after they become president, and Obama is an example, so we don’t have to wait. We have to wait and see what policy they’re going to adopt, whoever wins the elections.''

From President Assad's Interview with the Australian SBS TV, July 1, 2016.

 ''We don’t think the administration, the American administration, is serious about solving the problem in Syria.''

From President Assad's Interview with the Australian SBS TV, July 1, 2016.

 

"the USA did not commit itself to the agreed upon regarding the conditions pertaining to cessation of hostilities, turning blind eyes to Erdogan's support to terrorism, not to mention the Saudi public support for terrorism."

From President Assad's Parliament Speech, June 7, 2016


"We have never placed our bets on any American president. We always bet on policies; and these policies are not controlled only by the president, but by the establishment in general, and by the lobbies operating in the United States. If you look at the competition between many candidates, now or in the past, you will find that it revolves around who is more inclined to start wars, and this doesn’t bode well."

From H.E. President Assad's AFP Interview, February 12, 2016.

 

"The problem with American politicians is that they say something and do the exact opposite, before and after the elections."

From H.E. President Assad's AFP Interview, February 12, 2016.

 

''Even the UN, it’s controlled by the United States, and the United States is against Syria. This is the reality, everybody knows it.''

From H.E. President Assad's Dutch NPO2 TV Interview, Decembre 17, 2015-12-17

 

''Of course, but the UN is a biased institution because it is under the control of the United States and its allies.''

From H.E. President Assad's Dutch NPO2 TV Interview, December 17, 2015-12-17

 

" The US always looks for the hegemony over the world because Syria is independent and they do not accept a country that says no to them. But in reality, it is the government with the support of the majority of the Syrian people against those mercenaries supported by those countries."

From H.E. President Assad's  interview with the Czech TV, December 1, 2015

 

''While we are fighting the same, let’s say enemy, while we’re attacking the same target in the same area without any coordination and at the same time without any conflict. And actually this is strange, but this is reality. There’s not a single coordination or contact between the Syrian government and the United States government or between the Syrian army and the U.S. army. This is because they cannot confess, they cannot accept the reality that we are the only power fighting ISIS on the ground. For them, maybe, if they deal or cooperate with the Syrian Army, this is like a recognition of our effectiveness in fighting ISIS. This is part of the willful blindness of the U.S. administration, unfortunately.''

From H.E. President Al-Assad's Russian Media Interview, September 16, 2015.

 

" That's not the main point-- after-- I mean-- regarding that statement. I think-- I think the main point we could have feeling, and we hope that we are right, that American administration started to abandon this policy of isolation. Which is very harmful to them, and to us. Because if you isolate country, isolate yourself, as the United States, from being influential, and effective, and the course of events, unless you are talking about the negative influence, like make embargo, that could kill the people slowly. Or launching war and supporting terrorists that could kill them in a faster way. So, our impression is that we are optimistic, more optimistic, I wouldn't exaggerate. That at least when they're thinking about dialogue, doesn't matter what kind of dialogue, and what the content of the dialogue. And even doesn't matter for the real intentions. But the word dialogue is something we haven't heard from the United States on the global level for a long time."

From H.E. President Assad's CBS interview, March 29, 2015

 

" We are always open. We never close our doors. They should be ready for the talk, they should be ready for the negotiation. We didn't make an embargo on the United States. We didn't attack the American population. We didn't support terrorists who did anything in United States. Actually, the United States did. We were always-- we always wanted to have good relation with the United States. We never thought in the other direction. It's a great power. Nobody-- no-- not a wise person think of having bad relation with United States."

From H.E. President Assad's CBS interview, March 29, 2015

 

''There is no direct dialogue between us and the Americans. There are ideas sent through third parties but they do not constitute a serious dialogue and we cannot take them seriously. We have to wait until we see a change in the American policy on the ground. Then we can say that there is a policy shift and clear demands. So far, the U.S. demands are what I described earlier concerning their wish to bring down the Syrian state and replace it with a client state which does their bidding.''

From H.E. President Al-Assad's Russian Media Interview, March 27, 2015.


"Whatever they say, doesn’t mean for us to be puppets. Whatever they say, for us it’s about being independent, to work for our interest, to work for the common interest of others, but we’ll never be puppets who work against our interests for their interests. So you have to ask them what they meant by that statement."

From H.E. President Al-Assad'[s BBC News interview, February 10th, 2015.

" No, because they don’t talk to anyone unless he’s a puppet, and they easily trampled over the international law, which is about our sovereignty now. So, they don’t talk to us, we don’t talk to them."

From H.E. President Al-Assad'[s BBC News interview, February 10th, 2015.

 

 

"They always say things, but it’s about what they’re going to do. And you know there’s mistrust between the Syrians and the U.S. So just wait till we see what will happen at the conference."

From H.E. President Assad Foreign Affairs Magazine interview, January 26th, 2015.

"One that preserves stability in the Middle East. Syria is the heart of the Middle East. Everybody knows that. If the Middle East is sick, the whole world will be unstable. In 1991, when we started the peace process, we had a lot of hope. Now, after over 20 years, things are not at square one; they’re much below that square. So the policy should be to help peace in the region, to fight terrorism, to promote secularism, to support this area economically, to help upgrade the mind and society like you did in your country. That is the supposed mission of the United States, not to launch wars. Launching war doesn’t make you a great power."

From H.E. President Assad Foreign Affairs Magazine interview, January 26th, 2015.

 

 

"When we talk about a common ground, what is the nature of this common ground? How serious is the United States in fighting ISIS? So far, what it is doing is cosmetic, while the Russians are very determined to fight terrorism. In the same context, how serious is the United States in influencing Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia – and these countries are not allies of the United States, but puppets in its hands – to what extent the United States will influence them to stop the flow of money, weapons, and terrorists into Syria. Unless these questions are answered, it is impossible to reach this common ground."

