- Assad is not the decision-maker in Syria; Iran is the ultimate authority.
- It was the Assad regime that created ISIS.
- Yes, I was one of the symbols of the Syrian regime and was ready to stand trial.
- If it weren’t for Iran, Assad would have been either dead or captured.
- If the Syrian problem was a conflict between the people and the regime, it would have ended within two weeks.
- When I defected, I warned the Arab nations that Syria would become a haven for extremism.
- The Iranian Islamic Revolution is a sectarian movement that has caused anxiety among Shiites.
- Nasrallah started as a fighter but ended up representing Iran in Lebanon.
We received, without preconditions or determining the ceiling of the discussion, some of the Syrian regime’s prominent figures, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Interim President, and the Vice President. We also hosted Abdel Halim Khaddam, the most serious opponent of the Assad regime, who welcomed “ALSHOROUK” to his residence in Paris. During the discussion, he answered all the raised questions regarding the current crisis, particularly after Russia entered the battlefield. Despite being 83 years old and sentenced to death by the Syrian judiciary, Khaddam shared his views on the Syrian crisis, the Assad regime, and regional actors from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which challenged the position of several countries.
Firstly, how do you see the current situation in Syria after four years of popular movement?
There is no doubt that the situation remains difficult as the killing, slaughter, and displacement of people continue. However, with the involvement of two countries, Iran and Russia, the situation in Syria is no longer just a conflict between Syrians and the tyrant Bashar Al-Assad. It has now turned into a struggle against the deadly regime in Syria and against Iran and Russia as well. Iran is sending experts, weapons, and fighters, while Russia is sending weapons and has recently provided advanced weaponry to Assad. Without the intervention of Iran and Russia, Assad would have either been killed or captured.
The reason behind Russia’s intervention becomes apparent when we consider its history in Afghanistan. Russia has taken advantage of the hesitant American position and the situation in Syria to intervene. It has great ambitions and wants to restore the state that was present during the Soviet era. Given the strategic location of Syria, it is an important country that Russia believes adheres to its interests. This adherence is due to strategic reasons, including those related to the region and others to international politics.
Do you think that the major powers will stand idly by?
After four and a half years of bloodshed, the martyrdom of a quarter of a million Syrians, the displacement of 10 million others, and the destruction of political and economic life, what more needs to happen until Washington makes a serious decision?
Regarding the Russian intervention, is it a service for Alawites, or a search for advantages for the Russian state?
Major countries only intervene in their interests, and Russia is no exception. Russia’s interests consider Syria to be a location or region through which it can provide means to secure its interests in the Middle East and secure intervention lines in Central Asia through Damascus, Baghdad, and Tehran. Therefore, Russia is working according to a global strategy in order to secure its interests.
Does the pursuit of strategic interests require only military intervention, or can it be achieved through political mechanisms?
Russia, like any other country, prioritizes its own interests above all else, including human rights, theories, and the right to self-determination. If the US is truly concerned about human rights, then the situation in Syria, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, should be a cause for intervention. Russia is not a country of principles; it is a dictatorial state where the dictator is primarily interested in stability and his own interests.
If Russia can regain its interests in Central Asia and expand in the Middle East, then the Russian regime would face no problems. However, if there are forces that prevent Russia from doing so, then it cannot go beyond its borders.
As for the strange rapprochement between communist Russia and sectarian Shiite Iran, their motives are primarily driven by their shared interests. Russia is no longer a communist state; instead, it is a dictatorial state that prioritizes its interests above all else. Iran’s geographical location serves as a link between Russia and Central Asia. Moreover, Iran, through its association with Bashar al-Assad, provides a base for Russia to ensure its interests in the Middle East.
You were one of the godfathers of Syrian-Iranian relations. How do you see Iran’s position on the crisis, and is Iran really fighting for sectarian reasons?
When we formed an alliance with Iran, it was still a pariah state and at war with Iraq. Although Arab countries did not approve of Iran’s policies, we established relations because the Iranian leader declared two issues of concern to us: the liberation of Palestine and Iran’s opposition to the United States, which it referred to as the “Great Satan”. We were particularly concerned with the issue of Israel.
The Shah had relations with Israel, but the Islamic revolution in Iran adopted a sectarian approach, creating sectarian tensions among Shiite Muslims and managing to influence the majority of Shiites to favor Iran over their own countries. Iran’s influence in Iraq shifted from Najaf to Qom. They provoked sectarian tensions and made Muslims passive in the countries where they reside.
Regarding the Iranian-American agreement, Khomeini famously referred to the US as the “Great Satan,” but his successor, Khamenei, signed an agreement with the “Great Satan” to secure Iran’s interests. This indicates that the issue is not ideological, but rather the use of ideology for state interests.
Regarding the Iranian-American rapprochement, is it a marriage of convenience, or a Catholic marriage?
In international relations, there is no such thing as a Catholic marriage, only a marriage of convenience. America believed that if Iran abandoned its nuclear program, it would become a regular country, but I believe that the American administration made an incorrect assessment. It should also be noted that Iran has the characteristics of a major country in terms of how it protects and advances its interests.
You presented a complex diagnosis of the Syrian crisis. What are the outcomes of the crisis? Can the solution be for Assad’s survival?
