Statements of the Supreme Leader in Meeting with Officials and Servants of the Islamic Republic of Iran

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful Thanks be to God, the Lord of the worlds. And peace and blessings be upon our master and prophet, Abu al-Qasim Muhammad, and upon his pure and chosen progeny, especially the Awaited One on earth. God, the Wise, says in His Book: "In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Those to whom people said, 'Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them.' But it increased them in faith, and they said, 'Sufficient for us is God, and He is the best disposer of affairs.' So they returned with grace from God and bounty, and no harm touched them, and they followed the pleasure of God. And God has great bounty." Dear brothers and sisters; esteemed officials and prominent managers of the Islamic Republic! Welcome. This is a very sweet and desirable session, and God willing, it will be beneficial. The statements of Mr. Khatami were good and useful, reflecting very good and noble motivations. We hope that, God willing, the points he made - especially the first part, which was related to the conduct of the Master of the Pious and the Imam of Monotheists, Amir al-Mu'minin (peace be upon him) - will remain in our memory and serve as a lesson for us. The purpose of this session, first and foremost, is to create affection and camaraderie. If there is also a convergence of opinions and thoughts on various issues, that is even better; and if there are differences of opinion on some matters, camaraderie will fill the gaps. Thus, the language of mutual understanding is different; camaraderie is better than mere words. Camaraderie will be facilitated by the remembrance of God. The remembrance of God illuminates the heart; it brings light to the heart; it removes the dust of hatred, envy, and selfishness from hearts; it creates an anchor for turbulent and anxious hearts; it grants tranquility and instills confidence and trust. The remembrance of God is always accessible for pure hearts; except for a heart that has become afflicted with impurities. For such a person, the remembrance of God is difficult; such a person will not receive this grace and will not be admitted to the sacred sanctuary of God. A heart that is tainted by lust, by love of power, by hatred of God's servants, by envy and selfishness, and by love of wealth cannot find its way to the sacred sanctuary of God; unless it is cleansed. Cleanse yourself and then walk to the tavern, so that this dilapidated temple does not become tainted by you. In the sacred sanctuary of God's remembrance, a tainted heart is not admitted; we must cleanse ourselves. If the heart can adorn itself with the remembrance of God, divine acceptance will undoubtedly be granted to it; "Call upon Me; I will respond to you." No prayer goes unanswered. Acceptance does not mean that a person's request will necessarily be fulfilled - it may be fulfilled, or it may not be fulfilled due to reasons and interests - but divine acceptance exists. Divine acceptance is God's response, attention, and consideration; even if the request that you and I have - which we may think is in our favor, but is actually to our detriment - is not realized; but your "O God" undoubtedly has a response following it. Let us strive to perfume our hearts; today we are in great need of this purification of hearts. I am more in need of this divine remedy than all of you; and our group, which bears heavy responsibilities, is more in need than those who do not have these responsibilities. Our work is heavy. The Almighty God Himself requires heavy worship, those night vigils, those tears, and those supplications from the Noble Prophet in all fields; because his burden is heavy. Everyone, according to the weight of their burden, needs to strengthen this relationship with the Almighty God. If we can strengthen this relationship, our works will be rectified; our path will be opened; our minds will be illuminated, and the horizon before us will become bright; but if we do not untie this knot, our works will not reach the necessary order. A person may succeed in some things, but the goal of worldly successes does not stop there. The goal of a monotheist is far beyond anything that exists within the framework of the material world; although what exists within the framework of the material world is all presented as a means and a path towards those goals. You cannot pass through this path, but you should not stop on this path. The goal must be set beyond the desires that exist within the framework of this world. We hope that the Almighty God grants us the success to carry out these tasks. My dear ones! In our country - as you heard from the statements of Mr. President - there are abundant resources and bright horizons; of course, there are also problems; we must utilize those resources and overcome these problems. In such circumstances, what seems to me to be the most important in our human interactions is this unity and camaraderie. The atmosphere should not become clouded. If the Almighty God grants the success for the officials of the system to interact with each other in a spirit of camaraderie - which does not necessarily mean they must think alike; sometimes opinions may differ; but there should be no basis for conflict and hostility - many problems will be resolved. Our Islamic Revolution and system provide a very favorable ground for this inner purification and the purification of the working atmosphere of the country. We must make the utmost use of this opportunity. Of course, efforts are being made to present non-essential issues as essential; unreal demands - or real, but secondary - are being portrayed as the main national discourse; but the main discourse of this nation is not these; the main discourse of this nation is that everyone should find ways to strengthen the system, reform works and methods, open knots, clarify ideals and goals for all people, utilize the immense force of initiative, movement, desire, and faith of these faithful people, and find the path towards the lofty ideals of this system - which will lead everyone to happiness. What should occupy minds, hearts, and thoughts is this. Of course, we have many tasks and responsibilities resting on all of us. Everyone must do their work in the best way possible. What I wanted to present today is how we can eliminate defects and shortcomings; eradicate corruption and, in the true sense of the word, bring about reform in the country. This is a very important question and it deserves the attention of all those who are interested in the fate of this country and this nation. Today, the issue of reforms - which is a current topic for everyone - is raised in the country. Many people talk about reforms and strive for them. What are reforms? What is the path to achieving reforms? What are the priorities of reforms? These are very important issues. Another important issue in this context is what the enemy seeks in its propaganda - which pursues