From H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad  interview with the Czech Literarni Noviny, January 15, 2015.

 "So far, the United States is playing games and playing for time. What the United States ultimately wants is to use Russia against Syria. It wants Russia to exercise pressure on Syria. This is the common ground the Americans are looking for, and not the common ground necessary to fight terrorism, allow the Syrian people to determine their future, and respect the sovereignty of all countries including Syria. So far, we do not see this common ground. The Russians are trying their best to find it, but I don’t believe that the Americans will respond to this effort positively."

From H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad  interview with the Czech Literarni Noviny, January 15, 2015.

 

 

"It needs a lot of money, it needs about one billion, and it’s very detrimental to the environment. If the American administration is ready to pay this money and to take responsibility of bringing toxic materials to the United States, why don’t they do it? But of course it is going to be in cooperation a specified organization in the United Nations."

From H.E. President Al-Assad's Interview with Fox News, September 19, 2013.

"There’s a misunderstanding that we agreed upon this agreement because of the American threat. Actually, if you go back before the G20, before the proposal of this Russian initiative, the American threat wasn’t about handing over the chemical arsenal; it was about attacking Syria in order not to use the arsenal again. So, it’s not about the threat. Syria never obeyed any threat. Actually, we responded to the Russian initiative and to our needs and to our conviction. So, whether they have Chapter Seven or don’t have Chapter Seven, this is politics between the great countries."

From H.E. President Al-Assad's Interview with Fox News, September 19, 2013.

"We supported the Geneva process from the very beginning. We cooperated with the UN envoys that came to Syria. Actually, the one who put obstacles wasn't Syria neither Russia nor China; it was the United States, for many different reasons. One of the main reasons is that they don't have real opposition abroad. They know this is one of their main problems, because the core of the Geneva conference is to be based on the will of the Syrian people, so whatever we agree upon in Geneva will be proposed to the Syrian people, and if you don't have grassroots, you cannot convince the Syrian people to move with you. This is the American problem with their puppets, to be very clear and very frank."

From H.E. President Al-Assad's Interview with Fox News, September 19, 2013.

"There's mutual respect between Syria and Russia, and they never tried to involve themselves in those Syrian details. Only the American administration, their allies in Europe, and some of their puppets in the Arab world repeat these words, whether the President should leave, what the Syrian people should do, what kind of government; only this bloc interferes in the matters of a sovereign country."

From H.E. President Al-Assad's Interview with Fox News, September 19, 2013.

"As I said, the relation depends on the credibility of the administration. We never looked at the United States as enemy; we never looked at the American people as enemy. We always like to have good relations with every country in the world and first of all the United States because it is the greatest country in the world. That is normal and self-evident. But that does not mean to say and to go in the direction that the United States wants us to go in. We have our interest, we have civilization and we have our will. They have to accept and respect that. We do not have a problem with mutual respect. We want to have good relations, of course."

From H.E. President Al-Assad's Interview with Fox News, September 19, 2013.

 

"The new thing since Obama came to office is that there is no more dictation from the U.S. and they are ready to listen. This is very important as a basis for any relation with any country, especially in a country like Syria which does not accept any dictates from the outside. But the other question here is that it has been now two years since President Obama came to power, so what happened in reality? Actually nothing has changed in reality, even with regard to the bilateral relations, because what we have been doing for the last two years is just signals from Syria towards the U.S. and from the U.S. towards Syria. But how can we translate those signals into reality. So far we cannot, for a simple reason. It is not because of President Obama, I think he is genuine as a person, and he believes in whatever he says. But in the end you have internal politics in the US; you have the Congress, you have many other institutions, whether before or after the elections, it was not a big difference for our situation. Those institutions do not see sometimes the interests of the US, at least in our region, in a very realistic way. That is why if you look at the situation in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, there is no success in the U.S. policy. Part of the desperation we have in the region is related to the policy of the US, and people are becoming against the US. That is what you asked about at the very beginning. So what is happening is good but it is not building anything concrete on the ground yet."

From H.E.'s Interview with Wall Street Journal, (January 31, 2011) 

"I would not say an end because at the end I do not obey the United States, but I would like to have good relations with the United States, I would like to make dialogue and dialogue means interacting; it does not mean to say no, no, no. I do not want to be influenced by you. We have to be influenced by each other. So, let us be moderate and realistic. No, I do not think everybody must cut his relation with anyone with this great power, but I think it is about two things whether positive or negative. The positive one: is it going to be a new era towards more chaos or towards more institutionalization? That is the question. So, that is why I said at the very beginning it is still foggy; we cannot understand the reasons unit we see the end and the end is not clear yet. "

From H.E.'s Interview with Wall Street Journal, (January 31, 2011) 

 

''The obstacle which hinders the return of semi-natural relations between America and Syria is our rejection to say yes to any side, including America except if we are convinced and if this yes expresses our interests…This is the problem, therefore I think that this thing will create a problem in different issues…We have a clear stance towards the Palestinian, Lebanese ,Iraqi issues and the resistance…Our stances are clear and doesn’t comfort them…If we don't say all of them, at least a huge part of the US institutions…This is the problem which is old and not new,"

From H.E.'s Al-Hayat Daily Interview, (October 27, 2010)

 ''Currently, there is no cooperation in any issue and the cooperation has stopped since 2005…We connected the cooperation with the improvement of the bilateral relations…We told them that there will not be any security cooperation without having good relations and a political cooperation.''

