In a comprehensive discussion about the Golan Heights, Hezbollah, and the future of the situation in Syria,
Brussels / UPI: Former Syrian deputy and defector Abdul Halim Khadam announced that the opposition Salvation Front, which he founded with the General Supervisor of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Ali Sadr al-Din al-Bayanouni, and other opposition figures, will focus on operating within Syria in the upcoming phase to expedite the process of change.
Khadam stated in an exclusive interview with United Press International on the sidelines of the General Secretariat meeting of the Front in the Belgian capital, Brussels, “The Front’s activities have so far been concentrated outside Syria while making contacts internally. However, in the next phase, it will shift its focus to the interior to accelerate the process of change.”
He refused to provide any details about the methods and means the Front will use to communicate with the Syrian interior “for security reasons,” explaining, “You cannot expect me to answer a security-related question, but what I can mention in this regard is that the Front is moving towards activating communications within the country and mobilizing public opinion in Syria to prepare for the process of change that we hope will happen soon. We are working towards that goal, and with the grace of God, we will achieve what we are working for,” he expressed.
He denied that any Arab party contacted the Front following President Bashar al-Assad’s speech last month, in which he criticized some parties for their stance on Hezbollah in its recent confrontation with Israel in Lebanon. Khadam said, “In reality, there has been no contact between us and any Arab party. However, this doesn’t mean there aren’t numerous common alliances with Arab states. In the Salvation Front, we believe that Syria is currently isolated in the Arab situation due to Bashar al-Assad’s reckless policies and his attacks on Arab states, severing Syria’s ties with them.”
Khadam, who declared his defection from the regime on December 30th last year, considered it “natural that we converge in our orientations regarding Arab solidarity with our brethren in Arab governments.” He didn’t name any specific countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Egypt but emphasized that the Arab situation is “one way” while the Syrian regime is in “another way,” and there is a convergence of stances between the Salvation Front and the general Arab stance about the danger of tearing apart the Arab situation and the danger of Syria being excluded from the Arab circle.
Asked whether he believed that President Assad’s speech harmed Syria’s position and further isolated it from its Arab surroundings, he replied, “There is behavior, and there is speech. Bashar al-Assad’s behavior towards Arab countries has been cutting Syria’s ties with Arab nations, without realizing the danger of that. He caused significant damage to Syria’s interests. There are now hundreds of thousands of Syrians working in Arab countries, and they are in a difficult and complicated situation in front of the host governments. In Lebanon, there were about half a million Syrians working, but his policy in this sister country led to their departure, and they are now idling in Syria, unable to find job opportunities.”
Khadam, accused by the Syrian People’s Council (Parliament) of grand betrayal after his defection, stated, “Bashar, in his policy towards Arab countries, also narrows the scope for Arab communities in Syria and for Syrians abroad. He thus creates a psychological state for the Syrian citizen that compels him to be worried when he sees his government antagonizing and criticizing the government he works for.”
He ruled out the possibility of the Syrian regime repairing the damage that has occurred in its relations, especially with Saudi Arabia, adding, “Bashar al-Assad has cut the point of return and made his decision, taking himself out of the Arab circle and placing himself in the Iranian circle. He knows that he is on the path to downfall and is trying to escape forward, not backward, to his people. He has intensified his political discourse because he knows that the ordinary citizen is inflamed by the injustice and oppression he faces. He believes that if he raises the discourse’s intensity, these masses will support him, thus providing him with the protection he wants, as his surrounding allies try to make him believe.”
Khadam pointed out that President Assad “believes that Arab countries are incapable of protecting him and sees that if he becomes a pawn in Iran’s strategy, the latter can provide him with the protection he desires. At least, if he had to take a flight with his family to a safe haven, he wouldn’t find refuge and a warm embrace like the Iranian one.”
He added, “What harms Bashar al-Assad is that surrounding group that describes him with what he doesn’t possess and tells him what shouldn’t be said, leading him astray. The world is different now, and those who talk a lot about resilience and confronting imperialism are living outside of history and outside of the world. They delude themselves and contribute to the tightening of the noose around Syria.”
Commenting on President Assad’s absence from the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Cuba, Khadam said, “Bashar al-Assad doesn’t sleep; he is deeply concerned about the internal situation and fears that if he leaves, he won’t come back. He is worried because he lives in a conflict between the image of the popular leader bestowed upon him by Saddam Hussein and the reality of his current existence. He is now a prisoner of the international community, the Arab community, and the Syrian community. Therefore, he feels anxious,” as he put it.
He added, “I am sure and well aware that Bashar doesn’t sleep. He moves from bed to office and from office to bed. He decided not to go to Cuba after reviewing the internal situation and finding it dangerous. He assigned his foreign minister, Walid Muallem, to attend the summit.”
While he believed that things hadn’t reached the point of a power struggle in Syria, Khadam claimed, “There is concern within Bashar about some members of the family, especially his son-in-law, Major General Assef Shawkat (head of Military Intelligence), who some media outlets have recently mentioned as a potential alternative. This idea has become ingrained in Bashar’s mind, and Assef has become his obsession, leading him to practically freeze his role, change officers close to him, and limit his authority recently. Now he relies on Assef’s deputy rather than Assef himself.”