the slogan of reforms. Reforms belong to us. Why do you see global propaganda focused on reforms in Iran? The reason for this is that this propaganda belongs to centers that cannot claim to seek the good of the Iranian nation. Is the existence of corruption, oppression, and the deterioration of conditions in this country anything other than the dominance and influence of the arrogant power of England in the first period, and America in the subsequent period? What power created oppression in this country? What power established national and governmental institutions based on corruption in this country? What power fought against public and human morals for fifty years? What hand brought Reza Khan to power? What factors instigated the coup of August 28? Over these fifty-some years, who carried out the ugliest propaganda to lead this nation towards corruption, lawlessness, and disbelief in moral and religious principles? Our youth today do not remember anything from the press of the Pahlavi regime; but you who remember, know. Those corrupt newspapers and - as a well-known Muslim intellectual put it - those colorful magazines were encouraged by whom? Where did they receive their support and encouragement from? From whom did they take their model, other than the very power structures that brought that regime to power and supported it with all their might? Today, in order to oppose the name and dominance of the arrogant government of America with all our being, what reason do we need, other than the fact that that regime wasted and destroyed all our human, financial, moral, and intellectual resources for fifty years? What was the achievement of the Pahlavi regime for Iran over these fifty years? How can this ruin they created be repaired, and in what time? Who laid the groundwork for it? Who helped? Who guided? Who strengthened their espionage apparatus? Who gave them directives? At the same time, that same government of America and England, their leaders, their politicians, their media centers, today defend and support something called reforms and freedom in Iran! This should awaken every intelligent person and make every negligent person alert and aware. What is the issue? This is a very important discussion and a very fundamental question. As someone who has faced various aspects and currents of this system from the beginning of this revolution until today; I know both the people and their words, and I am familiar with the media propaganda of the world; I have come to a conclusion that, in summary, is this: a comprehensive American plan for the collapse of the Islamic Republic has been devised, and its aspects have been measured from all sides. This plan is a restructured version of what happened in the collapse of the Soviet Union. They think they want to implement the same plan in Iran. This is what the enemy wants. If I were to mention the evidence and signs of this, they are already in my mind; not that I need to search for signs; there are clear signs in their own statements. Over these past years, from their arrogant and powerful statements, and sometimes uncalculated ones - which they themselves say that a certain interview we conducted was hasty - the validity of this claim becomes completely clear that they have reconstructed the plan for the collapse of the former Soviet Union according to the conditions of Iran and want to implement it in Iran. Of course, they have also made mistakes in several instances, which is also one of God's graces. Our enemies make mistakes in their calculations at critical times. Of course, these are not mistakes that if I mention them, they can correct; no, they have made mistakes in understanding the realities. They plan based on these mistakes, and incorrect planning leads to failure; hence they do not succeed. They planned to defend the Pahlavi regime and stood against it with all their might; however, they made mistakes in understanding the issues of Iran, in understanding the people, in understanding the clergy, and in understanding religion; hence they failed. Here too, their fate will not be different, and they will fail. They made mistakes in several instances: their first mistake is that Mr. Khatami is not Gorbachev. Their second mistake is that Islam is not communism. Their third mistake is that the popular system of the Islamic Republic is not the dictatorship of the proletariat. Their fourth mistake is that a united Iran is not a Soviet Union composed of pinned-together territories. Their fifth mistake is that the unparalleled role of religious and spiritual leadership in Iran is no joke. I will explain these mistakes later. Let me refer to the American plan for the collapse of the Soviet Union. This thing that I have in mind now, a large part of it comes from notes that I took day by day in 1991 from the news of the Soviet events. Of course, later it was completed with the abundant information that our friends provided from important Russian and non-Russian sources, which I do not want to elaborate on now; but it is a huge affair. When we say the American plan for the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is necessary to mention three points alongside this word "American": The first point is that when we say American plan, it does not mean that the rest of the Western bloc did not cooperate with America in this regard; yes, all of the West and all of Europe cooperated intensely with America in this regard. For example, the roles of Germany, England, and some other countries were prominent. They had serious cooperation. The second point is that when we say American plan, it does not mean that we ignore the internal factors of the collapse of the Soviet Union; no, there were internal factors for the collapse within the Soviet system, and the enemy made the best use of those factors. What were those internal factors? Severe economic poverty, pressure on the people, severe oppression, administrative corruption, and bureaucracy. Of course, ethnic and national motivations also existed here and there. The third point is that this American or Western plan - however we refer to it - was not a military plan. It was primarily a media plan that was executed mainly through banners, placards, newspapers, films, and so on. If someone calculates, they will see that about fifty to sixty percent of it was related to the influence of media and cultural tools. My dear ones! Take the issue of cultural invasion seriously - which I raised seven or eight years ago. Cultural blitz is no joke. After the media and propaganda factor, the second factor was political and economic. The military factor was nonexistent. And what was this plan? When Gorbachev came to power in 1985 - around the years 1986 and 1987 - he was a young element in contrast to the old, aged secretaries-general. He was an intellectual and affable; the slogan he raised was the slogan of perestroika first and glasnost second. The Persian translation of perestroika is economic restructuring and reforms; and glasnost means reforms in social issues, freedom