From H.E.'s Al-Hayat Daily Interview, (October 27, 2010)

 ''The absence of American Ambassador in Syria doesn't harm us…The mission of our Ambassador in America is to serve our interests and not the opposite…Appointing an American Ambassador in Syria is just a matter of formality expressing an indication…It is an indication but not a practical thing.''

From H.E.'s Al-Hayat Daily Interview, (October 27, 2010)

 ''The relation goes forwards, but in a very slow way, due to the complex circumstances in the US domestic policy,' declaring that 'some positive signals were made by current US Administration, the most important of which is that this Administration no longer pursues the policy of dictations, but of dialogue.''

From H.E.'s TRT TV Interview(October 6, 2010)

 ''When President Obama came to power, there’s some improvement, at least in the atmosphere.  Obviously there are a lot of concrete things happening, moving forward slowly, but the main interest of this administration now and of Senator Kerry is about how can we re-launch the peace process?  President Obama is interested in the peace process in general, but the talk with Senator Kerry was about the Syrian track.  And I think the main — the crux of the problems in this region is the lack of peace.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

 ''You cannot separate the two things because if they want to play the role of the arbiter, they cannot play that role while they are sided with the Israelis.  They have to be an impartial arbiter.   They’re not, and they were never impartial arbiters since the beginning of the peace process.   They have to gain the trust of the different players.  If you don’t have good relations with Syria, how can Syria depend on you as an arbiter?  So, you have to improve the relations.  So, I told the American offshoot that we have to start from improving relations.  If you talk about putting Syria on the terrorism act — terrorism list, they have the Syrian Accountability Act in the Congress.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)  

''Well, we’re waiting for the results.  Without the results — I trust Senator Kerry to start with.  I talked with Senator Kerry, and I think he’s genuine, and I met him five times.  Not the first meeting or the second meeting.  I met him five times under very difficult circumstances, so what he said — he said what he meant — what he means.  But, at the end, he’s not the one who’s going to implement.  You have the administration and you have the Congress; anyone could put obstacles.  So, I think we are looking for the results.  Today, I’m convinced about what he said, but I’m convinced that President Obama wants to do something positive in that regard, but I’m not confident that the institution will allow President Obama to do what he wants to do with Syria and in other subjects and issues.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

 Not because he- President Obama- cannot but because you have institutions in the United States, you have your political system.  It’s not only the president.  If it’s only the president, we could blame the president.  We say that he didn’t do what he had to do.  But you have the institutions and you have the Congress, so it’s not only the ambassador to Syria.  He was about to come, but the Congress, the Republican in the Congress, opposed it recently, so the president has to stop.  So, that’s why I said it’s not that the president doesn’t want to or he cannot do something.  It’s about the whole political system that you have in the United States, and you know more than me about it.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010) 

''They- USA- contradict themselves.  They talk about stability in the region.  Stability starts with good relations.  You cannot have stability and have bad relations.  This is — second, what is the argument? Why do they need to have Syria be away from Iran?  They have conflict Iran so what does it mean to put Syria away from Iran?  Sometime they talk about the relation between Syrian and Iranian relation and the peace.  That’s not true.  That’s not realistic because Iran supported our efforts to achieve, to get back our land through the peace negotiations in 2008 when we had indirect negotiations in Turkey.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

 ''In 2004, or maybe ‘5, I’m not sure, a delegation, big delegation, from the Pentagon from the State Department, from the army and the intelligence came to Syria to ask for cooperation.  And we told them, send us delegation to see what kind of cooperation we can have on the borders, the same delegation, that delegation left Syria, and they didn’t come back again.  We have the same issue recently in the autumn, last autumn.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010) 

“I would like to draw a distinction between President Obama, who has authority, and the United States as a State. The President has good intentions. The climate between us has definitely improved: the veto was lifted to our access to the World Trade Agreement. Sanctions were partially softened, though they were reconfirmed. Yet there are institutions such as Congress, lobbies that weigh in our relationship sometimes in a positive way, other times in a negative way. And, in the end, it is results that matter”.

From H.E.'s La Repubblica Interview (May 24, 2010) 

Bush gave Obama this big ball of fire, and it is burning, domestically and internationally. Obama, he does not know how to catch it.

The approach has changed; no more dictations but more listening and more recognition of America’s problems around the world, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. But at the same time there are no concrete results…. What we have is only the first step…. Maybe I am optimistic about Obama, but that does not mean that I am optimistic about other institutions that play negative or paralyzing role[s] to Obama.

If you talk about four years, you have one year to learn and the last year to work for the next elections. So, you only have two years. The problem, with these complicated problems around the world, where the United States should play a role to find a solution, is that two years is a very short time…. Is it enough for somebody like Obama?

From His Excellency's ''Direct Quotes'' by the New Yorker, (February 3, 2010)

 

''We quite agree with the main lines of what he said before he was President, and since he is President, but when we see the result, countries and peoples ask for a plan of action. How to transform this positive talk that we heard into a reality on the field. I can’t talk about deception, it’s less than a year that President Obama is in power, I think therefore that we must give more time to Obama. But I can say that the peoples of the Middle East are beginning to lose hope. I hope they are wrong.''

From His Excellency's France 2 TV Interview, (November 15, 2009) 

''The USA is the biggest power in the world, playing a role all over the world, with no exception. Consequently, it is able to do more than others. The first of our expectations from this Administration was related to the issue of peace. We have witnessed the beginning of a move within this frame, received Mr. Mitchell, started a dialogue about the issue of the peace; this dialogue was no more than views exchange, no common vision reached to, there was no executive plan,''

From His Excellency's Le Figaro Interview, (November 13, 2009) 

''There is a change in the way of handling the matters; the language of dictations was replaced with the language of dialogue; this is a good point. However, the matter did not exceed the limit of the dialogue,''

From His Excellency's Press Statements during His Visit to Croatia, (October 28-29, 2009)

 ''From the perspective of the general political frame, we do not see any positive development in practice. If there is anything that has changed, then it is the differences in the approaches toward existing problems. There is no longer a US policy of dictating to us. There is a US that is more willing to listen to our opinions. There used to be a sentiment in the US that “think tanks in America could solve the problems in the Middle East.” Now the mentality that problems can be solved by working with countries in the region is being instilled.''

