The Reasons behind the Extension of War after the Khoram-Shahr Conquest

A Review of the Revolution Supreme Leader

Navidshahed: The revolution leader's site reviews the honored Ayatollah Khamenei's words as the president and the head of the Supreme Defense Council during the Holy Defense period. These words, revealing the reasons behind the extension of war after the KhoramShahr conquest were told during an interview with a TV and radio broadcasting centre reporter on 20th September 1986.

News ID: ۳۰۴۳۸۲

يکشنبه - ۲۸ مرداد ۲۰۱۱ / 2011 28 May

"There are still regions such as Naftshahr and some border centers under the control of enemy, and in our view, the extension of war for freeing these regions is a defensive act."

The complete interview is as below:

Question: Mr. Khamenei, the question is the defensive nature of this war. We have declared from the beginning of Iraq's invasion and ignition of the war that we are defending ourselves, and after we enter Iraq's territory, we are still demonstrating that we are on defensive side of this war. How do you explain this?

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

Our conflict was of defensive nature, and up to this hour, we have been defending ourselves. Entering Iraqi territory is an extension of Holy Defense. The enemy, when in power, naturally intends to invade our borders, stay within them as long as he can, destroy everything, kill the military and civilian, and bring insecurity to the life of people, and whenever he can't resist to stay, he retreats to his own borders. Here, it is their intention that after we have driven them out with people's sacrifice and potentials, we stay at our own borders, thinking that we should not violate their territory.

The humane reasoning and logic, also the Islamic laws won’t allow us to do that. We should see how our enemy exhibits hostility. Sometimes an enemy invades a country to seize a hill or a river or create a border nuisance; such enemy is suppressed and made to retreat; the end of story. In this case, after we have driven the enemy out of our borders, everything is finished. However, sometimes an enemy wants to impose himself; here, the story is not over even after he is driven out by lots of sacrifices and our Islamic forces display of power. The enemy plans to invade our lands and stay in it as long as he can; when he is driven out, it is his best opportunity to recover if we stay at our borders; this way he could reinvade our borders when necessary or the time is right.

I, once, brought an example of a thief or invader who enters your house or farm and destroys every thing, kills every one and steals away your property. If you endure, he would stay, but if you don't and drive him out with force and display of power, nobody would ever advise you to stay at your home or farm and never retaliate because this means violating his territory. It's not like that, reasoning instructs you to go to your enemy, choke his throat, and firstly, ask him why he had done such crime and then punish him for that, and secondly, reclaim what he has stolen from you. This is not what we have made up, but a judgement of reasoning. All humans and righteous consciences are approved of it.

Principally, entering others' territory is of two kinds: The first, called invasion, is an act of intrusion to capture land and impose oneself. This is exactly what Iraq did; they had no reason to invade our lands. Of course, they brought excuses as reasons, but they, themselves, knew that those were excuses. The world knew this too, so that all those who were somehow or other in contact with the war issues, have told us from the very beginning and are telling us yet today that they know who the invader is; this is invasion, after all. Another type of entering one's territory is when you want to punish an invader, reclaim your rights and maintain security. This is not called invasion since it is the securing of borders against later similar invasions from the same enemy.

When we were fighting within our borders, it was clear to all that we were defending our lands, and when we entered Iraqi borders, it was the extension of defense. We have declared punishing the invader as one of the goals pursued in the extension of war as it is. I should mention that not all the enemies are yet driven from all the regions in our borders. There are still regions such as Naftshahr and other border centers under the control of enemy, and extension of the war to reclaim these areas is but a defensive act. Anyway, after the reclamation of these areas, we think of pursuing the enemy and progressing deep within their lands to punish them a punishment and defensive act. The defensive nature of this war is quite clear.

We have said this time and again that we don't plan to stay in occupied Iraqi territories and all have accepted that. We have never considered either Fav or the Island or any other region as part of our country. No, these are Iraqi territories that belong to Iraqis. In fact, they belong to any righteous regime that will rule Iraq later on. Our movements for the time being are for defending our security and promotion of peace which is necessary for the co-existence of the two neighboring countries of Iran and Iraq.

The End

"There are still regions such as Naftshahr and some border centers under the control of enemy, and in our view, the extension of war for freeing these regions is a defensive act." The complete interview is as below: Question: Mr. Khamenei, the question is the defensive nature of this war. We have declared from the beginning of Iraq's invasion and ignition of the war that we are defending ourselves, and after we enter Iraq's territory, we are still demonstrating that we are on defensive side of this war. How do you explain this? In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate Our conflict was of defensive nature, and up to this hour, we have been defending ourselves. Entering Iraqi territory is an extension of Holy Defense. The enemy, when in power, naturally intends to invade our borders, stay within them as long as he can, destroy everything, kill the military and civilian, and bring insecurity to the life of people, and whenever he can't resist to stay, he retreats to his own borders. Here, it is their intention that after we have driven them out with people's sacrifice and potentials, we stay at our own borders, thinking that we should not violate their territory. The humane reasoning and logic, also the Islamic laws won’t allow us to do that. We should see how our enemy exhibits hostility. Sometimes an enemy invades a country to seize a hill or a river or create a border nuisance; such enemy is suppressed and made to retreat; the end of story. In this case, after we have driven the enemy out of our borders, everything is finished. However, sometimes an enemy wants to impose himself; here, the story is not over even after he is driven out by lots of sacrifices and our Islamic forces display of power. The enemy plans to invade our lands and stay in it as long as he can; when he is driven out, it is his best opportunity to recover if we stay at our borders; this way he could reinvade our borders when necessary or the time is right. I, once, brought an example of a thief or invader who enters your house or farm and destroys every thing, kills every one and steals away your property. If you endure, he would stay, but if you don't and drive him out with force and display of power, nobody would ever advise you to stay at your home or farm and never retaliate because this means violating his territory. It's not like that, reasoning instructs you to go to your enemy, choke his throat, and firstly, ask him why he had done such crime and then punish him for that, and secondly, reclaim what he has stolen from you. This is not what we have made up, but a judgement of reasoning. All humans and righteous consciences are approved of it. Principally, entering others' territory is of two kinds: The first, called invasion, is an act of intrusion to capture land and impose oneself. This is exactly what Iraq did; they had no reason to invade our lands. Of course, they brought excuses as reasons, but they, themselves, knew that those were excuses. The world knew this too, so that all those who were somehow or other in contact with the war issues, have told us from the very beginning and are telling us yet today that they know who the invader is; this is invasion, after all. Another type of entering one's territory is when you want to punish an invader, reclaim your rights and maintain security. This is not called invasion since it is the securing of borders against later similar invasions from the same enemy. When we were fighting within our borders, it was clear to all that we were defending our lands, and when we entered Iraqi borders, it was the extension of defense. We have declared punishing the invader as one of the goals pursued in the extension of war as it is. I should mention that not all the enemies are yet driven from all the regions in our borders. There are still regions such as Naftshahr and other border centers under the control of enemy, and extension of the war to reclaim these areas is but a defensive act. Anyway, after the reclamation of these areas, we think of pursuing the enemy and progressing deep within their lands to punish them a punishment and defensive act. The defensive nature of this war is quite clear. We have said this time and again that we don't plan to stay in occupied Iraqi territories and all have accepted that. We have never considered either Fav or the Island or any other region as part of our country. No, these are Iraqi territories that belong to Iraqis. In fact, they belong to any righteous regime that will rule Iraq later on. Our movements for the time being are for defending our security and promotion of peace which is necessary for the co-existence of the two neighboring countries of Iran and Iraq. The End