of expression, and the like. In the first year or two, a flood of words, analyses, interpretations, encouragements, and suggestions poured over Gorbachev from the media, to the point that he was introduced by American centers as the man of the year! This was during the Cold War; that is, at a time when the Americans shot down every shadow of success in the Soviet Union! Before Gorbachev, if there were any good realities in the Soviet Union, they vehemently denied them and launched a propaganda blitz against them. But suddenly, they took such a stance towards Gorbachev! This open embrace of the West, as a great encouragement, deceived Gorbachev! I cannot claim that Gorbachev was someone who the Westerners or the CIA brought to power - as some people in the world claimed - I really do not see signs of this, and I do not have any news from behind the scenes; but what is certain is that the open embrace, the open face, the smiling face, the praise and respect of the Westerners deceived Gorbachev. He trusted the Westerners and Americans; but he was deceived. Gorbachev wrote a book called perestroika - the second revolution - in which one can observe signs of this deception. In the atmosphere of oppression of that day in the Soviet Union, these slogans were extremely disruptive. It is around this year 1990 or 1991 - I have written this in my notes - that Gorbachev lifted the permit for travel from one city to another in the Soviet Union! Seventy-three years after the establishment of the Soviet Union, after the thirty-year period of Stalin and the eighteen or nineteen-year period of Brezhnev and others, Mr. Gorbachev, among the things he did in the context of glasnost, was to lift the travel permit! In such an atmosphere, you see what it means to think and raise the issue of freedom of expression. When he speaks of freedom of expression, how astonishing and disruptive it is for the people! Throughout this period, the only significant newspaper in the entire Soviet Union was "Pravda," which is a public newspaper. There was also a newspaper related to youth. A few other specialized publications existed; but the multiplicity of newspapers and the existence of such and such books were not at all visible. A writer who criticized some of the foundations of socialism - not all of them - had been denied permission to leave the Soviet Union for many years. Of course, the Americans made a lot of propaganda about him and talked a lot about him, which I remember from before the revolution. In such an atmosphere, this slogan was given by Gorbachev; however, they made mistakes that I do not want to mention now. As the discussion progresses, some of their mistakes will become clear. Some time passed, and a flood of Western propaganda, Western culture, and Western symbols - symbols of clothing and McDonald's and such things that are actually among the symbols of America - found their way into the Soviet Union. What I am saying is not the thought of a secluded cleric; in those days, I read in American magazines - Time and Newsweek - that the establishment of McDonald's coffee shops in Moscow was mentioned as an important news and as a precursor of Western culture and American culture in the Soviet country! Gorbachev's slogans were at their peak for a year or two; but then suddenly another element named Yeltsin appeared alongside Gorbachev. Yeltsin's role was decisive. His role was to constantly stomp his foot and say that these slogans are of no use; this pace is slow; it is late; reforms have fallen behind! If a wise and prudent person had been in Gorbachev's place, perhaps he could have carried out those reforms without worry over twenty years - just as this happened in China - but Gorbachev lost even that amount of restraint and self-control. It reached a point where Gorbachev dismissed his deputy - Yeltsin - but the American and Western media not only did not dismiss him, but rather strengthened him! For about a year or more, he was presented as a prominent, enlightened, reformist figure in the Western and American propaganda. Later, the presidential elections of Russia took place. You know that the republics had separate elections. Of course, they did not have elections; it was decided that they would have elections. One of Gorbachev's actions was to say that we should have elections. In the Soviet Union, since the time of the Tsars, not even one election had taken place. Elections during the Tsarist period were similar to the elections during our Shah's time. Incidentally, their constitutional history is exactly aligned with the history of the Iranian constitutional movement, with a one-year difference. During the Tsarist period, the National Assembly - the Duma - was a form, like our National Assembly during the Pahlavi regime. Then, when the communists came to power, the assembly ceased to exist; elections ceased to exist; it was all over! Now, after seventy-three years, the first election in the Russian Republic - not all of the Soviet Union - was to be held. Who was the candidate? Mr. Yeltsin! With a high vote, Yeltsin - that very radical element - became president. From here, a sweet story unfolds. From the day Yeltsin became president in June 1991 - that is, 24/3/1370 - until about the fourth or fifth of December, when the Soviet Union was officially dissolved, about seven months passed. That is, these few years were spent on preparations. Some of the preparations were made by Gorbachev, and some were made when Gorbachev's time had expired, by Yeltsin, and the American and Western plan accelerated until Yeltsin came to power. As soon as Yeltsin became president and the second person in the Soviet Union, the initiative fell into his hands. On 24/3/1370, Yeltsin became president, and on 26/3/1370 - just three days later - George Bush, the President of the United States, announced that the three Baltic republics - Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania - did not belong to the Soviet Union and that the Soviet Union must relinquish these three republics and recognize their independence; if they do not recognize it, the aid that America promised would be cut off. Of course, I do not remember exactly whether the aid was promised during Ronald Reagan's time or during Bush's; in any case, they had promised Gorbachev aid. Shortly thereafter, Yeltsin announced that we recognize the independence of the three republics! Two months later, in order to make Yeltsin's face more prominent, the famous coup of August in the Soviet Union occurred; a coup that at that time seemed completely suspicious. The cameras of American television - CNN and others - became active in Moscow and focused on Yeltsin. Here, our television broadcast the image of CNN, and we saw that Yeltsin was on a tank and was among the people, shouting that no, we will not surrender to the coup plotters! Then he went to the parliament, but the coup plotters had no business with Yeltsin, who had taken refuge in the National Assembly - the Duma - and did not go after him; but they went after Gorbachev, who