Khaddam: Al-Assad is not the decision-maker in Syria. Iran is the final arbiter

Former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam to “El Chourouk”

The Assad regime is the one that created “ISIS.” Yes, I was one of the symbols of the Syrian regime and ready for trial. If it weren’t for Iran, Assad would have been in the grave or in captivity. If the Syrian problem was a conflict between the people and the regime, it would have ended in two weeks. When I defected, I informed the Arabs that Syria would become the largest refuge for extremism. The Iranian Islamic revolution is a sectarian revolution that aroused sensitivities among the Shiites. Nasrallah started as a fighter and ended up as a representative of Iran in Lebanon.

Interviewed by: “El Chourouk” correspondent in Paris / Abdel Salam Sekia

A journalist and head of the international affairs department at El Chourouk daily

Without preconditions or predetermined limits to the discussion, we met one of the symbols of the Syrian regime, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, interim president, and vice president, Abdul Halim Khaddam. He hosted “El Chourouk Daily” at his residence in Paris and responded to all questions for discussion about the current crisis, especially developments following Russia’s entry into the battlefield. At 83 years old and convicted with death sentences from the Syrian judiciary, he shared his stance on several countries’ positions regarding the Syrian crisis and the Assad regime, as well as regional actors from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

• Firstly, how do you see the overall situation in Syria after four years of popular movement?

• Undoubtedly, the situation is difficult, considering that killings, massacres, and displacement continue. However, with the involvement of two countries, namely Iran and Russia, the situation in Syria has evolved beyond a conflict between Syrians and the tyrant Bashar al-Assad. It has become a struggle against the murderous regime in Syria and against Iran and Russia as well. Iran sends experts, weapons, and fighters, while Russia supplies weapons. Recently, Russia provided Bashar with advanced weaponry. Without the intervention of Iran and Russia, Assad would have been either in the grave or in captivity.

• Russian intervention has become apparent. Why does Russia intervene, or more accurately, why does it become involved, considering what happened to it in Afghanistan?

• Russia exploited the hesitant American stance, providing an opportunity for Iran and Russia to intervene. Consequently, Russia has significant ambitions. It wants to regain the status it held during the Soviet era, and given Syria’s strategic location, it is an important state for Russian objectives. Therefore, Russia clings to it, and this attachment is for strategic reasons, some related to the region and others to international politics.

• On this basis, do you think the major powers will remain idle?

• After 4 and a half years of bloodshed, with a quarter of a million Syrians martyred, and 10 million others displaced, and the destruction of political and economic life, what more needs to happen for Washington to make a serious decision?

• Did the Russian intervention serve the Alawites or was it a search for spoils for the Russian state?

• Major powers do not intervene except for their interests. Russia considers Syria a site or region through which it can secure its interests in the Middle East and also secure intervention routes in Central Asia through Damascus, Baghdad, and Tehran. Therefore, Russia operates according to a cosmic strategy for its own interests.

• Does the search for its strategic interests necessitate military intervention only? Why not through political mechanisms, for example?

• Russia and any state do not care whether people live or die. The stories of human rights, theories, and the right to self-determination have all been crushed by major powers. If America is concerned about human rights, is there a situation like Syria’s that requires intervention or not? Thus, Russia is not a principled state; it is not a communist state working to spread communism. Instead, it is a dictatorial state. The dictator is primarily concerned with his interests and stability. If Russia regains its interests in Central Asia and expands in the Middle East, in this case, the Russian regime faces no troubles. However, if there are no forces that Russia can use, it cannot go beyond its borders.

• There is a strange convergence between communist Russia and Shia Iran. What motivates this?

• First, Russia is no longer communist but a dictatorial state, and it is solely interests that have brought them closer. Iran’s geographical location forms a link between Russia and Central Asia, and Iran, due to its connection with Bashar al-Assad, serves as a base for Russia to secure its interests in the Middle East.

• You were one of the architects of Syrian-Iranian relations. How do you see Iran’s position on the crisis, and is Iran truly fighting for sectarian reasons?

• When we allied with Iran, it was still in a narrow circle, considering that it was at war with Iraq, and all Arab countries did not approve of Iran’s policy. However, we established relations because the Iranian leader declared two issues: that his country would liberate Palestine, and secondly, that America is the greatest devil. We were interested in both issues, especially concerning Israel.

The Shah had relations with Israel, and now another regime claims to be against Israel. However, at the same time, the Islamic revolution in Iran took a sectarian approach, arousing sectarian sensitivities among Shia Muslims. Through this, they managed to push the majority of Shia Muslims to turn towards Iran.

Their reference in Iraq was in Najaf and became in Qom. They stirred sectarian sensitivities and aimed to transform Shia Muslims into dormant forces in the countries where they exist. Also noteworthy is the Iranian-American agreement. Khomeini described America as the “Great Satan,” and his successor, Khamenei, reached an agreement with the “Great Satan” to secure Iran’s interests. This means that the issue is not a religious matter but the use of faith for reasons related to the state itself.