Khaddam warned that the new U.S. President, Barack Obama, has not defined a clear stance on most regional and international issues. He stated that Syria today is not politically independent but rather linked to an axis with Iran and Qatar. He emphasized Syria’s inability to disengage from Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Iran.
Regarding the future of Arab-American relations under the new U.S. administration, former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam stated in a statement to the Italian news agency AKI that President Obama “issued a series of statements about U.S. policy towards several international and regional issues, announcing his adoption of dialogue as an approach to resolving international and regional problems without specifying a clear position on most of these issues. He promised Iran a better future for U.S.-Iranian relations and benefits if it backs down from its nuclear program without specifying these benefits.”
Khaddam added, “He focused on the Arab-Israeli peace issue, giving priority to peace between the Palestinian people and Israel and then between Syria and Lebanon on one hand and Israel on the other, without defining the U.S. concept of the peace issue and the foundations it should be based on, with reference to the Arab initiative with reservations. Therefore, he relies on dialogue and sent Mr. George Mitchell to the region to listen and engage in dialogue.”
He also stated, “The crises in the Middle East are deep and intertwined,” referring to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arab division over regional issues, and Iran’s regional strategy. He believed that the positions of the parties in the region, whether Arab, including Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, or Israel, are contradictory and wondered, “Will President Obama work to find solutions that satisfy the conflicting parties? Will the United States be able to implement United Nations resolutions?”
He continued, “All of these are questions that require clear answers, and it will also take a few months to determine the direction of U.S. policy. If we assume that this policy is neutral, then what is required of the United States is a more effective role in pressuring Israel,” according to him.
Regarding President Obama’s ability to implement his promises to the Arab and Islamic world, Khaddam, who lives in exile, stated, “In reality, President Obama did not make promises for solutions to regional or international crises. Instead, he focused on adopting dialogue with the parties involved in these crises, rather than preemptive or preventive wars, as former President George Bush did. Therefore, this approach is in line with the majority in Congress, who support dialogue. He did not commit to solving the Palestinian issue but rather embraced the two-state solution without specifying the nature of each state. This is why Mr. George Mitchell was sent to the region for listening and dialogue, not for making decisions,” he said.
He also mentioned, “President Obama is the one who sets foreign policy and is responsible for its implementation through institutions, primarily the State Department. The role of Congress comes into play when financial commitments are required, and it is difficult to anticipate obstacles from Congress. This is what we saw in the case of the Iraq war, how the President’s financial requirements for that war were met despite the ongoing opposition of the majority,” according to him.
Regarding Syria’s stance on President Obama and his upcoming decisions, the former Ba’ath official who defected from the Syrian regime believed that Syria’s political decisions are not independent today. He stated, “Syria today is not politically independent but rather linked to an axis with Iran and Qatar. The three countries form an axis led by Iran. Therefore, the position of the ruling regime in Syria is tied to the development of the upcoming Israeli-American talks. Consequently, the Syrian regime is not capable of abandoning Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Iran because giving up these alliances would make it lose the support these parties provide to sustain its regime. Additionally, the regime uses the slogans coined by the tripartite axis, such as resistance and steadfastness, as a cover for its repressive domestic policies, corruption, and impoverishing of the people,” as he described it.