was spending his vacation in the Crimea! Yeltsin was also chanting slogans! A media uproar was created in the world, and of course, there was not much news about the reality! A number of tanks appeared in the streets of Moscow, but they were not there for three days; after three days, they said that they had arrested the coup plotters in their sleep! The result of the coup was that Yeltsin - who was the second character - actually became the first character! At that time, our foreign minister made a trip to the Central Asian republics and returned. I asked him what was the news? He said it was clear that the president of the Soviet Union was Yeltsin, not Gorbachev! It was clear to the world that this was the case. Then the republics began to seek independence one by one. For example, Ukraine claimed that it wanted to become independent. Gorbachev opposed it, but Yeltsin said we accept it; eventually, after two or three days, Gorbachev also accepted it! Therefore, an issue arose where Gorbachev either had to push himself forward to avoid falling behind, and give the same slogans; or he had to comply after a few days; because the pressure of global propaganda did not allow anything other than what Yeltsin said to be said. This process began in late June. Following that, Gorbachev's resignation from the secretary-generalship of the party was raised; then the proposal to dissolve the Communist Party, then the announcement of the failure of communism - the very thing that the Americans were very pleased about - and finally, the rumor of Gorbachev's resignation was spread. At that time, in an interview, Gorbachev was asked whether he would resign or not? He said, "I am waiting for the American Secretary of State to come to Moscow to see what happens!" The American Secretary of State came to Moscow, and before contacting Gorbachev, he contacted Yeltsin; that too in the main meeting palace of the Kremlin. The meaning of his action was that Gorbachev was finished! Three days later, Gorbachev resigned, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union was announced! This was America's successful plan in the Soviet Union. That is, with a completely clever plan, with the expenditure of some money, by buying some individuals, and by employing propaganda media, they were able to completely destroy and eliminate a superpower through a three to four-year design and a six to seven-month conclusion! Of course, let me tell you that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia did not become the second Brazil as they wanted. They wanted Russia to become a Brazil - that is, a third-world country - with high production, but deep troubles and poverty, and without any role in world politics. You see today where Brazil's voice and opinion and presence attract attention in the world? They wanted to do this to Russia, but it did not happen; why? Because Russia has a good and strong nation; racially, the people are resilient; and their industrial progress, their nuclear capabilities, their scientists, their research, and other facilities are noteworthy. The planners of these matters who sat down and tailored them for themselves have dreamed of such a fate for the Islamic Republic as well. They do not think that if the Islamic Republic of Iran suffers the same fate as the Soviet Union, it will become a country like today's Russia; no, they think that Iran will become a country at the level of the Pahlavi era; that is, in the tenth row after Turkey! Because they imagine that there is no nuclear capability here; there is not that much scientific progress; there is not a population of three hundred million; there is not a country as vast as Russia - which is still the largest country in the world today. But what is the reality now? The reality is as different from what they planned as the earth is from the sky! They made a big mistake. I truly regret that I should mention our dear Khatami's name - this noble, pious, devoted son of religious knowledge and devoted to the Imam and a cleric like us - in the way the Westerners have presented it, and compare him to Gorbachev; but they made this comparison and explicitly stated that a Gorbachev has come to power in Iran! Of course, let us not forget that unfortunately, some people inside were pleased and did not understand this insult and the conspiracy behind this insult! I do not care about the malicious and those who understand what is happening and what they want to bring about; but some of those who were not malicious did not understand what happened and what the enemy wanted to do. Let us return to those differences. The first difference is the difference between our president and Mr. Gorbachev. Gorbachev was an intellectual who likely did not have much belief in the principles and foundations of Marxism; he was someone who did not accept the structure of the Soviet Union; he had expressed this in various languages. Of course, at the time he came to power, he could not state these things so explicitly; but he eventually expressed them. Our president, the Islamic Republic, is his heartfelt faith and belief; the Imam is his guide and leader; he is a cleric. They first made statements in their delusions, and still their most political and cunning ones make those statements; but some of them have become frightened in the last two years and have repeatedly stated in their propaganda that no, he is one of their own; he is among these fundamentalists! They have understood this correctly! Gorbachev was indifferent to the foundations of Marxism and was enamored with the West; the words he spoke were the words of the Westerners; but he expressed them in Russian; otherwise, his slogans were no different from theirs; he was enamored with them! Of course, there are very subtle matters here - such as travels, giving false and unnecessary concessions, and so on - that I do not want to mention them; because this is not the place for it; you can find those matters yourselves. The second difference is that Islam is not Marxism. Marxism was not accepted by the people of the Soviet Union either. Yes, it was the religion of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union consisted of a few million members in contrast to a population of nearly three hundred million in the Soviet Union; perhaps, for example, ten million, fifteen million people were members. The members of the Communist Party always enjoyed privileges; therefore, one can guess that among that population, what was of primary importance to them was privileges; thus, Marxism was not presented as a religion for them. Islam is the religion of the people and the love of the people and the faith of the people. Islam is what this great nation sent its loved ones and pieces of their flesh and their dear ones to the battlefield for, and when the blood-soaked body of their loved ones returned, they did not cry for them but thanked God! Do you not know of such mothers and fathers? Each of us may have seen hundreds of such cases. Of course, I have seen thousands of such