From His Excellency's Interview with the Turkish Zaman Paper, (September 15, 2009)  

''To give a concrete example, in contrast to the Bush administration, there is a US administration that is more open to Turkey's mediation efforts in the region. But in terms of solving problems, the US administration's viewpoint is not very clear, although we do hear general things such as “comprehensive peace” in the region. This is very important from our perspective. Comprehensive means including Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Syria [in the peace process]. There was nothing like this during Bush's time. [Obama] needs to fill in the details under the main heading. This needs to be followed by an implementation/action plan. Nine months have passed since Obama came to office, and this is a very important period in a four-year tenure. We think he needed to act more quickly so that we could say “OK, the Obama administration is different.” All in all, I can say that there are intentions, but we need to see results as well.''

From His Excellency's Interview with the Turkish Zaman Paper, (September 15, 2009)

 “It's normal to have differences between different cultures, between different nations and states. But I think the United States has a special role as the greatest power.”

 From His Excellency’s Sky News Interview, (July 2, 2009)

 "But I think the United States has a special role as the greatest power. I think President Obama should visit as many countries as he can in order to make these dialogues. And of course that includes Syria."

 From His Excellency’s Sky News Interview, (July 2, 2009) 

"A big change comes when you make actions. An invitation is about dialogue, dialogue is about having common ground, a common vision. Then you have to make a plan then, later, you take action."

 From His Excellency’s Sky News Interview, (July 2, 2009) 

“We can say we have a glimmer of hope. They announced their will, which is good, but this is the first step. The second step is to have a plan after you negotiate with the different parties and establish contacts with them. But the most important thing is the partner. Peace is about two parties: the Arabs and the Israelis. We have the will; the Arab side has the will. Now, what about the Israelis? I think the whole world now shares with us the vision that this very extremist government is not ready for peace. But, again, it is not only about this government. What about Olmert? He could not achieve peace because if you have a weak government, like the previous one, you cannot achieve peace. Weak governments go to war and extremist governments go to war, as well. So, it is the same result. Which government can achieve peace? That is the question and it depends on how much the U.S. Administration and their allies in Europe can work with the Israelis to bring them back to the track of peace.”

From His Excellency’s Interview with the Austrian Der Standard, (April, 18, 2009)

 “We heard he- President Obama- is coming to the region; somebody told me he is coming. About the meeting: in principle, it is normal to have a meeting between two Presidents. We do not have any problem now with the United States, especially after Mr. Obama announced his will to withdraw from Iraq. This is very important. But meeting and having a summit has to do with the subject that we are going to discuss. It is very important, first, to agree on the subjects and, then, to prepare for these subjects. So far, there are no proposals from any side to have such a summit. We are still at the beginning of the relation between the Syrian government and the United States Administration. That is why it is still early to talk about this. It is not a photo opportunity. If it were a photo opportunity we could make it happen tomorrow, but it is about goals you want to achieve and this is very important. That is why you have to discuss the subject, first. We have contact at other levels of the Administration and things are moving forward. That is the important thing.”

From His Excellency’s Interview with the Austrian Der Standard, (April, 18, 2009) 

"Yes, in principle. It would be a very positive sign- meeting with President Obama-. But I'm not looking for a photo opportunity. I want to see him, to talk."

 From His Excellency La Repubblica Interview, (March 18, 2009)

  “The United States under Obama could play an important role bringing peace to the region. Only Washington can press Israel."

 From His Excellency La Repubblica Interview, (March 18, 2009)

 "The previous administration only talked with countries in the region, including Syria, about their interests, regardless of our interests."

From His Excellency the Japanese Asahi Shimbun Newspaper Interview, (March 12, 2009)

 

"You start the dialogue and then through the dialogue you see if you have to change or the other one has to change. ... We can continue the dialogue in order to maybe someday have common ground,"

 From His Excellency the Japanese Asahi Shimbun Newspaper Interview, (March 12, 2009) 

"It is not us who have changed. It is the Americans who have changed",

From His Excellency the Japanese Asahi Shimbun Newspaper Interview, (March 12, 2009) 

 “We want to discuss all the issues of concern to the USA and to Syria, so that we could see where the points of convergence are, as well the points of divergence that we could dialogue over,”

 From His Excellency Al-Khaleej Newspaper Interview, (March 9, 2009)

 "We have the impression that this administration will be different, and we have seen the signals. But we have to wait for the reality and the results."

From His Excellency Interview with the Guardian, (February 17, 2009)  

"Bush failed in everything," "They [the Bush administ­ration] worked hard to achieve regime change. But it didn't work. It didn't work because I am not an American puppet and have good relations with my people."

From His Excellency Interview with the Guardian, (February 17, 2009) 

"An ambassador is important,", "Sending these delegations is important. This number of congressmen coming to Syria is a good gesture. It shows that this administration wants to see dialogue with Syria. What we have heard from them – Obama, Clinton and others – is positive."; "We are still in the period of gestures and signals. There is nothing real yet."

