Jamal Mustafa: Saddam Said ‘Qassim Was Honest, But the Party Ordered His Assassination’

Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
TT

Jamal Mustafa: Saddam Said ‘Qassim Was Honest, But the Party Ordered His Assassination’

Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
Jamal Mustafa Sultan.

Jamal Mustafa Sultan, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law and former deputy secretary, recalled how the late Iraqi president viewed former Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim as an honorable and brave man even though he was involved on an attempt on his life.

In the third installment of his interview to Asharq Al-Awsat, Mustafa said: “In 1959, a fateful decision by Iraq’s Baath Party, led by Fuad al-Rikabi, changed the course of a young man’s life. The party planned a bold attempt to assassinate Iraqi leader Abdul Karim Qassim on Oct. 7.”

When a team member dropped out shortly before the operation, Saddam, then a little-known young man, was brought in. During the ambush on Al-Rashid Street in Baghdad, Qassim was slightly injured, and Saddam was wounded by shrapnel in his leg, said Mustafa.

After the failed attempt, al-Rikabi and other senior Baath members, including Hazem Jawad and Ali Saleh al-Saadi, fled to Syria. There, al-Rikabi kept asking about Saddam until he learned that Saddam had also escaped, organizing his secret journey to Syria on his own.

Hazem Jawad, a key Baath Party leader, recalled the moment Saddam Hussein became a full party member. In a small underground apartment in Damascus, Fuad al-Rikabi led a meeting with several party members, including himself, Ali Saleh al-Saadi, and Medhat Ibrahim Juma. “Fuad praised Saddam, calling him courageous and loyal, and proposed accepting him as a full member. We all agreed,” said Jawad, according to Mustafa.

“Saddam, a tall young man with piercing eyes and dark skin, stood before us. Fuad recited the party oath, and Saddam repeated it, officially joining the Baath Party,” he continued.

“We spent the next two hours talking over tea and cake. Before leaving, Fuad announced his trip to Cairo. Saddam also asked for permission to go to Egypt to continue his law studies. We approved, as it wasn’t safe to return him to Iraq after his involvement in the assassination attempt on Abdul Karim Qassim,” recounted Mustafa.

Saddam’s respect for Qassim

It’s uncommon for a leader to praise a predecessor who survived an assassination attempt against them, but Saddam did just that. Mustafa shared the story during a meeting.

“President Qassim, may God have mercy on him, was brave and honest,” Saddam said, according to Mustafa. “I respect him for serving Iraq with integrity.”

“We were young and impulsive. We didn’t think about the reasons behind the operation or what might happen afterward. We didn’t even consider who could replace Qassim if he were gone.”

When told that Qassim’s sister was his only surviving family member, Saddam instructed that she be given a car and financial support.

Saddam also treated former President Abdul Rahman Arif with respect, despite efforts to tarnish his legacy. Mustafa noted that campaigns to smear Arif were part of a broader attempt to justify Iraq’s invasion and undermine its independence. He urged historians to seek the truth and challenge false narratives.

Abdul Karim Qassim. (Getty Images)

Mustafa's reflection on Saddam

When asked if Saddam had made mistakes, Mustafa replied: “Mr. President worked for Iraq’s progress. Like anyone, he sometimes got things right and sometimes wrong, but his goal was always to elevate the country.”

“He had no interest in wealth. Over 20 years, investigators searched for assets linked to him—land, money, anything—but found nothing. Even his political opponent, Iyad Allawi, confirmed this. Saddam was strict about protecting public funds, and this extended to his children as well,” he added.

He also criticized the current government, accusing it of seizing land and displacing Iraqis.

“They’ve taken properties from displaced residents and given them to foreigners, including Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans. Areas like Jurf al-Sakhar and Al-Awja have been emptied, with residents banned from returning. Some lands are controlled by foreign military intelligence, impacting not just Iraq but the region. Christians have also lost properties to militias,” noted Sultan.

He shared his own losses: “My family’s land, passed down for generations, was confiscated. An orchard over 250 years old and another property from my great-grandfather, over 200 years old, were taken simply because we’re linked to the former regime. Even if a child in our family registers property now, it’s immediately seized.”

He added: “My family and others have lost everything. While some managed to sell or keep a few properties, all of ours were taken.”

