The conspiracy theory may be the most tempting for researchers seeking convincing explanations for the statements made by the former Vice President of Syria, Abdul Halim Khaddam, after a silent dispute with the new regime that unfolded between Damascus, Beirut, and Paris.
Conspiratorial thinking still governs the dynamics of relations between wings and currents of governance in third-world countries, where totalitarian behavior intersects with pluralism, theocratic tendencies with secularism, and the semblance of democracy with the essence of dictatorship. The contradictions intertwine, and their intensity is not diminished by the revolution of communications, which has turned the world into a global village.
The allure of the conspiratorial explanation is heightened by its simplicity. It does not require more than a few ready-made accusations to be thrown onto the phenomena under analysis, along with approaches that may be illogical and a few signals pointing to external entities as parties and forces lurking in the region and its peoples.
Unfortunately, for the people of the region, these explanations have accumulated to the extent that they have acquired a stereotypical character, turning them into something resembling the theoretical heritage of analysts who produce knowledge. The reproduction of this heritage is done at the expense of calm thinking, which possesses the minimum components of scientific explanation.
Against this background, some have found similarities between the personalities of a seasoned politician who managed to capture the moment of cosmic transition and its reflections on the region, such as Abdul Halim Khaddam, and a desperate military man led by his sharp temper and arrogance to his demise, like General Hussein Kamel.
The circumstances have not been devoid of factors that contributed to this approach. It is known that Khaddam held a viewpoint opposed to “hereditary republics” and expressed his opposition to changing the constitution after the death of the late President Hafez al-Assad.
Since then, Abdul Halim Khaddam has had to pay the price for his political views and perspectives, finding himself ultimately outside the circle of influence. Despite the repercussions, the former Syrian Vice President was keen to have his distinctive voice heard in the capital of the Umayyads.
Khaddam expressed his eagerness to maintain such a voice during his visit to the Minister and Deputy Marwan Hamadeh at the American University Hospital in Beirut after surviving an assassination attempt. He also offered condolences to the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, despite the charged atmosphere left by his assassination.
Upon his departure to Paris, Khaddam took another step away from the regime in which he played a role in its early establishment, experiencing its transformations ranging from calm to turmoil. The departure of a figure who played a role in pivotal events, like Abdul Halim Khaddam, who earned the title of High Commissioner in Lebanon, and oversaw Syrian-Iranian relations up to post-Resolution 1559 Paris, carries risks understood well by the new Syrian regime, even though it also recognizes that coexistence with the former deputy of the old regime is no longer possible.
Considering the timing of Khaddam’s statements, his role in fueling conspiracy theories, recent information suggests that the new Syrian regime has seized the properties of the former Vice President and his sons in Syria. This information was accompanied by official Syrian accusations against Khaddam, claiming that he disclosed all the information in his possession to the German judge Detlev Mehlis and French President Jacques Chirac.
The matter is not without signals pointing to warnings received by the former Syrian Vice President against freely moving in Paris, limiting his mobility. However, the heat of accusations and conspiratorial explanations does not diminish the importance of the messages conveyed by the former Syrian Vice President through his recent statements, capturing the attention of both the Syrian and Lebanese audiences in the past few days. The implications of such signals, given Khaddam’s stature, could be the prelude to accelerating events on the intertwined Syrian-Lebanese paths to the point where separating them in the foreseeable future becomes impossible.
Perhaps the most prominent of these messages relates to the suspicions surrounding Syria’s role in the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri. Khaddam’s statements, just days before the Belgian judge Serge Brammertz took over the presidency of the investigation committee, give momentum to the suspicions surrounding Syrian authorities, a momentum lacking after intense attempts to dilute the reports of Mehlis.
The strength of this momentum comes from the volume of information possessed by the former Syrian Vice President due to his position in the regime and the tasks assigned to him during his tenure in that position. Such momentum leads to one outcome: Brammertz’s rotation within the same circle where Mehlis moved.
Based on the information provided by Khaddam, it would be challenging for the Syrian regime’s leadership to make political moves to exempt some of the suspects from the investigation. It is not unlikely for the successor of Mehlis’s investigations to expand and possibly implicate President Bashar al-Assad. In previous statements to the press, Assad emphasized that condemning any security agency would imply his personal condemnation because it is unreasonable for one of these agencies to carry out a highly technical assassination operation, involving extensive resources, without his knowledge.
There is nothing preventing the bill from extending to cover assassinations and failed assassination attempts that preceded and followed the Hariri assassination. On several occasions, Mehlis, who praised Khaddam’s professionalism, hinted at a link between Hariri’s assassination and other assassinations that targeted individuals beyond the geographical boundaries of Lebanon, such as George Hawi, Samir Kassir, and Gebran Tueni.
In addition to the strong impetus provided by Khaddam’s statements to Brammertz’s mission, a clear mark was left on the file of the Lebanese presidency, which has not been closed since the extension of President Emile Lahoud’s term under Syrian pressure. The information disclosed by Khaddam about the role of President Lahoud and the surrounding circle, particularly concerning Prime Minister Hariri’s relationship with Damascus, supports the strong direction of the March 14 coalition advocating for the resignation of the Lebanese president. It weakens the stance rejecting the removal of the president through street movements rather than institutional means.
Leaked information suggests that President Lahoud had contemplated resignation on more than one occasion, but he would retract such a step under the insistence of the Syrian regime, which seeks to retain whatever leverage it can in Lebanon. The third message conveyed by the former vice president during his impactful television interview, especially regarding the internal situation in Syria, has exacerbated since the weakening of the Damascus Spring, which could have led to different outcomes if conducive conditions had persisted. Khaddam was keen on portraying the head of the Syrian regime as indecisive, weak, acting in isolation, incapable of interpreting events, and unable to arrive at accurate results leading to correct decisions.
Corruption played a significant role as a deeply rooted issue directly affecting the Syrian citizens, and the regime cannot eliminate it. Such descriptions carry considerable weight for the Syrian street, which is not devoid of daily political movements, adding strength to the credibility of protests that the Syrian street deals with cautiously, invoking the Iraqi model of change. The impact of Khaddam’s statements also extends to the ruling party and state institutions, where influential figures strive to maintain communication lines with opposition forces outside Syria, avoiding a fate similar to that of the Ba’athists in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
The political movement in the Syrian street allows an interpretation of the evident concerns that the government does not hide. This anxiety is reflected in the tightening security measures in Damascus and the provinces, and it was evident in the loud reactions that emerged in the People’s Council during the discussion of Khaddam’s statements. If the emotional tone was avoided in the parliamentary session that examined Khaddam’s statements, it appears clear that the primary goal was to prevent dynamic shifts in the polarization and sorting movement currently taking place in the country.