Is it an Iranian message to those concerned? We hope that some in Lebanon have read and understood well. The government of Tehran officially announced that the statements of former Syrian Vice President Abdel Halim Khaddam, which have caused a seismic shock with unclear consequences, are a “domestic matter concerning Syria”! However, Khaddam’s statements, as the witness who knows everything and the second man in the hierarchy of the Syrian political household, are not limited to the internal affairs that we share Iran’s position on. They are fundamentally connected to Lebanese affairs and the sudden upheaval that occurred since the forced extension of President Emile Lahoud’s term, along with the subsequent terrorist crimes and the rivers of spilled blood.
We have no involvement in Syrian internal affairs, and everything Khaddam said about President Bashar al-Assad, his governance style, corruption, lack of political vision, and absence of planning is a matter concerning the Syrian regime. However, what he said about Lebanon, the earthquake-inducing crime that claimed the life of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Deputy Basil Fuleihan, and their companions, and about the incitement campaign led by Lahoud and the hatred embraced by some Damascus allies that preceded the February 14 crime, remains a purely Lebanese matter.
On this basis, whether we like it or not, there is no one who doubts for a moment that what Khaddam revealed about the persecution and oppression suffered by Prime Minister Hariri, especially after receiving explicit and forceful threats to accept the constitutional amendment and Lahoud’s extension, constitutes strong support for the international investigation into the crime. This support goes beyond well-known descriptions such as “key witness” – Khaddam might be the one who opens the door for the investigation to uncover the truth stained with the blood of Hariri and his companions.
Khaddam’s statements have provided a tremendous impetus to the investigation on the eve of the responsibility transition from Detlev Mehlis to Serge Brammertz. Firstly, because he significantly supported what was stated in Mehlis’s report, which was considered good and professional, despite Damascus launching a strong campaign against it. Secondly, and more importantly, the International Investigation Committee promptly requested interviews with the Syrian President, his Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa, and others. This was initially thought by some as unlikely, especially after the issuance of Resolution 1644, and the rise of leaks about a potential US-Syrian deal following the calmness of the Iraqi elections.
Although these leaks are part of numerous attempts to obstruct the investigation and hinder the truth – including fabricated political disputes and divisions in Lebanon aiming to create chaos that could divert the investigation into the shadows – some forget that Resolution 1595 is based on Article 7 of the United Nations Charter, which allows the use of force considering the February 14 crime as a terrorist act. The investigation will not cease until the truth is uncovered.
While Mehlis led his investigation amid significant tumult, always facing accusations of politicization, Brammertz is here to continue this investigation. He carries the legacy of Khaddam, or to put it differently, the “Abdel Halim Mehlis,” to chart a clearer course. If the Syrian People’s Council exhausted every derogatory term and accusation against Khaddam – including calling him “audacious, mentally ill, fallen, agent, enemy, traitor, bad, poisoned, liar, lowly, coward, opportunistic donkey” – it does not at all negate the fact that the man was until recently the Vice President and a witness from the heart of the regime. Everything said and will be said about him, especially after being accused of grand treason, would not have gained attention if the man had not exploded on New Year’s with his speech, which has become a decisive turning point leading, in its repercussions, to reinforcing international investigation trends and potentially triggering an unclear sequence of changes
In any case, the People’s Council can accuse Khaddam of treason and demand his trial, opening investigations into his files. However, this might not be sufficient because what is now required is to confront the international investigation without obstacles or hindrances, at least. This is because it is in the interest of the Syrian President and the Foreign Minister to prove the accusations directed at Khaddam by the People’s Council. The issue here is not a rhetorical maneuver like the one Hossam Hossam staged. We are facing the second man in shaping Syria’s history and managing a part of the political landscape in the region for 35 years and a half.
Since Khaddam was well aware in advance of the shocking and carefully calculated nature of his fiery statement and spoke at a sensitive and decisive moment, he deliberately responded to a question at the beginning of the dialogue about whether he feared the consequences of his words. He essentially stated that he possessed a lot of critical information, and they knew that he had it.
Where can his words lead in the face of the charge of grand treason, especially as the confrontation between Khaddam and the regime takes place amid a complete international backdrop? Furthermore, the investigation into the Hariri assassination has received a significant boost.