Assassination of Hariri Placed Syria Under Iran’s Control
In an interview with “Al-Bayan,” in which he revealed the intricacies of the ruling regime and speculated about the future of the conflict, the former deputy to the Syrian president, Abdul Halim Khaddam, residing in the French capital Paris, asserted that the battle in the region is dominated by Iran in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. He pointed out that the recent Astana meeting will not yield any results as long as Iran is a party to it. Khaddam opened up about the secrets of his long political career to “Al-Bayan,” affirming that unless there is a decisive implementation of a ceasefire, there will be no progress in the Syrian file. He indicated conflicting Iranian-Russian interests in Syria.
Khaddam emphasized that the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon in 2005 led Bashar al-Assad to embrace Iran after being accused of this operation. Iran found a historic opportunity in this situation to control both Lebanon and Syria together, and since then, Iran has had control over Syria.
Khaddam revealed that Bashar al-Assad marked the beginning of corruption in Syria, and that one of Hafez al-Assad’s greatest faults was not standing against the corruption of the Makhlouf family. He denied that Hafez al-Assad had ever engaged with Israel at any stage, explaining that he had received support and respect from Arab countries due to his stance against Israel.
The following is the text of the interview:
Despite your exit from power, you have been known for closely following every small and large matter related to the Syrian issue… What is your assessment of the recent Astana consultations, and what did you read in them?
The Astana meeting, which took place on January 23, came at a tripartite regional level (Russian, Turkish, and Iranian). Let me say that any meeting concerning Syria in which Iran is a party cannot be in the interest of the Syrian people and the Syrian state. Iran’s strategy is to continue the conflict in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, in order to control these countries and spread chaos in the region. However, in any case, the Astana meeting did not result in a serious and resolute formula for a ceasefire. Therefore, this meeting has no impact on the ground.
Different Objectives
Some believe that there is a Russian-Iranian dispute in Syria, and that the alliance between them will not continue. How do you see this relationship?
At the moment, there seems to be agreement and solidarity between Russia and Iran in Syria. However, in reality, there are no shared interests between the two countries. Russian and Iranian objectives in Syria are widely divergent. One could say that Iran’s goals involve changing the demographic structure of the Syrian people, by encouraging Syrians to emigrate. This explains the excessive use of violence in Syria. Now we see that Damascus has become an Iranian colony. The focus on Damascus is due to historical reasons. The Umayyad state in Damascus was the one that brought down the Persian state. Iran’s goals in Syria are driven by its ideological convictions.
As for Russia, it does not have ambitions to turn Syria into an occupied state or reshape colonization. However, Russia has strategic ambitions. Russian President Vladimir Putin aspires to restore Russia’s international position in the region and return to the glory of the Soviet Union. Russia is trying to make Syria a strategic sphere of influence. If we want to speak the truth, Russian intervention, despite its drawbacks, is better than Iranian intervention.
But has Russia gone too far in using military force against Syria?
I believe that Russia’s excessive use of military force serves the purpose of sending a message to European countries, especially the United States, that its presence in Syria is a non-negotiable matter. It is a vital issue that justifies the use of force.
Do you think that after five years of conflict, there is anything called a regime left in Syria?
In Syria, there is no longer a regime. Bashar al-Assad is absolutely subservient to Iran. The Iranians have infiltrated the Syrian army, the intelligence agency, and security centers. Any decision Bashar al-Assad makes cannot be taken without consulting Iran, which now controls every aspect of the Syrian state. The Syrian political and security elites understand this reality.
Dissolution of the Opposition
How do you explain the survival of the regime to this point, while many regimes in the Arab world have changed?
Let us be clear about this matter. When the Syrian revolution began, the regime immediately started a unified battle with all its forces and security agencies. Meanwhile, the opposition began a scattered battle, with factions forming here and there that were not capable of unifying under a single goal. How can a divided people achieve victory? Additionally, there is the multitude of supporters of the Syrian people, which scattered the efforts of the opposition. Had the supporting efforts united under one direction from the start, Bashar al-Assad would have fallen and the situation in Syria wouldn’t have deteriorated to its current state today.