From His Excellency Interview with the Guardian, (February 17, 2009)

 "We would like to have dialogue with the US administration. We would like to see him [Petraeus] here in Syria,"

From His Excellency Interview with the Guardian, (February 17, 2009)

 “We want to be optimistic; let us view the issue – the change in the USA- with an optimistic vision, without saying that we have big expectations or hopes. An optimistic vision is based on no new wars, and that there would be a solution for the Iraqi issue represented through Mr. Obama’s pledge to withdraw from Iraq, of course in parallel with the political process, and on the new US Administration involvement, in a serious way, in the Peace Process. We have positive signals; however, we have learned to be cautious, and not to condition our calculations to such signals. As long as there are no concrete things, we have to assume that things have never been changed yet.”

From His Excellency Al-Manar TV Interview, (January 26, 2009)

 “We speak of hopes, not expectations. The Bush administration brought us two wars. The situation in the world has worsened in every respect in the last eight years. Everything has gotten worse, including economic development. The Americans must withdraw from Iraq. The new US administration must seriously commit itself to the peace process. We must help it to do so, together with the Europeans.”

From His Excellency Der Spiegel Interview, (January 19, 2009)

  “We are independent. No one can tell us what to do. Our actions are determined solely by our interests. Good relations with Washington cannot mean bad relations with Tehran.”

From His Excellency Der Spiegel Interview, (January 19, 2009)  

“We would like to contribute to stabilizing the region. But we must be included and not isolated, as has been the case until now. We are willing to engage in any form of cooperation that is also helpful when it comes to America's relations with other countries.”

From His Excellency Der Spiegel Interview, (January 19, 2009)

 

 “We hope that with the New Administration- I think many worldwide share us this hope- there would be no new wars in any place of the world, especially in the Middle East. Secondly, we hope that the Administration is to work seriously, practically and realistically for peace in our region. Thirdly, we hope that this Administration would undertake a serious  work , would have a clear vision for solving the big problem; which is Iraq; first through the work as to withdraw foreign troops from Iraq; second, through the creation of a political process which would lead to the stabilization of Iraq, and to the unification of its territories in the future.”

 From His Excellency Joint Press Conference with His Croatian Counterpart, H. E. Stjepan Mesic, (December 22, 2008) 

 “It is difficult to imagine that a new president, no matter to which party he belongs, would decide at the outset of his Administration that he is going to fail. For in fact, the present Administration has failed in every one of the matters it has approached, from Korea to Iran, Syria, the war against terrorism, Iraq and Georgia, as well as in terms of America’s internal and economic situation. Is it possible for a person, even if he follows the same political line, to pursue the same policies, which would doom him to failure from the start. I believe that it is logical to say that whoever comes to power cannot follow the same path. The question here is to what extent they can distance themselves from this path. The difference between the Democratic and the Republican candidate is another issue. The principal issue is the military aspect of this Administration. Whoever comes to power and adopts the same stances will definitely fail. The USA is a powerful nation and it can cause destruction, but will it succeed in the end?”

 From His Excellency Monday Morning Interview, (September 30, 2008)

 “We have always been talking about the necessity of the US sponsorship for Mideast Peace Process and as to find the guarantees considering its relation with Israel.”

 From His Excellency Statements at the Quartet Damascus Summit  (September 4, 2008) 

“We do not care about change of power in the US; hence all the administrations leave as inheritance for consequent administrations a ball of fire. Even if an administration similar to the current one were to come to power in the US, it is doubtful, that such administration is to commit the same mistakes previously committed. If those who want to practice politics in a more correct manner were to win the elections, there would be very limited changes. Thus, we do not have to pin big hope to this effect.”

 From His Excellency Interview with the Russian Kommersant Daily  (August 20, 2008)

 “The United States under President George W. Bush was not interested in bringing peace to the Middle East, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said here Friday. “We look forward to good relations with the US as its role for the peace process in the Middle East is very important. Unfortunately, this US administration is not interested in peace. We will have to wait for the next one,”

From His Excellency Statements in India (June 19th, 2008) 

“The US says all the problems lie with Syria and so does the solution. When they say this, we feel we are a great country,”; “We are going to help in the peace initiatives. We can also help in Iraq. But it depends on the Americans whether they want to see real and viable solutions to these problems.”

From His Excellency Statements in India (June 19th, 2008) 

“Yes, because this is the image of this administration; everybody in the world still remembers what happened in Iraq when they had all that evidence, but then it was proved that everything was fabricated; even Colin Powel confessed in an interview that he was not truthful, and we all know the same, and most of the countries know about the problem between Syria and the US, and they always try to find traps for Syria. This is reality.”

From His Excellency Indian Daily, the Hindu Interview (June 12th, 2008)

 “No, because we don't have real bilateral relations with the United States anyway. Most of our relations used to be with Europe and now with Asia. A few years ago we took a strategic direction to move towards Asia and even South America, which is south - south, but not with the United States. We have a few hundred thousand dollars in terms of trade balance. The effect is more political than economic.”

From His Excellency Indian Daily, the Hindu Interview (June 12th, 2008) 

“Usually in Syria we don't bet on who is going to be the President of the United States, especially in a campaign. You don't listen to what they say during the campaign. We usually bet on the policies not speeches, but of course the common thing among those candidates is about the failure of the previous government or administration. This is very important. As long as they see the failure, they are not going to adopt the same doctrine or policy. This is very important for us. Now, how to find a solution? You cannot find a solution in the US. You have to make it in the region. If you want to make it in the region, you have to find out who are the main players: first of all, the Iraqis, and second the rest of the countries surrounding Iraq. They can help. You have to make discussions, to make dialogue. The problem with this administration is that they do not have dialogue even with their allies, in Europe or in the region, including the British first of all, who supported them in their war. So, what we heard from the Democrats, Obama and Hilary Clinton, was positive regarding the Iraqi issue, that you have to make dialogue, to have a political process in order to have withdrawal at the end. What we heard from McCain, that he is going to stay for a hundred years in Iraq: I don't think that's what you may hear from a politician usually, any politician, that he wants to stay one hundred years. But anyway, we have to wait until somebody is in the office.”