The issue between the Syrian people and the regime could have been resolved in two weeks, but the problem is that the crisis has turned into a conflict of interests between major countries, resulting in extremism due to the regime’s tendency to kill and slaughter. There was no extremism in Syria when I broke away from the regime in 2005. I sent letters to a number of Arab leaders describing the Syrian situation and warning them that the situation would explode, causing a bloody conflict in Syria. If they did not take the initiative to save the country, it would become a haven for extremism in the Arab and Islamic world. Unfortunately, things have only gotten worse, and no one has taken action. Therefore, there is a great responsibility for the international and Arab systems.
It is strange to hear American politicians talking about fighting extremism without addressing the source and origin. Bashar killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.
This great extremist created ISIS and all other terrorist and extremist movements. Without the killing and slaughter of the Assad regime, there would not have been a revolution. When the matter went beyond a march or a demonstration, Syrians were forced to take up arms to defend themselves, especially after the massacres, the world order, and the Arab regime in particular, is watching.
The Arab Spring has overthrown dictatorships. How can we understand that Zine El Abidine stepped down in less than a month, followed by Mubarak’s downfall and the death of Gaddafi, while Assad remains? Why is he the exception?
Because Assad is not the decision-maker. The decision-maker is Iran and then Russia.
Does it mean that Zine El Abidine, Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Saleh had no allies abroad to defend them?
Ali Abdullah Saleh had no allies abroad. Mubarak was a politician and aware of the situation. He wanted to resign to save Egyptian blood and pay the price. The revolution started in Egypt, and the situation was in crisis. The people were living in poverty, while a class that owned everything grew richer. At that time, Mubarak realized that the situation had overcome him. He avoided the army using excessive force, and he was arrested and tried.
You can see him in the court cage as if he was not imprisoned because a person may wake up his conscience. Mubarak knew that he was being held accountable for things that were not his responsibility.
As for Ben Ali, he was an intelligence man who rose to the post of first minister and then carried out a coup to take office. His intelligence services informed him of all homeless and incoming people. He got on the plane and left the country on the run. He was the decision maker.
This is the difference between them and Assad because this killer is not the decision maker, but rather Iran and, to some extent, Russia.
With regard to the Arab regimes in the Syrian crisis, do you think they are failing or betraying?
Using phrases such as “failing” or “betraying” is not helpful. We should say that there is negligence rather than a conspiracy. I do not think that any Arab country would be happy to see the abundance of Syrian blood.
Many readings suggest that there is a plan to target Algeria, as happened in the past with Iraq and Syria. Do you agree?
Unfortunately, revolutions took place in countries that were considered revolutionary. Every official in any country who participated in his country’s regime should evaluate his participation and show the people where they made mistakes and where they were hurt.
You visited Saudi Arabia twice. What did you check?
Yes, I visited the Kingdom by invitation and explained the Syrian situation, and I returned comfortably
It is said that you received money from Saudi Arabia. Is it to finance a national project or a special gift?
I did not go to ask for money, but to seek support for Syrians. It is not my task to bring money and weapons and redistribute them.
One aspect of the Syrian crisis is the plight of refugees. Turkey, for example, has received 2 million refugees. Do you think that its move is a political investment as it forms a base for the Brotherhood, or is it for humanitarian reasons?
It is unfair to doubt Turkey. Turkey has provided a service to Syrians that no other country has provided. Erdogan is far-sighted. What he presented will not be forgotten by the Syrian people. Erdogan knows that the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria is very weak. What will he benefit from them? Why should we remove religious, moral, and humanitarian tendencies from this man?
You say that Turkey has provided services to Syria, but has contributed to its destruction by facilitating the arrival of fighters?
When you say Turkey has contributed to the destruction of Syria, are you saying that if it facilitates the arrival of fighters, it committed a crime? They arrived in Syria to defend their people.
Talking about thousands of foreigners of all nationalities?
First, there are no Americans or British. Some people from the West are Muslims who have come and joined ISIS and other organizations. They have no weight.
Europe has opened its doors to Syrians reluctantly. Do you think the move is an awakening of conscience?
Everyone is doing a special act. It is a shame to say that it is an awakening of conscience. Why do we deprive people of their conscience? Let’s ask the other parties: Where are your conscience from what is happening?
I said before that you are part of the regime and that you are ready to be held accountable. Are you still in your position?
Yes, I was part of the Syrian regime. This is true. I was a key part as well. I am accountable to the international judiciary and the judiciary of any Arab country.
Without the judiciary of your country?
There is no internal judiciary. The judge does not make the decision. Security makes the decision. There is no state in Syria.
By Saying that you were part of the regime, which is described as a dictatorship, a murderer, and a criminal, means that you have contributed to the situation it has reached?
I was an essential part of the regime responsible for foreign policy. I had nothing to do with internal politics. The president and sometimes committees he formed personally made internal decisions. Syrians were proud of their country’s foreign policy.
Are you satisfied with what you have provided for your country?
Yes, I am satisfied, but events should be discussed during the time they occur, not twenty years later. There are events that you may have considered correct at the time, but after two or three decades, your concepts change, and you may understand them differently.
What do you think of these names: Hafez al-Assad?
A dictator in every sense of the word.
Bashar Al-Assad?
A foolish dictator. His father used to use external positions to cover up domestic politics.
Khamenei?
A smart man who served Iran, but his attitude towards Syria was not what the Syrians had hoped for.
Nasrallah?
He started his life as a fighter but ended up serving Iran. He is an Iranian leader and not a Lebanese leader. Nasrallah represents Iran in Lebanon.
