Khaddam, the survival of the Assad regime will turn Syria into a new Iraq.

  Khaddam: Brammertz Report Expected Not to Name Suspects

Khaddam: Assad Regime’s Continuation Will Transform Syria into a New Iraq

Former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam speculated that the report by the head of the International Investigation Committee on the assassination of the late President Rafik Hariri, Judge Serge Brammertz, expected at the end of this month, would be “professional and more advanced than its predecessor,” suggesting that “no suspects will be named in this stage” due to the delay in forming the international court. Khaddam held Syrian President Bashar al-Assad responsible for any disruption in Lebanon, accusing him of attempting to create divisions within the Lebanese society, although he was unable to do so. He hinted that Assad’s decision not to go to Cuba might be due to his fear of popular movements in his absence, considering that the continuation of his regime would turn Syria into a new Iraq.

He pointed out the possibility that the attack on the US embassy in Damascus last week might have been the work of intelligence agencies, warning that “if the operation is indeed a terrorist act, the situation in Syria indicates further developments in this direction.” He observed that Riyadh has come to realize that the persistence of the Syrian regime contributes to the ongoing suffering of the Syrian people.

Speaking on the “One of the Questions” program on Alhurra TV, Khaddam responded to a question regarding the call by the Syrian opposition leader Farid al-Ghadry for Alawites to leave Damascus and leave it to the Sunnis to govern. He stressed, “I am not sectarian; I am a Syrian citizen who takes pride in belonging to my homeland. Such words are condemnable, and anyone speaking them cannot be considered a Syrian. The Alawite sect is an essential part of the Syrian people and the national fabric in Syria, and anyone attempting to disrupt this fabric is working against Syria and its stability.”

Khaddam further highlighted that individuals like these lack knowledge about Syria, its various sects, and denominations. However, they are all devoted Syrians to their country. He stressed that the presence of individuals or families in power is not solely attributed to the Alawite community. He cited the principle “No soul shall bear the burden of another” that is present in Islam and the region, concluding that these statements were met with strong disdain both inside and outside Syria, and he believed that no one would accept them.

Regarding the extent of Alawite support for the Bashar al-Assad regime, Khaddam indicated that the foundations of Syrian politics are not sectarian but national. He clarified that their opposition to the regime is not because of his Alawite identity, but rather due to his autocracy, despotism, and corruption. He viewed the dissemination of these statements as an attempt to tear apart national unity in Syria and emphasized that Syrians would never accept such allegations.

Khaddam added, “The problem is not whether Bashar al-Assad has a majority here or there. Alawites are a part of the Syrian people, and the majority of Syrians, across their various sects, reject Bashar al-Assad. This issue is political, not sectarian. To illustrate, in 1943, during the independence era, the first head of the parliamentary council was from a small Christian minority. Syrians assess individuals based on their values, ethics, and policies.”

Regarding recent reports suggesting that Assad fears leaving Damascus due to escalating disputes within the Syrian government, Khaddam stated, “In reality, I do not evaluate matters in this manner. I speculate that Bashar al-Assad did not go to Cuba because he is concerned about popular movements in his absence. He is anxious, afraid, and unsettled because he has embroiled himself in actions on the ground that contradict the interests of the country. He has isolated Syria, and he is already isolated internally. It is natural for him to fear leaving the country.”

Khaddam predicted that the report by Judge Serge Brammertz at the end of the month would not name suspects at this stage “because the international court has not yet been established. I expect the report to be professional, but more advanced than its predecessors, presenting facts, beliefs, and new indicators. I do not think it will mention names, as that will be the role of the Lebanese judiciary, which cannot issue such names. Therefore, I believe the names will be postponed until the establishment of the international court.”

Regarding the attempt to assassinate Major Shehada and whether he anticipates a resurgence of assassination waves in Lebanon, Khaddam urged distinguishing between Syria and its regime. He asserted that the regime is responsible for the assassination of Hariri and its aftermath. He believed that Shehada’s role in investigating the Hariri case might have led to the attempt on his life. He also indicated that this matter can only occur under the orders of President Bashar al-Assad, as security decisions in Syria are under his control.

He pointed to the interconnection between Assad’s accusations against the parliamentary majority as an Israeli fabrication and the campaign against President Fouad Siniora’s government, saying: This campaign is required by Bashar al-Assad, and I read it as an interpretation of the war that took place in Lebanon and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, which was decided upon by Bashar al-Assad. Because he wanted to create divisions within the Lebanese society, and he knew that this operation would lead to war, and he expected that this would result in divisions, but that failed because the Lebanese united.