From His Excellency Indian Daily, the Hindu Interview (June 12th, 2008) 

"We had several meetings with the Americans, including one between the Syrian foreign minister and his US counterpart. We also received congressional delegations carrying messages from the US Administration. They come to us to its knowledge, but they seem to be wont to retain their positions that they are against Syria even though they have security meetings with the Iranians."

From His Excellency Statements during His Kuwait Visit (June 4th, 2008)

 "Eventually, the negotiations will be carried out under US, international and Arab umbrellas, but the US has no part in the ongoing negotiations at this time,", but the current US administration "has problems not only with Syria, but with its friends as well, which is why nothing much is expected from this administration."

From His Excellency Statements during His U A E Visit (June 3rd, 2008)

  “We do reject a deal related to any issue; it is not part of our habits to make deals in politics; hence the issue doesn’t pertain to commodity selling and buying; it pertains to states rights, principles, and interests. In fact, what has happened is contrary to that, where we have been offered many things whether from the Americans or from those who relate to them. We have always told them that the issue of the international court is related to Lebanon, and is an agreement between the Lebanese government and the United Nations.”

 From His Excellency Interview given to the Qatari ‘Al-Wtan’ Daily  (April 27th 2008) 

 "When in anticipation the US Administration or some of its officials talk about the investigation results as to lead to this or that, this means that they have taken the place of the court; when a political administration talks on behalf of the judges means that this issue is manipulated for political purposes.”

From His Excellency Interview given to the Qatari ‘Al-Wtan’ Daily  (April 27th 2008)

 

“I will only tell them that their approach towards Syria, the previous approach towards Syria was futile, and you have to seek another approach which is dialogue and taking our interests into consideration. That is the only message we want, it is about our interests.”

From H. E. ’s BBC Interview  ( October 1, 2007)

 “I do not think that we created the war in Iraq to talk about destabilizing the Middle East; we did not create the problem in Lebanon recently, we did not meddle in the affairs of different countries to create the instability or to sow instability. This is first. Second, we do not have any interest in sowing instability in the region because we are going to pay the price. We have strong interests in having a stable region and that is what we are working for. So, we do not take these statements into consideration.”

From H. E. ’s BBC Interview  ( October 1, 2007) 

 “We do not bet on any President or administration. We are betting on policy. But again, as I have said many times that we have lost hope with this administration. We do not think that they will work for peace. We do not think that they have learned anything from their experience and failure in Iraq. That is why, so if you call it buying time or whatever it is something subjective, but this is the reality.”

From H. E. ’s BBC Interview  ( October 1, 2007)

 “Actually, we tried hard for many years, but they always turned a deaf ear not only to Syria but even to their allies who were disappointed because of the reaction towards the peace issue, Iraq, Palestine and even towards the issue of terrorism. They turned a deaf ear. It is not true that we did not try; we tried hard and it is very normal that you have to try to keep good relations with the major power in the world; it is not wise not to look for bad relations with it.”

From H. E. ’s BBC Interview  ( October 1, 2007) 

"First of all, they have to stop looking for scapegoats and whipping boys, this administration. And there's a logical answer: We cannot stoke the fire and then extinguish it. If you stoke it, it will burn you. So if we have this chaos in Iraq, it will spill over to Syria and to other countries, so saying this, like saying that the Syrian government is working against the Syrian interest, this is impossible."

From HE’s ABC News TV Interview, (February 5, 2007) 

" This administration, in general, are not interested in peace at all. This administration is not willing to achieve peace. They don't have the will, and they don't have the vision. This is, in brief, what I know about this administration not about the president in particular. "

From HE’s ABC News TV Interview, (February 5, 2007) 

Q: And is there anyone operating on the world stage today that you admire? Any leader, any diplomat?

"Maybe Bush, the father, because of his will to achieve the peace in the region. Of course, President Clinton, he has the same will, and he is admired in our region and respected. "

From HE’s ABC News TV Interview, (February 5, 2007)

 

"They have to understand me by understanding my culture as a person. If they want to understand me as a president, they have to understand whom I represent; and this is related to the culture of my people. So, this the problem with the west: If I want to make an analogy to two computers with different systems – if we talk about windows – we notice that they do the same job but they have different systems. So, you have sometimes some software to make the translation between the two systems. We do not have to talk about the events; we have to explain and analyze these events and translate them from our culture to another culture. That is what we want from the media in your country and from the politicians. That is how they can understand, and then they will understand that we need peace, we need prosperity and we need reform."

From HE’s PBS TV Interview, (March 30, 2006)

 "When you don't understand the culture, you don't understand the politics, especially in our region. If you don't understand the culture and the politics, you don't understand what decision we take as leaders and why, and what we say and why. That is why we always have misunderstandings when we conduct a dialogue with many delegations coming from the West, especially the United States. They ask us questions that show how they misunderstand our vision and our beliefs and goals."

From HE’s PBS TV Interview, (March 30, 2006)

"First of all, as American officials you have to talk with me about your interests, and as a Syrian official I have to talk with you about my interests. If you ask them about Iraq they would say, "we want stability, we want to support the political process, and we won’t stay in Iraq," and in Syria we want stability, support the political process and don’t want to see any foreign troops there. So, we share the same titles with the Americans, and that is why we can find common interests. Exactly, but we should take into consideration our interests. The problem with this administration is that they talk of their interests only and don’t talk of the interests of other countries. This problem is not only with Syria but also with many countries. But if you talk about the end results, they haven’t achieved their own interests. Four years after the 9/11 events what has the world achieved? Did it achieve any better? I cannot see that. They have to deal with the facts instead of wasting time discussing wishful thinking and titles and slogans."

