From his Parisian home thousands of kilometers away from his homeland, the Syrian politician (84 years old) discussed in a phone call with the American magazine “Newsweek Middle East” the Iranian intervention in Syria, the failed coup in Turkey, the US presidential elections, the Syrian chemical arsenal, and the recent “mysterious” targeting by the United States of the Syrian army forces in Deir ez-Zor instead of terrorist groups. He emphasized that he has no intention of playing a political role in the post-Assad era but dreams of returning to his country.
In his conversation, Khaddam described the war in his country since 2011 as a global conflict, noting that the international community and Arab countries missed several opportunities to help the revolution, which did not achieve its main goal of overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad within “weeks or a few months.”
In this context, he blamed the US-Russian hostility and global disputes over the use of force in the country for fueling this conflict, considering that Washington is dealing with the opposition in an “incomprehensible” manner, after betraying it, refusing military assistance, and allowing Russia to pull the rug out from under Syria.
Regarding US-Turkish relations, Khaddam believed that Washington also betrayed its ally in the region. He argued that the US contributed to the failed coup on July 15 last year and armed the Kurds against Turkey. He explained that Moscow has reconciled with Washington and provided information on this matter a few days ago after tensions arose between them following the downing of a Su-24 aircraft in November last year.
In light of the UN holding the Syrian regime responsible for two chemical attacks, one in 2017 and the other in 2016, Khaddam denied any knowledge of Syria’s chemical arsenal, both in general and in detail. He affirmed that this issue falls under the jurisdiction of the intelligence apparatus and the army. While discussing Washington and Moscow’s focus on this arsenal at the beginning of the events, Khaddam confirmed that these circumstances allowed Assad to kill using other weapons. He criticized the acceptance of the idea of his staying in power for a second term by some US officials.
Regarding the US intervention in Syria, Khaddam described the mysterious targeting of Syrian army positions in Deir ez-Zor as a “mistake,” justifying that the US is aware of the locations of both the regime and terrorist groups.
Politically, Khaddam affirmed that U.S. President Barack Obama disappointed him after coming to power, especially after reconciling with “Iran,” despite its intervention in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. He expressed his hope for the arrival of the Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton after Obama.
Regarding ISIS, Khaddam believed that various circumstances led to its emergence and spread to Syria. He confirmed that Iran nourished the organization as part of its efforts to create a Sunni force to combat Sunnis in the region.
In this context, he emphasized the significant difference between the father and son Assad in their relationship with Iran. While the latter allowed Tehran, which now considers itself a guardian in Damascus, to intervene in Syrian affairs through the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and “Hezbollah” and other supporting groups, Tehran feared the elder Assad and hesitated to interfere with him.
In connection with this, Khaddam linked the presence of “Hezbollah” and the presence of the regime in Syria, stating that the latter would not be able to stand on its own if Iran, its financial lifeline in Syria, were cut off. He emphasized that “Hezbollah” is nothing without the current Syrian regime.
In conclusion, Khaddam asserted that the Syrian crisis would only reach its end if all players gather around one table. This could be achieved by holding an international conference to save Syria, with the participation of all global powers, from the West to the East, including Iran with its “current moderate leadership.” He supported the liberation of Syria and the formation of an international armed force to withdraw weapons from all factions.
On the other hand, Khaddam rejected any political solution, warning of the possibility of the regime or its figures remaining in power, leading to new conflicts in the future that could extend to other parts of the region and the world. He denied seeking any political position in Syria after Assad, describing his role as patriotic.