Naturally, after the war ceased, the Lebanese questioned the role of the state and whether it’s possible to have two states within a state. He aimed to exploit these questions to incite strife, so he gave directives to his allies, foremost among them “Hezbollah.” Any disruption in Lebanon, Bashar al-Assad bears direct responsibility for it. The March 14 Alliance issued a statement some time ago, which I don’t agree with its timing as it was released before addressing the aftermath of the war, but the significant mistake committed by Hassan Nasrallah was that provocative campaign against a Lebanese faction that represents the majority of Lebanese. If he believes that the Syrian people stand with him in this campaign, he is mistaken. The Syrian people stood with the resistance, but when “Hezbollah” transforms into an attacking force and wages an internal war against Lebanese factions, no Syrian or Arab will stand with them.

Everyone stood with him against the aggression, and no one can stand against dragging Lebanon into a civil war. This is for the benefit of Bashar al-Assad or others.

And about the recent attack that targeted the American embassy in Damascus, and the acknowledgment by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the Syrian authorities’ role in foiling the attack, he said, “It’s natural for Secretary Rice to thank the Syrian authorities for thwarting the attack. Had she not done so, she would have faced criticism from various quarters. As for the incident itself, there are two perspectives on what actually happened. The first is that this operation was orchestrated by one of the security agencies, considering that the area where the incident occurred is a hundred percent secure. It’s the location of the presidential palace, the residence of the head of state, and several high-ranking officials. It’s impossible for anything to pass through that area without being monitored by security agencies that oversee the region, especially given that the vehicles used did not have license plates. This perspective could be accurate or otherwise. The second perspective asserts that the attack is a terrorist act, and if that’s the case, it’s a very concerning indicator. It suggests that due to the Assad regime’s terrorist, repressive policies, corruption, and the state of poverty it has spread within the country, doors have been closed for people, leading to a sense of frustration, which ultimately leads to extremism. If this was indeed a terrorist act, it’s a result of what the current regime has brought the country to.”

He added, “The survival of the regime is what will turn Syria into another Iraq. When the regime is protected and avenues for change are blocked, I assure you that Syria will witness events similar to what’s happening in Iraq. When avenues for change are closed and hope for a decent life and job opportunities is diminished, what will people do?”

Regarding the White House spokesperson’s acknowledgment of the Syrian security apparatus’s actions, and the response of the Syrian ambassador in Washington that what the US administration has done is not enough and that the ball is in its court, he said, “This statement doesn’t concern the Syrian opposition. They will work towards change and achieve it through a national means and a national will, not through foreign intervention. As for whether Bashar al-Assad can comply with US requests, it’s not a matter of requests. There are policies involved. Assad has his own policy, and he has aligned his regime with the Iranian policy, making the problem of the regime part of the region’s problem and part of the West’s problem with Iran. The other matter is that Assad is incapable of abandoning his policy, because if he does, he will lose both his religion and his world.”

When asked if he agrees with the statement that Assad’s policies have transformed Syria from an ally of Iran into a card in Iran’s hand, he said, “This is exactly the reality, and this is what concerns Syrians, especially since in his recent speech, he cut all ties with Arab countries and placed Syria in a state of Arab and international isolation. I can assure you that the Syrian people unanimously condemn Assad’s recent speech and consider it a major political mistake. I believe that his alignment with Iran’s strategy behind such statements and positions, because alignment with Arab countries has its requirements, and alignment with another state has its own requirements as well. With this speech, he has increased his internal isolation, in addition to intensifying his Arab isolation. There is absolutely no Arab cover for such a policy.”

As for the repetition of Assad’s stances where he talks about peace and resuming the peace process, he said, “He wanted to use Lebanon as a gateway for dialogue with Israel, practically employing the blood of the Lebanese and the destruction that befell them. When he talks about peace, I believe the objective is to try to appease the political currents that criticize and attack him in the West. He is saying, ‘I want peace, so forgive me.’ There is no seriousness whatsoever in this matter. It’s all part of a political maneuver.”

He denied having knowledge of what transpired during the visit of the Emir of Qatar to Damascus, “but we all know that there are communications between Doha and Tel Aviv. However, no one can determine the extent and background of these communications except the Qataris themselves.”

And about the statement that the visit is a significant indicator of a complete rupture in the relationship between Damascus and Riyadh, and that Assad is challenging the Saudis, he said, “Bashar al-Assad made a significant mistake in his confrontations with Riyadh. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia played a major role in supporting Syria along with other Gulf countries, by assisting various development projects in Syria. Secondly, the relations between Saudi Arabia and Syria are not new; they have existed since the establishment of the kingdom. Therefore, undermining these relations is not an insult to Syria’s history, but rather an insult to Syria itself and its interests. There’s an issue between Doha and Riyadh, and Syria’s role should be that of a brother seeking to ease the disagreement rather than fuel it or become an instrument in such a problem.”

He expressed his belief that “the Saudis have become convinced that the Syrian people are oppressed and suffering, and that the continuation of this regime means the continuation of suffering and injustice. There is empathy between Saudi Arabia and Syria. The goal in the past was not to save the regime but, in my opinion, not to initiate a movement of changes in the region at a time when solidarity and cooperation were needed. However, Bashar al-Assad broke this principle and removed himself from the Arab system.”