Criticism of Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraq's sectarian divide

Mustafa expressed disappointment in Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr after the fall of Saddam’s regime.

“Moqtada knows the truth about who killed his father. He attended investigation meetings and knows the details. His father, Mohammad al-Sadr, had influence and even criticized the regime in Friday sermons. Despite warnings, he refused official protection before his assassination,” he said.

On claims that Saddam’s government was Sunni-dominated, Mustafa disagreed.

“At that time, we were all Iraqis. There was no emphasis on Sunni, Shiite, or Christian identities. Our shared Iraqi identity came first, and positions in the government, military, or party were based on merit. For example, Tariq Aziz, a Christian, held top roles, including foreign minister and deputy prime minister. Sectarianism wasn’t a factor,” he said.

He criticized the current leadership, accusing it of destroying Iraq’s unity.

“Today’s politics aim to change Iraq’s demographics and weaken the country. Millions of Iraqis have been displaced, not just one group but people from all regions. Over 10 million now live abroad. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s a deliberate effort to break Iraq’s unity and control its future,” noted Mustafa.

Returning to Iraq

When asked if he hopes to return to Iraq, Mustafa said: “Since 2003, all the governments in Iraq have been installed by the US occupation and are aligned with Iran to further its agenda in the region, even through militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. After the occupation began, Iran-backed militias targeted Iraq’s scientists, doctors and pilots, which led to over 10 million Iraqis fleeing the country. The human cost of this is immense and unacceptable.”

He told Asharq Al-Awsat: “Of course, I want to return to Iraq. Every patriotic Iraqi who loves their country wants to return. It’s just a matter of time. We hope, God willing, that Iraq will be liberated and strong again, and when that happens, my family and I will be among the first to return.”

Mustafa also criticized Iran’s growing influence in the region: “People here are talking about Iran’s control over four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Sanaa. These countries are falling apart, with militias making the decisions, not governments. The policies being followed harm these nations’ interests and their Arab identity.”

He said Saddam quickly recognized a broader plot to destabilize Iraq and the region.

“Saddam saw Iraq as a barrier to a project aimed not only at Iraq, but at the entire Arab world, threatening their existence and role,” he said.

Mustafa also blamed Iran for starting the Iraq-Iran war, citing Tehran’s clear policy of exporting its revolution, as stated in its constitution.

When asked about reports that Iraqi intelligence proposed assassinating Iran's Supreme Leader Khomeini during his stay in Baghdad, Mustafa confirmed it but explained why Saddam rejected the idea.

“Saddam was a noble and honorable man. He would never allow harm to come to a guest, especially through betrayal. He would never consider or permit such a thing.”



25 Years of Unanswered Questions in Iraq

A Saddam Hussein mural is seen in Baghdad in 1991. (Getty Images)
A Saddam Hussein mural is seen in Baghdad in 1991. (Getty Images)
TT

25 Years of Unanswered Questions in Iraq

A Saddam Hussein mural is seen in Baghdad in 1991. (Getty Images)
A Saddam Hussein mural is seen in Baghdad in 1991. (Getty Images)

People in Iraq often wonder dejectedly: What if Saddam Hussein were alive and ruling the country today? Many will reply with fantastical answers, but Saddam’s era would have responded: Iraq is isolated, either by siege or by a war that he launched or was being waged against him.

Many people cast doubt on whether actual change has been achieved in Iraq since the US invasion in 2003. The invasion ousted the Baath version of Iraq and Saddam was executed in December 2006, leaving questions to pile up over the years with no one having any answers.

After a quarter century, Iraq is accumulating questions. It casts them aside and forges ahead without addressing them. At best, it reviews itself and returns to that moment in April 2003 when the US launched its invasion. Or it asks new questions about the 2005 civil war, the armed alternatives that emerged in 2007, how ISIS swept through the country in 2014, or the wave of protests that erupted in 2019. It also asks new questions about Iran’s influence in the country that has persisted for decades.

The questions are many and none of the Iraqis have answered them.

A US marine wraps the American flag around the head of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad. (Reuters file)

Saddam and the alternative

The September 11, 2001, attacks shook the United States and the entire world. They struck fear in Baghdad. Saddam had that year claimed that he had written a book, “The Fortified Castle”, about an Iraqi soldier who is captured by Iran. He manages to escape and return to Iraq to “fortify the castle”.

