Question – Observers believe that the Syrian opposition abroad…
Answer 1 – The Syrian opposition abroad, like inside the country, is comprised of various currents, parties, and figures, each with its own cultural and political background. However, what unites them is Syria’s need for change and the establishment of a civilian democratic system where Syrians are equal in rights and responsibilities regardless of religion, sect, ethnicity, or gender. The source of authority in such a state is the people, exercised through elected constitutional institutions.
Naturally, differences in viewpoints emerge from time to time regarding certain issues in the political arena, whether they are domestic, Arab, or international, due to the intellectual and political backgrounds of the opposition components. This is normal, especially since we all emphasize the right to disagree on matters that do not undermine the National Salvation Front’s charter in Syria.
During the Israeli brutal aggression on Gaza, the Muslim Brotherhood group announced the suspension of its opposition activities against the Syrian regime. This announcement led to disagreements in perspectives between the group and other factions within the front, which saw the Muslim Brotherhood’s statement as a departure from the front’s charter. The matter was discussed at the General Secretariat, and it will soon be presented to the National Council to make an appropriate decision.
Based on my information, the Muslim Brotherhood group has not announced any reconciliation with the regime.
It is difficult to strike a deal between the Muslim Brotherhood group and the regime due to reasons related to both sides. The regime cannot accept reconciliation that allows the Brotherhood to engage in political activities in any form. Some time ago, the regime announced its acceptance of allowing individuals to return to Syria after receiving security approval. On the other hand, the Muslim Brotherhood group cannot accept such an offer either.
I am not alone in the National Salvation Front, which is composed, as I mentioned, of national forces, currents, parties, and figures existing both inside and outside the country. On this occasion, I would like to mention that discussions are ongoing with certain opposition parties to join the front. Similarly, dialogues will take place with other parties to unify and coordinate the work of the Syrian opposition, both inside and outside the country.
I am not worried about the future of the front or the future of the opposition despite the obstacles it faces in achieving its objectives.
Question – There seems to be Arab and Western openness towards Damascus.
Answer 2 – I do not view this matter in a simplistic way, detached from the international and regional circumstances and the ongoing struggle among international and regional powers in the region.
Let me say that there are currently three strategies in the region, namely the United States strategy supported by the West, Israel’s strategy backed by the United States, and Iran’s strategy. These strategies are competing on Arab soil, revolving around their interests, while the Arabs have been unable to agree on a strategy that guarantees their security, stability, sovereignty, and interests.
We need to read and analyze these three strategies. Only then can we determine the situation and objectively interpret every action or move.
1 – The United States strategy, supported by the West, aims to protect its interests and those of the West in the region. The foundations of this strategy were laid after World War II and the emergence of the Cold War, along with the increasing importance of Arab oil and the strategic significance of the region. This can be seen in President Truman’s speech to the Senate in 1951 about the universal strategy of the United States, in which he mentioned the Middle East. He said, “The Middle East countries are generally less industrialized than European countries, yet they are of great importance to the security of the free world as a whole. This region is a vital center for land, sea, and air transport between Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Middle East contains half the world’s oil reserves, and there is no region more subject to Soviet pressure than the Middle East. The Kremlin has not left any opportunity unused to further its influence in the turbulent waters, as is evident in post-war dialogues, the civil war in Greece, pressuring for privileges in the Dardanelles, and the establishment of the Tudeh Party in Iran. Additionally, manipulating sects against each other in Arab countries and Israel. All of these point to a planned effort to expand Soviet control over this vital region.”
Elsewhere, he states, “In Arab countries and Israel, regional cooperation to address economic development issues is essential. There is a lack of regional cooperation to alleviate existing tensions, particularly by working on refugee resettlement. As for the Arab countries’ program, it seeks to expand food production through improving water resources. Israel’s program helps formulate its economy during this challenging period of national development.”
It is true that the Soviet Union no longer exists and communism has disappeared. However, there are two truths as well. The first is that Russia has begun to rise again to regain its position as a major power. This might not happen in the next five years, but it certainly will happen. We are all observing the evolution of Russia’s resurgence, particularly in its internal, military, and economic structures, as well as in its foreign policies. The second factor that has occurred in the region is the rise of Iran as a significant regional power with ambitions that go beyond its national borders. All of this places the region at the center of American, especially Western, interests. We all remember the coalition that the United States formed in 1990 to expel Iraq from Kuwait because the Iraqi regime crossed red lines.
Another related factor closely linked to the United States’ strategy, no matter who its leader is, is ensuring Israel’s security, protection, and support.
2 – When discussing Israel’s strategy, it’s important to distinguish between the historical goals of the Zionist movement that aimed to establish Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates and the goals of the Israeli state in the post-establishment phase.
