Translation of Hassan Rouhani Speech with Former Cabinet

My translation of a speech made by former president Hassan Rouhani last week about his assessment of the state of the country can be found below.

The original speech can be seen here.

I do not endorse every word he said, but found it worthwhile enough to translate - particularly the part in the beginning when he talked about his experiences from the Iran-Iraq War compared to today:

"In the Name of God

Just as our friends stated, the current situation is not ideal. We all have the responsibility to decrease the country’s problems. Our responsibility is not just towards the administration but towards the system. All of us have a heavy responsibility towards the entirety of the system, to the extent that we are able.

In any case all of us have a responsibility in this regard because the circumstances, in my opinion, are more dangerous than what has been said. The circumstances are very dangerous. The more we go forward, we see, the situation becomes more difficult, becomes worse.

Look, sometimes the problem of the country is only the economy. Well, it might be possible to make a solution for that. Sometimes the problem is also national security on the side of it. When these two are mixed with each other, it destroys all the hopes of the people and society. Right now the problem is the problem of a lack of hope towards the future.

The lack of hope has created problems for national security. National security is fundamentally created through deterrence. Any country that falls into problems through deterrence will also fall into security problems. This cannot be fixed through speeches, words, and slogans.

You need power. And your power needs to be deterring towards your adversary, your enemy, meaning that however much they think, they realize that it is not possible to do anything in relation to the existing power in Iran.

We witnessed this in the eight year war. In any place where our deterrence failed – not in a general sense, but in specific instances – we ran into problems until we could restore deterrence.

Let me give an example. After the year 1361 (1982/1983), our air defenses faced problems. Our missile systems couldn’t be active and our artillery couldn’t be effective. It was active, but it didn’t have an effect, because airplanes flew higher than the range of artillery.

Whatever we did, didn’t work. In Operation Kheybar, in Operation Badr, you could not shoot a single Iraqi airplane. There was so much bombardment every day.

Why was it not possible?

During the entirety of Operation Kheybar, we were able to shoot down two airplanes, and that was with artillery, in this situation. We could not with missiles.

In Operation Badr, our situation was worse. In Valfajr 8, in the year 1364 (1985/1986), we were able to shoot down 73 Iraqi airplanes. The Iraqis themselves accepted sixty something. We took 12 pilots as prisoners in that Operation.

Why? Because we were able to solve a problem. Of course this wasn’t something easy. It was a very complicated task. We spent 3 to 4 weeks arguing from the start of night until 12 to 1. About what we need to do so that our missile system could be active in the next Operation, which was Valfajr 8.

And we did this. Our problem in our missile systems was that the second we would turn on the radar systems, our radar would be hit. Meaning that Iraq had received anti radar missiles, if I’m not mistaken HARM missiles, and as soon as radar would be turned on they would hit it. There was a plane up there and it would hit it and the whole system would shut down.

We were able to solve this. Meaning that Iraq could no longer hit us with this missile. This solved the issue of deterrence.

This was the case in the War of the Cities. A MIG-25 would go above Tehran, above Isfahan, and hit us and there was nothing we could do. Because a MIG-25 would come at an altitude of 70,000 feet, while our air defenses – whether our planes, F-14s, ground forces, missiles – couldn’t hit above 50,000 feet.

When this came at 70,000 feet, we couldn’t hit it.

Until we were able to solve this problem. This problem was solved at the end of 1365 (1987) and we hit a MIG-25 over Isfahan. It was over and no plane would come over Tehran and Isfahan. The bombardment of the cities became (only) through missiles, there was no more aerial bombardment.

When confronting the enemy you should do something that either the enemy sees that their weapon does not work at all, or if it is effective, you can do a retaliation that is quite dangerous and severe, so they do not dare.

Today we need to be able to improve our deterrence. Of course this is not a simple task – it has a way, but it is a very complicated and difficult way.

If in your calculations you consider an enemy such as Israel, but do not take into account that in a confrontation with Israel, America will be present with all their force – if you don’t take into account, you will make a mistake.

All the calculations based on what Israel has and what we have … when Israel goes and enters a confrontation with us, it is no longer Israel. Its airplane is given by America, its missile is given by America, the planning is done by America, the information is given by America, America helps with satellites … it (the US) is present everywhere, it is no longer them.

When you want to make a calculation, you need to make a correct calculation.

In the current situation, one of our problems is the region. We have a crisis in the region. Our region has problems.

Look at the situation in Lebanon, look at what problems they have. From October 7th onwards, you see a completely different situation in the region. It’s not just Gaza. It’s Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, it’s all of them. It’s Iran itself.

They are all the areas of argument in the region.

Look at these memoirs that were recently published, the memoirs Netanyahu has. He says in Trump’s first term, when he was elected, I immediately congratulated him. As soon as the formal ceremonies were held and he became president, I immediately traveled to Washington.