cases up close. Even today, when the parents of four martyrs come to us, if they have complaints about some irregularities, they are happy that their child has been martyred in the way of Islam! This nation is firmly committed to Islam. After fifty years of efforts to eradicate religion, a nation launched that great movement behind the Imam Khomeini (may his soul be sanctified) and the religious scholar and marja' of taqlid and brought this Islamic system to power. Islam is what, when its name and flag were raised in Iran, every aware and informed Muslim felt a sense of identity, dignity, and pride. They equated this with Marxism! "Thanks be to God who made our enemies foolish." The third difference is that the Islamic system is not a communist system; it is an Islamic system; a young, flexible, hardworking, and popular system. The other day, I told Mr. Khatami that no system in the world - even the Western democracies; whether in America, France, or elsewhere - can claim to be as popular as our system; because in Western democracies, some people come to the ballot boxes and vote. For example, the party says to vote for Mr. Zayd ibn Amr, and he throws the paper in, and that is the end of it! Those who participate sometimes constitute thirty-seven percent of the eligible voters. For example, in the recent elections in America, about thirty-seven percent of participants were more than that. They never participate at the level of sixty-seven percent or seventy percent that you observed in the presidential and parliamentary elections - whether in the fifth parliament or the sixth parliament. Ultimately, those who come, come to vote and leave; but here it is not like that; here, the people love the officials, and their relationship is an emotional one; it is not just a relationship of voting. Here, when one of the officials falls ill, all the people of the country raise their hands in prayer that God heals him; as if they are praying for their own child! Here, when an official of the country gestures, the people enter the fields of danger and sacrifice their lives. This even has nothing to do with Western democracies, let alone the dictatorship of the proletariat! They themselves say that one of their certain principles is dictatorship; that is, elections without elections! Throughout seventy-three years of Soviet rule, until the recent elections in Russia, not a single election took place; but we have had twenty-one elections in twenty-one years! Can these be compared? There, the lives of representatives of the proletariat are those of the Kremlin palaces; but here we sit on carpets and take pride in it. Here, the officials of the country - those who can - take pride in their efforts to bring themselves closer to the lives of the people. In the Soviet system, when Stalin was in power, there was no other remedy until he died! He ruled for thirty years, until he either died from an incident or from the strong consumption of Russian spirits, and then, for example, Khrushchev came to power; then Brezhnev came to power; Brezhnev ruled for eighteen or nineteen years and then another person came to power! This system, based on elections and the people's votes, is different from the Islamic Republic. At the leadership level, it is even higher; because spiritual leadership has a spiritual commitment, and the experts and the people expect him to commit no sin; if he commits a sin, without needing to be deposed, he is already deposed; his words are neither a proof for himself nor for the people. This flexible, alive, vibrant, and transformative system, can it be compared to the closed and inflexible and brittle dictatorship of the proletariat?! I also want to remind you of the system of enjoining good and forbidding wrong. Enjoining good and forbidding wrong is an obligatory duty for all; only you and I, as officials of the country, have a heavier duty in this regard. We must use appropriate methods and means; but all people also have a duty. With four articles in a certain newspaper, the obligation of enjoining good does not fall away, nor does its value and effectiveness diminish. The survival, growth, perfection, and righteousness depend on enjoining good and forbidding wrong. It is these that keep the system always young. Now that our system is twenty-one years old and young, and in comparison to the seventy-three-year-old decrepit communist system in the Soviet Union, it is naturally younger; but even if a hundred years pass over such a system, as long as there is enjoining good and you consider it your duty that if you see a wrong in any person, you should forbid him from that wrong, then this Islamic system will always remain fresh and vibrant. The enforcers of enjoining good and forbidding wrong are not just the general public; even if they are at higher levels, you must enjoin them; not that you should ask them; you must say: "Sir! Do not do that; this action or this word is not correct." The enjoining and forbidding must be in a state of elevation. Of course, this elevation does not mean that the enforcers must necessarily be above the enjoined, and the forbidders above the forbidden; no, the spirit and model of enjoining good is a model of command and prohibition; it is not a model of asking and requesting and pleading. One cannot say, "I kindly ask you not to make this mistake;" no, one must say, "Sir! Do not make this mistake; why are you making a mistake?" The person, whoever they are - I, who am a humble cleric - even if they are more important than me, they too are subject to enjoining good and forbidding wrong. The next mistake is regarding the country. Iran is a united country; even those parts that separated in past centuries, if you search their hearts, they wish to be with us; "Whoever is far from their origin, seeks the days of their reunion;" they too wish to join this mother. This is where the Soviet Union is, and this is where Iran is! Ten or eleven countries were pinned together - or, in other words, whipped together - and a country was formed! It is clear that as soon as the whip is lifted, they will separate, and they did. Of course, let me say here; there is an effort to emphasize the issue of ethnicities in Iran. Some are trying to provoke ethnic sentiments and deny the true factor of unity - that is, Islam and religion - in pursuit of this issue. Those who think that the factor of unity in our country is the Persian language, their attachment to the Persian language is certainly not as strong as mine; they have not made even one-hundredth of the effort I have made for the Persian language, and they will not! The factor of unity of the Iranian nation is not the Persian language; it is the religion of Islam; the same religion that manifested itself in the Islamic Revolution and system; the result of this is that the Turkish-speaking person says in his own Turkish language: "Azerbaijan awakened, the revolution called!" The Kurdish person says the same in his own Kurdish language; the Baluch says it in his own Baluchi language; the Arab says