In this phase, Israel’s strategy aims to expand its geographic territory at the expense of Palestinian land and the Golan Heights through settlement policies. It also seeks to displace Palestinians from Palestine and focuses on developing its scientific, military, and economic power, which serves as a means to achieve its objectives. A central aspect of Israel’s strategy is to dismantle Palestinian national unity, making the Palestinian cause insignificant on Palestinian, Arab, and international levels. It also focuses on undermining Arab relations and working to weaken national unity in Arab countries, as this serves as a regional guarantee for Israel.
It’s worth noting that Israel’s acceptance of peace is predicated on achieving these objectives.
3 – Nations with a rich history filled with victories, prosperity, and progress evoke their history. Some may dwell in the memories of history, and their past events turn into phenomena of waking dreams. They seek imaginary victories and turn real defeats into media victories.
Among nations that remember their history, follow their journey, and build on it is the Iranian nation.
In March 1979, the Islamic Revolution triumphed in Iran, and it invoked history to continue its journey. It built its strategy on two integrated pillars: religion and nationalism.
The central goal of the Iranian Revolution’s strategy is to build a strong, major state with influence extending from the Mediterranean Sea to Afghanistan, reaching the Central Asian republics. It achieves its strategy through the following:
1 – The religious identity of the regime, which links the system to a devout society. It successfully revived religious nationalism among broad segments of Shiite Muslims, with Iran becoming their political reference.
2 – Notably, the leadership of the Islamic Revolution in Iran comprises religious figures who differ from other religious institutions in the Islamic world by employing science as a fundamental tool to achieve their goals. This has led to Iran achieving advanced scientific progress, enabling it to create military capabilities and meet the requirements of civilian life. Iran succeeded in producing and developing technology, not just utilizing it.
3 – The Iranian leadership adopted fundamental issues that interest Muslims and the Arab public, primarily the Palestinian cause. Iran symbolically handed over the Israeli embassy in Tehran to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It adopted a policy calling for the complete liberation of Palestine. Iran’s presence in the Palestinian arena was enhanced by forming Hezbollah, which achieved victories over Israel and provided Iran with an access bridge to both the Palestinian and Lebanese arenas. Its alliance with the Syrian regime facilitated close relations with Palestinian organizations, particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These relationships evolved into a strong alliance between these Palestinian factions and Iran.
4 – Tehran focused on the Syrian regime after its involvement in Lebanon and the establishment of the international investigation committee into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Iran managed to contain the regime, which recognized Iran’s influence due to its presence in its security and military institutions and state institutions, in addition to its ties with Hezbollah, providing protection to both Iran and its regime.
5 – After granting approval for Iraqi Shiite Islamic parties to ally with its biggest enemy, the United States, Iran covered its war on Iraq. Iran succeeded not only in defeating its enemy Saddam Hussein but also in exploiting Iraq’s post-war fragmentation to establish strong influence in the Iraqi arena.
Iran aided the United States in its war on Afghanistan before its war on Iraq, using an Iranian popular proverb: “If you see a snake, don’t kill it with your hand; kill it with your enemy’s hand.” This allowed Iran to dispose of the Taliban.
6 – Iran managed to build a significant military force and became a factor of power. It formed one of its main strengths.
So, we are faced with three strategies, each with its own objectives, in the absence of an Arab strategy and amid the disintegration of the Arab system that began with the current Arab League – I mean the Arab League.
Here, we need to pose the following questions:
1 – Is the West, led by the United States, ready to abandon its strategy in securing its interests in the region, whether they are economic, security-related, or the security of Israel?
2 – Is Iran willing to backtrack on its strategic goals and give up on them, as well as the means it possesses to achieve these objectives?
Is Iran ready to accept becoming a state whose influence doesn’t extend beyond its geographic borders, like any other country in the region?
Here, it must be noted that Iran did not abandon its goals during the war waged against it by the Iraqi regime, even during dialogues held indirectly with Americans to end the siege of the US embassy in Tehran. Iran also did not abandon its goals after the war, as evidenced by discussions that indirectly took place with Americans. Back then, Iran did not possess the influence that now stretches from Lebanon to Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and some Gulf states. Iran also did not possess the military and scientific capabilities it now possesses.
3 – Can the United States, supported by the West, impose the Arab initiative on Israel and thus achieve a complete withdrawal from Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese territories, including Jerusalem, dismantling settlements, and accepting the implementation of Resolution 149 concerning Palestinian refugees?
Can the Palestinians accept less than that? Similarly, can the Syrian state accept less than complete liberation of the Syrian territories occupied in the June 1967 war?
4 – Is the Syrian regime ready to abandon its alliance with Iran? Can it face the consequences of this abandonment, given the size of Iran’s influence within the regime’s structure and the strong role of Hezbollah and Iranian security apparatuses in Syria?
Is there anyone who can assure him that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon won’t touch him or his regime? Can the West or some Arab governments guarantee his return to Lebanon and the continuation of his repressive and corrupt regime?