It’s very important (to see) the discussions he has with Trump here. His most important issue is Iran. The most important issue he brings to Trump is that Trump should leave the nuclear deal. This is his first issue.

He says that he had two main issues, one was the issue of the Arabs and Israel, and before it was the issue of Iran. I was successful in the issue of Iran, but in the second issue I had some problems.

Then he says that Trump came into the region and his first foreign trip was to Saudi Arabia. Then he came to Israel. When he came to Israel, I brought several issues forth to him. The first was again Iran.

The first issue was Iran, the second issue was Jerusalem, the third issue was the Golan Heights, the fourth issue was Israel and the Arabs and negotiations.

Look at how much from the moment Trump is elected, Israel’s number one priority is breaking up the JCPOA. This is a very important issue. And it is a strange issue that one sometimes sees that the thoughts which are widespread in Israel, are widespread in American extremists, are widespread in Arab reactionaries, unfortunately are sometimes also found in extremists in Iran too.

I don’t understand why. They are against Israel, their hearts want to help Iran, how can we put these side by side?

Let me give an example. We wanted to buy S-300’s from Russia. There were a lot of ups and downs. Inside the National Security Council – I won’t bring up specific names – several high ranking military officials came, in my presence, and said buying S-300s is betraying the country.

I was the first person to ever recommend buying S-300s, when I was commander of the Air Defense Force. The first time we made this recommendation to the Supreme Leader was 1369 (1990/1991).

Now Mr. Bibi, in every trip he had to Russia, in 2009, 2010, before, he refers to, his first issue with Putin was messing up the deal to sell S-300s to Iran. He says this everywhere.

Then he says, even though I was not successful in messing this up, but I was able to delay it by seven years. This is really an important matter.

See that Israel puts its full force, in negotiations with Russia, in negotiations with America, in negotiations with Europe, its first issue is the issue of Iran. And it tries to mess this up.

In these same memoirs he says that, well, I was able to convince Trump to pull out of the nuclear deal the JCPOA. He was looking for some solutions to figure out how to pull out.

He then goes through the different actions he took, until he talks about the issues of the documents and Shoorabad – the documents that Mossad came and took. He explains in detail. He even says their weight. He says the weight of the documents that they brought to Israel was half a ton. Meaning even the weight of the documents, is in the memoirs.

When he brings these forth he says that his issue was the Macron and Merkel both wanted to go to America to convince Trump not to leave the JCPOA.

And the only weapon I had to destroy them were these weapons. I revealed these documents and took them in America and brought them forth, both with Trump and with others … I did something so that their trip to Washington was completely without an effect and they can’t do anything. And this is what happened.

Meaning that you should see what paths were taken so that Iran is harmed.

Now the first issue is restoring Iran’s deterrence capability or in other words, fixing the country’s main strategy for national security. Anyone that can make any help in this way must do what they can.

And without a doubt, the most important issue in national security is having the people. Have no doubt.

Look at these elections – Germany’s election. Or the election held a while back in Turkey. An election is a participation rate of above 80%. Our presidential election was 40%.

The first round was 40%. The second round, for some reasons, so that they don’t get afflicted with someone else, they came, ten percent was added, otherwise, that which the people came out was 40%.

Is this acceptable? The people that 73%, 75%, more, less, would come to the ballot boxes – why is it like this today? We have to solve this.

The issue of our national security, before military power, and before intelligence power – which are both very important next to each other – is having the people. Is the people’s unity.

It is the social capital, it is the connection of the people with the government, the lack of distance. I don’t know with this situation that we have, if this distance is getting less or getting more.

If this distance is getting more, for any reason, it means harming national security.

That we are still arguing in this country whether FATF should be joined or not, this shows how big our brain is. Anyone that looks from the outside to inside the country figures out what is going on inside the country. What is this?

We are still arguing whether if Saturdays are off it is against the Sharia or not. Someone from outside can figure out that we don’t have any wisdom. What does Saturday have to do with religion? Thursday is part of religion, Saturday is against it? What do they have to do with each other? There’s no relation. We cannot agree about the closing at the end of week.

There’s constantly discussion about electricity – that there is not enough electricity, unbalance – why did you stop the daylight savings? Wasn’t that to electricity’s advantage? I didn’t hear a single person from the country’s leaders come during these electricity issues and come and say that this thing that came and took away daylight savings, was a blow to electricity. It created problems. No one comes and says this.

And in this situation where we have so many issues, so many problems … we fight over whether we should negotiate or not.

What kind of argument is this? And then we stick it to this that the Supreme Leader is against negotiations. The Supreme Leader is not against negotiations. He is against the conditions of this time, this conditions that exist today. He may be opposed to them today and in a few months, with new conditions, be in favor of them.

There is no absolute opposition.

Did we not negotiate with the Americans over the issue of Iraq, over Afghanistan?