it in his own Arabic language. Some are trying to diminish the importance of the factor that firmly binds the hearts of the Iranian nation - that is, Islamic faith; no, the country and the nation are united; of course, its unity is due to history, geography, traditions, and culture; but primarily due to religion and the issue of leadership that has connected the components of this nation and made everyone feel a sense of unity. Leadership has a responsibility. The responsibility of leadership is to preserve the system and the revolution. The administration of the country is in your hands, gentlemen, the officials of the country. Each of you administers your section of the country, and the main duty of leadership is to ensure that these various sections do not play a discordant tune with the system, Islam, and the revolution. Wherever such a tune arises, it is the place for the presence of leadership. Leadership is not a single person. It is not one person, one cleric, one Ali Khamenei, or many other Ali Khameneis. Leadership is a title and a character and a truth derived from the faith, love, and affection of the people and a reputation. Hundreds of people like Ali Khamenei give their lives and reputations for this truth; it does not matter. I am nothing; our great Imam - who was truly the Imam of hearts for this nation - was the same. He was willing to give his reputation for the preservation of the system and the leadership of the system. This truth exists. With the words they say and the actions they take, they have not been able and will not be able to eliminate this presence. In the era of oppression when leadership did not have this embodiment, the hearts of the religious people were in the grasp of leadership; however, leadership that did not have a distinguishable identity in the outside world and a legal position; it had shown its influence many times in the form of religious authorities and great scholars; thus, when it pointed to a certain shameful colonial agreement, that agreement would be annulled; when it pointed to an inappropriate incident, that incident would be met with opposition from the people. The 15th of Khordad, which, according to what has been narrated, thousands of people sacrificed their lives and were killed in that incident, was when our great Imam was not the legal leader; he was a prominent cleric. They cannot ignore this; this was not in the Soviet Union; if it were, it would not have happened that way; if it were, when he felt that Yeltsin had entered the field to give an unreasonable and unconsidered acceleration to future actions, he would have taken him out of the scene and would have been supported by the people; but there was nothing like that. I believe that reforms are a necessary and essential truth and must be carried out in our country. Reforms in our country are not out of necessity that a certain ruler is forced to respond to hard demands and make some corrections; no, reforms are part of the revolutionary and religious identity of our system. If reforms are not carried out continuously, the system will become corrupt and go astray. Reforms are an obligation. Where are the fields of reform? That is another discussion. The essence of reforms is a necessary task and must be carried out. When reforms are not made, some of the results we are grappling with today will arise: wealth distribution becomes unjust; ruthless nouveaux riches dominate the corners of the economic system of society; poverty spreads; life becomes difficult; resources of the country are not utilized properly; brains flee, and the maximum use is not made of the brains that remain. When there are reforms, these pests and these harms and dozens of similar issues do not arise. So the first point is that reforms are necessary and essential. The second point is that reforms must be defined. First, for ourselves who want to carry out reforms, it must be defined and clear what we want to do. Secondly, it must be defined for the people what we mean by reforms, so that no one can interpret reforms according to their own desires. This is among the tasks that a collection of government officials, the judiciary, the parliament, and others can carry out. A specific definition of reforms must be created so that the depiction of the face and situation we want to reach at the end of the road of reforms becomes easy for everyone - both the people and the officials - to understand where they want to go. The problem with Mr. Gorbachev was that he knew the flaws and shortcomings; but he did not have a clear picture of what needed to be done; and if he did, his people did not know that picture. Therefore, if a specific definition of reforms is not made, imposed models will prevail; the same thing that happened in the Soviet Union; because they did not know what they wanted to do; thus, they resorted to clumsy imitation of reforms in Western models and turned to them for refuge. Our great Imam wisely identified this weakness in them; thus, in the letter he wrote to Gorbachev, he pointed out this issue. He wrote that if you want to solve the deadlocks of the socialist and communist economy by turning to the center of Western capitalism, not only will you not cure the pain of your society, but others will have to come and compensate for your mistakes; because today, if Marxism has reached a dead end in economic and social methods, the Western world is also, of course in a different way, and in other matters, caught in an incident. This is why I repeatedly say that the Imam was a true sage. In that global media propaganda uproar, the Imam identified the main point. Of course, fortunately, some officials, and above all our dear president, have repeatedly stated that our reforms are Islamic and revolutionary reforms; the goal is to reach the Medinat al-Nabi. These are good, but more precise definitions and clearer images are needed. These are good in that they put to rest the pointing fingers of the Westerners and outsiders; it becomes clear that what they say is not the intention. Everyone understands this, but it must be explained and further illustrated. The third point is that reforms must be guided from a powerful and self-restrained center so that they do not become reckless. Perhaps a task that can be well and safely accomplished in ten years, if you want to do it in two years, will lead to irreparable losses; like a car that moves at an excessive speed on a difficult and dangerous road; if it does not crash, it would be surprising; if it does not get damaged and hit, it would be surprising. There must be a vigilant, powerful, and self-restrained center that does not allow the movement it wants to undertake to be given excessive acceleration; the work must be done with measure and correctly. In the former Soviet Union, when they started this work, the doors to films, books, newspapers, clothes, and Western models were opened; that is, those claims were actually manifesting specific Western realities. This state is a very dangerous state. Here, pay attention