From HE’s PBS TV Interview, (March 30, 2006) 

  

"When Collin Powell came in 2003 and talked to us about controlling the borders, we said that we could not, and this has been a chronic problem. In principle, no country can control its borders. Big trucks used to enter Syria undetected, so how do you want Syria to control the passage of individuals? At any rate, if you are so concerned about this problem, we accept any technology that could help us in this area. Of course they have not provided anything. Many American delegations came and talked to us about the same issue. They used to start by saying the United States cannot control its borders with Mexico, and end up by saying that Syria has to control its borders with Iraq. This means that a super-power cannot control its borders and we can. Iraqi delegations came and talked with the same logic; and there were unfounded accusations. We told our Iraqi brothers that we were prepared to cooperate in that regard. We told all these parties that regardless of the American demand, and regardless of any pressure, we have an interest in controlling our borders, because the chaos in Iraq had a direct impact on the security situation in Syria. So, we have an interest, but cooperation requires two parties. Shall we cooperate with ourselves on both sides of the border? We are on one side of the border, and there has to be cooperation on the other side, whether on the part of the Americans or the Iraqis. We stress again today that we are open without limits to cooperation with our Iraqi brothers, whether for controlling the borders directly or what lies beyond the borders, through security cooperation and other measures. The strange thing is that the American accusations after the invasion and until the middle of 2004 were about what they called them Jihadis or Salafis or fundamentalists or Islamic terrorists. Suddenly these became Baathists and followers of Sadam Husein. This shows the state of confusion and the psychological pressure on the occupation forces. "

From HE’s Damascus University Speech , (November 10, 2005) 

"If it is a matter of a bargain: they raise a problem here in order to bargain over different issues, like Iraq for instance, let them come forward and negotiate and bargain over the counter and in front of our people. We do not have any thing that we are ashamed of. Our relationship with the people is based on frankness. I used to say the same thing to the American officials: if you have a deal, and you like deals, please let us have it. I will propose it to the people and if they agree, we do not have a problem. “

From HE’s Damascus University Speech, (November 10, 2005) 

"I wouldn't say this is true- US accusations regarding the Syria-Iraq borders-. It's completely wrong. You have an aspect of the problem. The first aspect is no country can control his borders completely. And example is the border between the United States and Mexico. And many American officials told me: "We cannot control our border with Mexico." But at the end, they end up saying: "You should control your border with Iraq." This is impossible, and I told Mr. Powell that for the first time we met after the war. I told him: "It's impossible to control the border." And we asked for some technical support, but we did many steps to control our border, as I said, not completely, but we did many steps. And we'd like to invite any delegation from the world or from the United States to come and see our borders to see the steps that we took, and to look at the other side to see nothing. There is nobody on the other side, American or Iraqi."

From HE’s CNN Interview, (October 12, 2005)

 

"As regard US sanctions on Syria and Syria-US current and future relations, the President said that such sanctions are a new form of international relations which yields hegemony and interference in a country’s internal affairs. Such a principle is rejected and most states announced their rejection of the sanctions. But the world is influenced and no state lives isolation. So, sanctions can have impacts and it is not yet known whether these impacts are great or otherwise. The Americans are trying to convert the impacts from moral ones into economic and financial ones. We are still maintaining dialogue with the Americans. ‏ On the other hand, the Syrian-US relations are always changing. They were severed in the 1960s and were restored in 1974 when President Nixon visited Syria. Throughout the past 30 years, relations were not stable. Sometimes we reach agreement and at other times we differ due to changes in the American Administration. However, the only thing that remains is dialogue and we hope that by so doing relations can be positive and we hope they become more stable. ‏ We want relations to be stable, but till now they are unstable."

From HE’s Interview with the Chinese People Daily, (June 21, 2004) 

"Until now , dialogue is still the basis. This does not mean the relation is good . It changes continuously and every day. And it differs between one trend and another inside the US. Administration . There are trends that we have the desire to make dialogue with. These trends believe that dialogue with us is important for a number of reasons that are related to the issues of the region in general , and to Syria's role in particular . We cannot specify things now precisely , particularly that the US. administration has gone into election stage and everything in the US is now governed by elections. Many persons told us they were not convinced when they had voted for Syria's Accountability Act. But , they added , they did this out of their electoral interests which motivated them to vote for it. This is known about the United States. Some of them are members of the Congress .But dialogue is still going on."

From HE’s Interview with Al Jazeera, (May 3, 2004)

 

Q - How do you see the new U.S. Administration?

"There haven’t been any contact with it yet; we have no information,"

Q - What do you expect from President Bush?

"We expect what we want… neutrality in peace process, efficiency in implementing UN Security Council resolutions and pushing the Israelis to give back all Arab rights."

From HE’s Interview with al-Sharq Al-Awsat Daily, (January 29, 2004) 

 

"American relations for some reason fluctuate in different periods of time. Whenever the Syrian relations deteriorated with United States, invariably, it was the Israeli factor that caused that deterioration. What do I mean by the Israeli factor? It could be Israeli influence or effect in the United States through the lobby, or it could be the complete biased attitude of the Americans toward the Israeli government. In fact if you take the Israeli element out of the picture, I cannot see the difference between Syria and the U.S.; there are no differences between Syria and the United States about what we want to achieve in the region."