Well, we negotiated with them.

The Supreme Leader was a witness and supervised over it. The Supreme Leader even – at that time I was the head of the National Security Council – wrote for me that this certain person, that will go and negotiate with America about Iraq, should follow these principles.

We had negotiations. Did we not negotiate over the JCPOA? There is nothing wrong with negotiations. But negotiations have certain conditions, that might be met today, that might not be.

I’m not going to argue about this today. Maybe someone is in favor of negotiations, someone is against it. Why do we grab each other’s collars? Why do we slap each other? What kind of conditions are these that we’ve created in the country?

What was the point of the Islamic Revolution from the start to the finish? The Islamic Revolution was independence, it was for freedom, it was for the Islamic Republic. These were our aims.

Under the current conditions, in a situation where no one can talk, say their view, do we really have freedom? In a country where Seda Sima is not in the hands of the people, it is in the hands of a group … it is not even in the hands of a group, it is not in the hands of a faction, it is in the hands of a gang, is it possible for there to be freedom there?

Now we argue over how we should fix the issue of the economy. How can a country that from the time of Trump, from the time Trump left the deal, 1397 (2018), until today – which has taken about 7, 8 years, we’ve had losses of 100 billion a year, at least 100 billion – we’ve lost 700 billion, 800 billion …

Can you make up for these losses? Can you fix economic issues? Can economic issues, be fixed without relations, without constructive dialogue with the world – or in the words of the Supreme Leader, extensive constructive dialogue?

You saw how in slogans, we went and ratified something in the year 1384 (2005/2006) in the (Expediency Discernment) Council, called the 20 year vision. What was the result?

Why?

Because in vision that says the we, in our 20 year national vision are a country that is developed and first place in the realms of economy, knowledge, technology – and we are an inspiration, these are next to it – and then it says with constructive dialogue with the world. Well we got rid of this and it become influential interaction … well if this is the way we won’t reach a result.

If we want the country’s economy to be fixed, I asked you – and some of you in this group are economists – is it possible that the country’s economy, the country’s economic growth, the country’s advancement can be fixed without capital, without technology, and without the market?

If you take out these three, how is it possible?

If you want the market in the world, you have to have constructive dialogue with the world, or else you have to sell your goods domestically. Even if you make automobiles, it’s to the amount of these 80 million. You can’t export them in the world.

You need a market for anything.

And we need technology. Our technology is clear.

And then capital. Is it possible without capital? First you have to keep domestic capital so it doesn’t go out. We currently can’t keep the first one. The capital of the Iranians themselves.

Second the capital of the Iranians who are abroad to be able to come inside. Right now that is not there either.

Third foreign capital.

None of these three currently exist. Well when there is no capital, there is no technology, there will be economic problems, production will have issues, as you say there will be imbalances in different sectors – and on their side when this happens, it will become poverty, it will become corruption, it will become other issues.

If we look at the current circumstances and the situation of our people, the pressure that exists on our people is for daily life – no one is asking for 8% (growth) from the government, whether 8%, 7%, 5% … the only time that we were able to make 8% growth and above 8% was during the two years that the JCPOA was in place, only in 1395 and 1396, in these two years, we had an average of 9.4% growth. 9.4% average in these two years.

Inflation was the same. In those two years, inflation was under 10% - it was under 9%. When you have dialogue with the world and the people are hopeful, sanctions are taken off, and foreign capital can enter the country, and you can get credit, the circumstances of the country become such.

Otherwise when you don’t have dialogue with the world, are under sanctions, cannot solve sanctions … is there anyone in this country that doesn’t think we should solve sanctions?

Therefore I think this heavy load of the country is on all our backs – whether it is the administration, the system, or anyone else – and in any place we are able to help this system, we must help.

Our national security must return, our social security must return, economic security must return, cultural security must return – at the forefront national security must return to its place and be at an acceptable level. And on the economic level we must reach the level that we can attract capital, attract advanced technologies, and have a market.

If we do not have these three – of course there are other conditions too – but at least these three if they are not among the sufficient conditions, they are part of the required conditions. Therefore we must all work in this path. May God help us in this way.

If we want to help the world’s Muslims - I’m going to use this statement from Fathi Shaqaqi in the end of my talk - Fathi Shaqaqi had come to Iran, we spoke for over an hour and a half.

He told me that if you want to help Palestine, if you want to help the Muslims, remember that first you must be strong yourselves. If Iran’s strength will have problems, do not help us. He told me, do not help us.

And then he said himself that if Iran exists, even if they kill all of us, another group will be found and they will stand. But if you do not exist, we will not exist – Palestine will not exist, Lebanon will not, no one will. These are all in your shadow.

You should consider yourselves as first priority.

God willing there will be a precise strategy in front of us that we can follow and we can reach a point that is a desired point for the country."