Look at the results of regime change in Iraq. You can't possibly claim that it was successful.

We don't discuss this issue [ chemical weapons ] in public because we never said that we have it, and we never said that we don't have it. It's a Syrian issue ; it's a military issue we never discuss in public with anyone.

From our side, from our part as government, we have two missions: the first one is to fight those terrorists to liberate that area [eastern part of Aleppo] and the civilians from those terrorists, and at the same time to try to find a solution to evacuate that area from those terrorists if they accept, let's say, what you call it reconciliation option, in which they either give up their armaments for amnesty, or they leave that area.

[ Jihadists] are going to be against you sooner or later.

This is the Middle East, where every week you have something new; so whatever you talk about this week will not be valuable next week.

[Barack] Obama can draw lines for himself and his country, not for other countries. We have our red lines, like our sovereignty, our independence, while if you want to talk about world red lines, the United States used depleted uranium in Iraq, Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza, and nobody said anything. What about the red lines ? We don't see red lines. It's political red lines.

In Aleppo we had the missile itself, and the material, and the sample from the sand, from the soil, and samples from the blood [of chemical weapons].