Weak Alternatives
From time to time, there’s talk about alternative figures to Assad, such as Ali Mamlouk and Ali Haydar. Do you think such a solution is possible?
Such suggestions, if they exist, are not effective in Syria now. For instance, Ali Mamlouk, the head of the National Security Bureau, is merely a card in Bashar al-Assad’s hand, as his Sunni identity is used to present a sectarian balance that the regime wants to portray both domestically and internationally. However, he is not qualified for such a position. As for Ali Habib, while he is a good person, he doesn’t have a popular base among the military circles. Moreover, the current phase in Syria cannot tolerate the reproduction of a system similar to Bashar al-Assad’s after all that has happened.
Has the circle around Assad remained cohesive based on your knowledge of the ruling system in Syria?
I believe so. The Assad family remains cohesive, especially Bashar al-Assad and his brother Maher. The reason is that their interests necessitate it. Anyone familiar with the history of the Assad family will notice the difference between the past and the present. This family came from obscurity and was nothing in Syria. When Hafez al-Assad took power, and with all of Syria’s wealth in their hands, they turned into businessmen and brokers controlling everything in Syria. Therefore, they are in a position where they have to stand together.
When Hafez al-Assad came to power, he preserved Syria’s unity and established relations with the Arab world. In fact, Arab states enabled Assad to stand on his feet in his wars against Israel and Iraq, offering Arab support. On the other hand, Bashar began to have disputes with Arab countries and insulted Arab leaders. A president who doesn’t understand the value of Arab relations will inevitably fall into the arms of Iran.
Changing Alliances
What has changed in Syria since Bashar al-Assad assumed power?
Before the assassination of the martyr Rafik Hariri in Lebanon in 2005, Assad was coordinating at a high level with Iraq. Iraqi leaders would frequently come to Syria to restore coordination and relations between the two countries. However, this changed after Hariri’s assassination. At that point, Assad embraced Iran after being accused of the operation. Iran saw a historic opportunity to control both Lebanon and Syria, and since then, Iran has held sway over Syria.
You served as Foreign Minister and Deputy to Presidents Hafez and Bashar. There’s a controversial question: Did Assad Sr. secretly coordinate with Israel?
Absolutely not. This never happened at any stage. You can say that Hafez al-Assad was a dictator who mistreated opponents and many Syrians, but you cannot say he had relations with Israel. Let me tell you, Hafez al-Assad Sr. had Arab support and respect due to his stances against Israeli occupation. Although his family and those around him had corruption, and he didn’t take a stand against the corruption of the Makhlouf family, he himself was not corrupt. History testifies to this.
What was Hafez al-Assad’s major mistake?
Hafez al-Assad’s biggest mistake was allowing his relatives and brothers to engage in corruption. This was the grave error that escalated and harmed his rule. Especially, the corruption of his son-in-law Muhammad Makhlouf, which Hafez al-Assad either couldn’t or perhaps didn’t want to restrain. The Makhlouf family infiltrated even further during Bashar al-Assad’s era. Family corruption became public in Syria.
Memoirs
Former Vice President of Syria, Abdul Halim Khaddam, revealed that he is currently writing his memoirs, which may span several volumes. He noted that the memoirs do not carry a personal character as much as they carry the history of political life in Syria since its independence.
He pointed out that he is documenting Syria’s political history and the stages of transformations and crises that the country went through during his tenure, whether as Foreign Minister or Deputy President. He clarified that he will highlight the prominent political period of Syria’s history, especially under the rule of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. He emphasized that he will reveal issues related to Syria that have not been discussed domestically or internationally.
Khaddam pledged that the memoirs will be free of personal emotions or private impressions. He also mentioned that he possesses important and vital documents from Syria’s history, which will be disclosed at the appropriate time.