In a noteworthy stance, Khadam praised Major General Assef Shawkat, describing him as “a brave, intelligent, cultured officer and one of the prominent security figures in Syria. He has strong external relations because he used to coordinate between Syrian Military Intelligence and Western intelligence agencies, especially in the United States and Europe.”
Asked whether Assef Shawkat is qualified to succeed President Bashar al-Assad, Khadam answered, “The country is not qualified for anyone who upholds this regime, but what I mentioned about Assef represents my opinion about him.”
Regarding the Golan Heights, Khadam considered the ceasefire decision “not new. After the October 1973 war and the developments that occurred on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts, and after the military and political partnership between Damascus and Cairo was severed and disputes erupted with Iraq, along with the outbreak of the civil war in Lebanon, President Hafez al-Assad’s focus was similar to his Egyptian counterpart Anwar Sadat’s. The idea was that war was no longer possible because Syria couldn’t fight alone. It needed either a partnership with Iraq or a partnership with Egypt. There were tensions with Baghdad that escalated to the point of mobilizing armies on the border between the two countries. The partnership with Egypt dissolved after President Sadat took a different approach.”
He added, “The Soviet Union helps you within a framework that protects you from aggression, not within a framework of enabling you to liberate land. Therefore, Soviet assistance was no longer sufficient to enter the war. Based on this, the Golan ceasefire decision was a strategic move. War was not possible within the existing Arab context. As for the reasons for the absence of resistance in the Golan, it’s because President Hafez al-Assad gave strict orders to military security agencies and armed forces to prevent any infiltration into the Golan for any action, although the Separation of Forces Agreement did not prohibit it. He believed, based on all calculations, that Israel’s reaction was something Syria couldn’t bear, and it couldn’t respond to it in kind. Therefore, he froze this matter.”
Khadam expressed his belief that President Bashar al-Assad “is following his father’s legacy and wants to drain Israel through Hezbollah, fearing that armed action in the Golan might trigger a war at an inappropriate time, whether internally, within the Arab context, or internationally.” He vehemently denied the existence of any deal regarding the Golan.
Regarding the terrorist attack on the US embassy in Damascus, Khadam said, “I don’t have information about that, but there are those who believe that the operation was orchestrated by security agencies based on the fact that the area where the incident occurred is a 100% secured area. This means that even an ant walking through it would be under surveillance. How could car bombs enter this area without being noticed? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of security personnel deployed around the President’s residence, the Presidential Palace, embassies, and the homes of some officials. This perspective might be accurate or inaccurate.”
He added, “There is another perspective that views the operation as a terrorist act. If it was indeed a terrorist act, this signifies that Bashar al-Assad’s regime, through its corruption, tyranny, refusal to implement reforms, and its continuous monopoly of power, has placed people in a closed space, leading to frustration and consequently extremism,” as he expressed.
He warned that the danger facing Syria now “is not in the fall of the regime, as some claim that Syria will turn into a new Iraq if it falls. But this is not true. The situation in Syria could become like Iraq’s if this regime continues, because its continuation will lead to extremism.”
Regarding the Lebanese issue and whether he believed that Hezbollah achieved a victory in the recent confrontation with Israel, Khadam said, “The matter has two sides. There’s a military aspect where Hezbollah managed to prevent the Israelis from achieving victory and fought well, inflicting significant losses on them. Consequently, Israel couldn’t achieve its military goal of eliminating Hezbollah. On the other hand, there’s the fiery rhetoric of Israeli officials who declared that they would bring great destruction to Lebanon, setting it back 20 years.”
Khadam reminded that Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah admitted in a press interview that if he had known the Israeli response would be of this magnitude, he wouldn’t have carried out the operation to capture the Israeli soldiers. He said, “So, he acknowledges and criticizes himself, because the operation to capture the Israeli soldiers is what caused the war. Was this operation about prisoners or serving other interests in Damascus and Tehran? Based on this, there was no victory, because victory comes when one of the warring parties loses the war. What happened was preventing an Israeli victory. This was a significant achievement itself, unprecedented for Israel.”
Asked if he supports Arab countries’ criticism of Hezbollah and holding it responsible for the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, he answered, “There’s no country with armed power outside the state that can unilaterally decide on peace and war. There’s a state in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is within this state. A decision like this should not be taken by one side alone. Besides, the Lebanese have grown tired of wars and are seeking peace and stability. They want a stable state that exerts its dominance over all Lebanese territories.”
Khadam said, “Hezbollah, based on what I heard from its recent interview with its Secretary-General, spoke from the perspective of having won against the Lebanese, not against Israel. Even if they were referring to the March 14 Forces, which represents the majority and includes both Christians and Muslims, Hezbollah’s new discourse is the same as Bashar al-Assad’s on July 15th. This also allows Arab and Lebanese parties to consider the battle in Lebanon as serving Syrian and Iranian interests.”
Regarding recent statements made by Mohammed Zuheir al-Siddiq, who is described as a key witness in the Rafik Hariri assassination case, alleging that the killers of the former Lebanese Prime Minister are in prison in Lebanon and Syria, Khadam said, “I have previously stated that Bashar al-Assad is the killer, and this is my opinion. However, where the international investigation will lead, I don’t know. Ultimately, the international investigation determines responsibility.”
Khadam reiterated his denial of meeting the Belgian judge Serge Brammertz, who heads the International Investigation Committee, and avoided predicting what the report he will submit to the United Nations Security Council this month will contain.