We have to be there to get the evidence like what happened in Aleppo when we had evidence. And because the United States didn't send the team, we sent the evidence to the Russians.

We don't discuss this issue [conversations with Russia] as a government, but we discuss the repercussions, which is more important because sometimes repercussions could be more destroying than the strike itself.

None of us and none of the Arabs trust Israel.

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.

When you use an armament, you use it to defend the civilians. You kill terrorists in order to defend civilians. That's the natural role of any army in the world.

Why should you use a term [rebels] in the United States and England and maybe other countries and use another term in Syria ? This is a double standard that we don't accept.

If the rebels or the terrorists in this region or any other group have [chemical warfare], this could happen, I don't know. I'm not a fortuneteller to tell you what's going to happen.