A – Simply put, the United States, supported by the West, is not capable of handing over the region to Iran and placing its interests under Iranian influence.
B – The Iranian leadership will not abandon its goals. It may maneuver, work to gain time, exploit gaps in the Western alliance, and create tensions in the region that distract the West from its objectives. However, it will not abandon its goals, which have become the political doctrine of the Iranian state. Rejecting this doctrine means rejecting the state itself.
From reading these facts, those seeking to remove the Syrian regime from Iran’s grip, whether from the West or the East, have not succeeded. The regime will remain a fundamental pillar for the Iranian leadership.
Its departure from its ties with Iran would pose a great threat to the regime due to Iran’s invasive penetrations and the infiltration of its agencies in Syria. In addition, Iran’s powerful allies in Lebanon through Hezbollah and in Palestine through Hamas and Islamic Jihad now hold significant influence in the Palestinian arena within Syria.
Bashar al-Assad will promise the West and Arab countries. Iran will also provide enhanced reassurances in the form of continuing its alliance with him.
Given all this, I am not worried about any dialogue held with the regime because I am confident that this dialogue will be a pointless one.
As for the question of Western assistance to the Syrian opposition:
I want to clarify that the Syrian opposition does not rely on the West to achieve change in Syria. Such intervention comes at a high national cost, and this is rejected by the Syrian opposition. The experience of change through external intervention in Iraq makes such intervention in Syria undesirable. Another point I want to clarify is that the Syrian opposition did not ask for external assistance to achieve change. Instead, it asked for the lifting of the cover from the regime, which practices the most severe forms of violence against Syrians. I affirm that the West has not provided any form of support to the Syrian opposition, despite its slogans about democracy and human rights.
Question: How do you view the American President Barack Obama, who initiated direct dialogue with the Syrian regime?
Answer: The presidency of Obama was an exceptional phenomenon in American politics. His election shattered the barriers of discrimination within American society. His election brought relief to many people around the world after eight years of the failures of the previous administration.
President Obama presented grand ambitions to the American public and the world. Can he achieve them?
Undoubtedly, he faces significant difficulties. Domestically, there’s the financial crisis and its social, economic, and security ramifications on the American national security level. He inherits the legacy of President George Bush in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. He confronts the Arab-Israeli conflict’s complexities, as well as the Iranian dossier and its regional impact on American and Western interests. Moreover, he has to address the global economic crisis and its implications for international security and stability, along with the world’s future in the coming years.
The dialogues he initiated regarding Afghanistan, the Syrian regime, and the potential dialogue with Iran are exploratory conversations. He faces substantial challenges and an interrelated set of problems. Successfully solving one issue may lead to the emergence of another. For instance, the withdrawal from Iraq resolves an American problem but creates another issue: Iran’s dominance over Iraq, which acts as a gateway to dominating the entire region. President Obama also deals with the complex challenge of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
It’s clear that President Obama will follow the path of President Bill Clinton, albeit in more complex circumstances.
We must await the upcoming months. It’s not easy to judge the American president before he tackles this array of major crises.
Question: Regarding the issue of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, how do you interpret President Assad’s statement that if the tribunal becomes politicized, it will destroy all of Lebanon?
Answer: The assassination of President Rafik Hariri is inherently a political crime. He was not killed due to a personal dispute or disagreement with a person or a company. His assassination followed intensive political and media campaigns against him. He was assassinated because of his political stance. Therefore, it’s natural that politicians who ordered and planned the assassination will stand before the political judiciary.
President Assad’s statement, which you referred to in your question, represents a threat to the Lebanese, Arabs, and the international community. On the other hand, it means that the President himself is accusing himself. Who other than a state or quasi-state entity is capable of destroying Lebanon? Individuals cannot destroy Lebanon. Based on my observation of the situation in Lebanon and the strained relations between President Assad and the late Rafik Hariri, along with the threats that were made, the pointing of fingers implicates the regime. Regardless, the investigation is nearing its conclusion, the court is in session, and the truth will surface.
Question: Regarding the statements of Mohieddin al-Ladqani.
Answer: This individual does not deserve a response.
Apparently, he neither reads nor listens. In all my media interviews and statements, I’ve focused on two fundamental issues: the corruption of the regime and its tyranny. I presented facts and talked about individuals.
As for the claim that I engaged in corruption, my question is: if I, my relatives, or my friends engaged in corruption, then why hasn’t the Syrian regime disclosed these files to the Syrian public?
Question: When you defected from the regime, who were you betting on?
Answer: The matter is not about betting; national work is not a gamble. I made the decision to defect after being convinced that Bashar al-Assad would not undertake the reforms the country needed. Therefore, I submitted my resignation from my party and official positions in the first session of the party conference held on June 5, 2005. In that resignation, I outlined the reasons for my decision. Afterward, I left Syria and announced my defection from the regime on December 31, 2005. I worked on forming the National Salvation Front.