From HE’s Interview with The New York Times, (December 1, 2003) 

“There are differences in priorities between us and the US.... When Secretary Powell talked about the Palestinian offices, we asked him to talk about all the issues concerning our two countries in a package.... Our priority is to restore our territory, the Golan.”

 From HE’s Interview with The New York Times, (December 1, 2003)

 “We are working for better cooperation. Combating terrorism is evidence. We helped save the lives of Americans last year.”

  From HE’s Interview with The New York Times, (December 1, 2003) 

 “The US demands are usually unidentified and are sometimes contradictory. For example, they call for giving up mass destruction weapons and when we call for giving up those weapons from the whole region, they object. The US demands are many and what is important for us is whether these demands fit or unfit our interests. The Americans demanded the expelling of Palestinian organizations leaders, but they are only officials. The leaders of the organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad are inside the occupied territories, we rejected this demand because those officials did not violate the Syrian laws, did not encroach upon Syria's interests and are not terrorists.”

  From HE’s Interview with  Al-Hayat Daily , (November 7, 2003) 

 "Under normal conditions and when there are no problems, the smuggling of persons or goods are frequent. But the insecure conditions where a war, occupation and disorder exist, it is natural that conditions deteriorate. President Bush talked to the Focus channel a time ago and said Syria was doing its duty but the Iraqi borders are vast.” "There is a difference between actions carried out with the knowledge of the state and actions beyond its control. The borders are long and uncontrollable.”

  From HE’s Interview with  Al-Hayat Daily, (November 7, 2003)

 “We are in disagreement with US policies, because the US has different policies on the issue of terrorism. Certainly, we don't seek for disagreement with the US or with any other country, but we always seek for agreement. Dialogue is the most important way for agreement; it could achieve something on the medium, long, and perhaps, short terms. Circumstances could be much worse without dialogue. Dialogue exists and doesn't stop. We see that Americans want dialogue, but sometimes two different mentalities, different principles and different cultures exist between the two parties.”

 From HE’s Interview with  Al-Hayat Daily, (November 7, 2003) 

 "The relationship among states is similar to a network. Even between the sisterly countries, there will be sometimes a need for a third Arab party in order not to say a mediation. This auxiliary role, I call, is natural one. For example, Europe understands the region's affairs more than America does. Europe, in the topics of peace and Iraq, is much closer to our view point. There must be a benefit from this approach in understanding and stand in order to transfer the picture to the Americans. Some Arab states have stronger relations with America than the relations of other Arab states, and their words might be heard more by America. It is natural to have these states play a role to bring view points between Syria and the US closer.”

 From HE’s Interview with  Al-Hayat Daily, (November 7, 2003)

 “Proposed US law embodies two things: a conflict between the American administration in general because it doesn't want to issue it since it embarrasses it, and between the other forces in the Congress or in the Israeli lobby which supports the issuance of this act. In the American administration, there are forces who want this act and others who don't. The content of this act in general is to sanction Syria and press it in the economic and other fields. Pressure is exerted but there are no commercial and economic relations between Syria and the US except in the subject of American oil companies which are limited in number and size. Thereby, there will cause no damage towards Syria except towards these companies.”

 From HE’s Interview with  Al-Hayat Daily, (November 7, 2003) 

The hawks of the US Administration, the interviewer said, are trying to hold Syria and Iran the responsibility of Americans failure in Iraq. Is this a source of fear to Syria and Iraq? The President answered:  “If we said that we are unconcerned, this is not correct and unrealistic. But if we said we are afraid, this is not realistic talk, too. There is always a kind of caution. We are not a great state, but we are not a weak state either, we are not a state without cards to play or without a basis. We are not a state that cannot be reckoned with vis-à-vis the issues put forward.”

 From HE’s Interview with  Al-Hayat Daily, (November 7, 2003)

 “Relations with United States are contradictory. For example there is contradiction regarding terrorism and Iraq, and while we are cooperating with regard to terrorism yet there is complete difference between the two countries on the Iraqi issue.” “The United States because it is a superpower is trying to impose its opinions on others; but Syria has always acted in line with its convictions, and interests and Syria's conviction with regard to war has remained unchanged while the Americans could not link Iraq with terrorism or mass destruction weapons.”

 From HE’s Interview with  the Austrian The Standard Daily, (April 3, 2003)

 

“Syria cooperate with the United States in combating terrorism out of her principle and not because of the good bilateral relations, and Syria confronted al- Qaida in Lebanon four years ago in cooperation with the Lebanese army.”

   From HE’s Interview with The British The Times, (December13, 2002) 

"We have no problem with the United States, we are neither for or against the United States."

From HE’s Interview with Reuters, (November 18, 2002)

 "I think if the American Administration is able to formulate one opinion, then they can probably have cooperation with Europe but you need first to have one opinion. This is what I have said to William Burns, the Assistant Secretary of the United States when he visited me in Damascus two months ago. I said to him: you are a group of administrations, not just one administration. And I said to him: each one of your administrations has a different opinion . So, I think that Europe has to choose one of these administrations to deal with."

From HE’s Interview with Corriere Della Sera, (February 14, 2002)

 

Dr. Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

''While we are fighting the same, let’s say enemy, while we’re attacking the same target in the same area without any coordination and at the same time without any conflict. And actually this is strange, but this is reality. There’s not a single coordination or contact between the Syrian government and the United States government or between the Syrian army and the U.S. army. This is because they cannot confess, they cannot accept the reality that we are the only power fighting ISIS on the ground. For them, maybe, if they deal or cooperate with the Syrian Army, this is like a recognition of our effectiveness in fighting ISIS. This is part of the willful blindness of the U.S. administration, unfortunately.''

From H.E. President Al-Assad's Russian Media Interview, September 16, 2015.

 

Google
Web Site

hafez al assad speech