to the role of the media. The media have responsibilities; newspapers are sensitive. A large part of my sensitivity towards newspapers arises from this. The discussion about newspapers and publications is not a discussion about freedom. Some individuals will not define freedom for us; we have no objection, let us use it; but we know the meaning of freedom; we are very eager for freedom. The meaning of freedom is the same as freedom of expression and freedom of thought; but if you go and close the shop of a smuggler according to your duty, that person cannot say that you are against the freedom of business; no, the discussion is not about freedom of business - business is free - smuggling is prohibited. The discussion is not about freedom of expression; expression and thought are free; poisoning and misleading and misguiding are prohibited; especially in the sensitive conditions that our country is facing today. I have told some of the country's propaganda officials many times that the day you have the ability and capacity to counter the enemy's propaganda attack, the one who knows more than anyone else about the multiplicity of publications, newspapers, books, films, and so on, is me; but you tell me how many films you have made in response to that film that undermines the foundations of the people's culture, the people's beliefs, the people's religion, the revolutionary spirit, and the spirit of sacrifice and martyrdom - which is not just one, not two, not ten! This is where I feel danger. Of course, the fundamental and long-term work is to think about producing what is good; but until what is good comes to the field, I cannot accept and tolerate that this flood of filth comes and drowns the youth, children, and various strata in itself. All enemy-pleasing and enemy-teaching methods should be used to counter revolutionary thought; if anyone opposes and counters, they should immediately be labeled and slandered! This is not freedom; this is not wise and prudent; this is not the management of the country. You are responsible for paying attention to the role of the media. This is very, very important. Sensitivity towards the role of written media and newspapers - especially in our current conditions - is very important. With this image I have presented, it becomes clear how much they can play a role in favor of the enemy. Their claimants must also be all the institutions and all the fronts united in support of the system and the officials of various branches and the officials of various intermediate sectors. Their claimants are not just the judiciary or a certain cleric. Everyone must be a claimant in this matter. The fourth point is to preserve the structure of the constitution in the context of reforms. Of course, in the constitution, more than anything else, the role of Islam and the source and legitimacy of Islam for laws and structures and selections is emphasized. The structure of the constitution must be preserved precisely. You see how the enemy deals with our constitution: they negate one part of the constitution, affirm another part; they refer to the constitution in one place, and speak against it in another! The constitution is our great national, religious, and revolutionary covenant. Islam - which is everything for us - is embodied and manifested in the constitution. The fourth principle of the constitution has clarified everything. If there is a principle or law in ordinary laws - even in the constitution itself - that contradicts this Islamic legitimacy in the execution or legislation, this principle prevails over them; governance, in the scientific and principled sense of the term, is the responsibility of the religious authorities. Of course, this did not need to be said; even if it were not said, its governance was clear; but they have explicitly stated this governance. Therefore, the structure of the constitution must be fully preserved in reforms. The fifth point is to seriously confront any extremism and extremists who are paving the way for the enemy; that is, the Yeltsin model! All institutions must strongly confront the Yeltsin model and not allow an ambitious, deceived, malicious, and negligent person to come and divert the movement from its correct course and create a state of competition and conflict. The sixth point is to seriously confront foreign interference and disregard the pointing fingers of the Westerners and be suspicious of them. Of course, the discussion of diplomacy and foreign relations is another matter. A person in the position of diplomacy gives, takes, signs contracts, and does all the work; but in the fundamental matters of the system, the pointing finger of the Westerners must be regarded with suspicion; contrary to what one observes in the situation of Gorbachev. They have no goodwill whatsoever. We saw during the eight-year war that all of Europe helped Saddam; France helped, Germany helped, England helped, former Yugoslavia helped, the Eastern bloc of that day helped. Of course, we never say in the position of diplomacy that because you helped Saddam, we will cut off our relations with you; no, the world of diplomacy is a different world. This very de-escalation that is currently being discussed in our foreign policy is approved by us. De-escalation must occur; but de-escalation is different from trusting them; no, they do not trust us either; we do not trust them either. Those who are active in diplomatic matters fully understand what I am saying. The realm of diplomacy is a realm of real battle; but a battle that takes place at the table and with smiles and by saying good morning and good night! The existence of diplomatic relations should never be interpreted as trust in the enemy; trust should not be given. The seventh point is the coordination of reforms in various sectors. This point is important. See, my dear ones! In some sectors, reforms are complicated, difficult, and slow. For example, in the economic sector, work is done very slowly; equitable distribution of incomes is the same; it is a very difficult task; it is not easy. Eradicating poverty and addressing deprived areas, all of these are part of reforms. Reforming the administrative structure is a very difficult, complicated, and heavy task; these progress slowly. In the section equivalent to Gorbachev's glasnost, no, work is easy; in one day, twenty newspapers can be granted permission to publish. This becomes uncoordinated; it cannot be like this; we must move in harmony; we must move in step with the difficult sectors. The reason I emphasize that the issue of livelihood is a priority is largely because of this; because the livelihood sector is a problematic sector. Even if you gather all your forces, with all the sincerity and compassion and interest you work with, you will have a specific speed; the other sectors must also be moved at that speed. If you do not maintain this equal and coordinated speed, then very fundamental problems will arise, some of which are calculable, and some are not; of those that are calculable, some are preventable, and some are not preventable. The eighth point is to seriously confront the factors of ethnic disintegration in the country. I mention this; especially addressing those who are responsible in this sector; whether in the Ministry of Interior or elsewhere. Pay attention; today the motivation to provoke ethnicities is serious. Our relevant officials who want to look into these matters see this. All Iranian ethnicities are interested in Iran and the Islamic Republic and consider Iran their homeland. My connection with the Turkish-speaking region is evident. I have lived for a long time in the Baluch-speaking region and have had close relations with Baluch elements; I have had distant and close relations with some other sections; I have information about those I have not had contact with, which is not little. I know what their spirit is. During my various responsibilities, I have made numerous trips among them. Iranian ethnicities are Muslims and are attached to this land; they see their dignity and prosperity in a proud and free Iran; but the enemy is engaged in provocations. The enemy's provocations should not be underestimated. Be careful. This is one of the very important issues, and it is felt that there are hands at work to take the reins of this matter out of the hands of the government. Of course, if God forbid such a situation arises, problems will arise; money, effort, and time will be spent on it, and the officials of the country will be prevented from essential tasks. My remarks have concluded. I just want to say that I firmly defend all the legal institutions of the country. What matters to me regarding individuals, personalities, and institutions is to defend their position and responsibility and to help them perform their work well. The President, the head of the judiciary, the Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and their bodies, various legal institutions, are all on the same level for me in this regard, and I support and defend the responsibilities of all of them. Of course, this support is not absolute. My covenant with all these dear brothers is a covenant of faith and revolution. As I said, the fundamental goal, identity, and responsibility of leadership is to defend the integrity of the system and preserve the system. I have nothing; life and reputation are small commodities to be sacrificed in this path; and I am fully prepared to sacrifice these two elements that I have. Our youth period - which is the period of enjoying life - has passed in this path. Today, we are also in the period of old age. I am today at an age where life does not bring me much pleasure. The pleasures of life are no longer pleasures for us. At the end of life, in the season of decline of life, in the season of weakness of physical powers and the remaining human powers, there is no attachment to life. What I have - life and reputation - belongs to this path; and I thank God I do not have wealth. I have no attachment to this current responsibility. Many of you may not know this, but in this gathering, many know. I have no attachment to this current responsibility, except as a duty. Even now that I am engaged, it is only for the sake of fulfilling my duty. From the very first day, it was the same. From the day of the Assembly of Experts, the gentlemen who voted faced serious resistance and refusal and persistent opposition from me; however, when the responsibility came, I said, "Take it with strength." I am not someone who, if a responsibility is placed on my shoulders, would show weakness regarding fulfilling this responsibility; no, this is my duty, and I will fulfill this duty by God's grace and with His guidance. My dear ones! The verse I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks is related to one of the battles of the Prophet: "Those to whom people said, 'Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them.'" They were warned that the enemy was densely waiting for them; be afraid! In response to this warning and fear-mongering - that the enemy was densely waiting for you to strike - they said, "Sufficient for us is God, and He is the best disposer of affairs." Of course, "Sufficient for us is God, and He is the best disposer of affairs" cannot be said in the corner of a room and inside a comfortable bed. We cannot do nothing, make no effort, take no action, risk no life, and not sacrifice any reputation, and then say, "Sufficient for us is God, and He is the best disposer of affairs!" No, the Almighty God will not suffice a person who does not strive in His way. This sufficiency relates to the battlefield. Today, we are in a battlefield; although not a military battle and a battle of life and death. The arrogant powers of the world are seriously hostile to Islam and the Islamic system; every good action we take, every good law we enact, every good execution we perform, every good demeanor we show, every action that leads to the strengthening of this system and the strengthening of Islam, if it comes from us, we are actually striking a blow to the enemy. This is where one says, "Sufficient for us is God, and He is the best disposer of affairs." God's response is that "So they returned with grace from God and bounty, and no harm touched them, and they followed the pleasure of God. And God has great bounty." Of course, we are fortunately enjoying coexistence with various religions in our country; Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians; they also live alongside Muslims and under the Islamic system; they cooperate and coexist with us and play a role. Of course, they also have duties; the Islamic government also has duties towards them as Iranian citizens that must be fulfilled and is being fulfilled. We have no complaints from our religious minority citizens. You see that when the enemy's propaganda against the Islamic Republic takes on insidious forms, the Jews of Iran issue statements. In another case, the Armenians of Iran or some other Christian groups issued statements and defended and supported the Islamic Republic, and this is one of the honors of the Islamic Republic. I think that the apology that Mr. Khatami made at the end of his remarks, I must apologize in a multiplied manner; because it became very lengthy. These are words that needed to be heard by you, the esteemed officials of the country. Our primary audience in these matters is you, and if we do not say these words to you, to whom should we say them? I hope that, God willing, what we said and what we heard will be accepted and favored by God, and this session - as I mentioned at the beginning of the speech - will bring our hearts closer together; may affection among the brothers and sisters and dear ones who are all responsible increase, and may the united front of the workers and servants of the Islamic Republic become more united against the enemy, and God willing, may the divine blessings and attentions of the Awaited Savior, may our souls be sacrificed for him, encompass all of you. Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.