The terrifying Saddam and the terrified Iraqis have long spun tales about escaping to and from Iraq. It is a journey between the question and the non-answers. That year, when Baghdad was accused of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, Saddam’s son Uday was “elected” member of the Baath party’s leadership council. The move sparked debate about possible change in Iraq. Bashar al-Assad had a year earlier inherited the presidency of Syria and its Baath party from his father Hafez.

The US invaded Iraq two years later and a new Iraq was born. Twenty-five years later, the country is still not fully grown up. Twenty-one years ago, on April 9, 2003, a US marine wrapped the head of a Saddam statue in Baghdad with an American flag. The Iraqis asked: why didn’t you leave us this iconic image, but instead of an American flag, used an Iraqi one?

Baghdad’s question and Washington’s answer

As the Iraqis observe the developments unfold in Syris with the ouster of Bashar from power, they can’t help but ask how this rapid “change” could have been possible without US tanks and weapons. Why are the Syrians insisting on celebrating “freedom” every day? They are also astonished at the Syrians who scramble to greet Abu Mohammed al-Golani, who has not yet managed to put this image behind him and fully assume his original identity of Ahmed al-Sharaa. The Iraqis wonder how the Syrians are managing this transition so far without a bloodbath.

They ask these questions because the Iraqis view and judge the world based on their own memories. They keep asking questions and await answers from others instead of themselves.

The Iraqis recall how in August 2003, after four months of US occupation, that the Jordanian embassy and United Nations offices were attacked, leaving several staff dead, including head of the UN mission Sergio de Mello. The Americans arrested Ali Hassan al-Majid, or “chemical Ali”, Saddam’s cousin, and 125 people were killed in a bombing in al-Najaf, including Shiite cleric Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim.

During that bloody month, the Iraqis asked questions about security, forgetting about Saddam’s alternative, democracy and the promised western model. Later, the facts would answer that the question of security was a means to escape questions about transitional justice.

Sergio de Mello (r) and Paul Bremmer (second right) attend the inaugural meeting of the Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad on July 13, 2003. (Getty Images)

The question of civil war

Paul Bremer, the American ruler of Iraq, once escorted four opposition figures to Saddam’s prison cell. They flooded him with questions. Adnan al-Pachachi, a veteran diplomat, asked: “Why did you invade Kuwait?” Adel Abdul Mahdi, a former prime minister, asked: “Why did you kill the Kurds in the Anfal massacre?” Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a former national security adviser, asked: “Why did you kill your Baath comrades?” Ahmed al-Halabi simply insulted the former president. Saddam recoiled and then just smiled.

Saddam’s opponents left the prison cell with answers that should have helped them in running the transitional justice administration, but they failed.

The following year, Washington appointed Ayad Allawi to head the interim Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) that had limited jurisdiction so that it could be free to wage two fierce battles: one in Najaf against the “Mahdi Army”, headed by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the other against armed groups comprised of “resistance fighters” and “extremists” in Fallujah.

The opposition in the IGC got to work that was already prepared by the Americans. They outlined the distribution of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds in the country, with historic questions about the majority and minority, and the “oppressed” now assuming rule after the ouster of the “oppressors”.

On the ground, the Ghazaliya neighborhood in western Baghdad with its Shiite and Sunni residents was in store for a bloodbath. On a winter night in 2005, an entire family was massacred and an enfant strangled to death. Soon after, lines drawing the Shiite and Sunni sections of the neighborhood emerged. The popular market became the tense border between the two halves. Two new rival “enemies” traded attacks, claiming several lives.

In Baghdad’s Green Zone, the IGC drew up a draft of the transitional rule. In January 2005, 8 million Iraqis voted for the establishment of a National Assembly.

Meanwhile, different “armies” kept on emerging in Baghdad. The media was filled with the death tolls of bloody relentless sectarian attacks. Checkpoints manned by masked gunmen popped up across the capital.

Those days seemed to answer the question of “who was the alternative to Saddam.” No one needed a concrete answer because the developments spoke for themselves.

Nouri al-Maliki came to power as prime minister in 2006. He famously declared: “I am the state of law” - in both the figurative and literal sense. Iraqis believed he had answers about the “state” and “law”, dismissing the very pointed “I” in his “manifesto”.

Nouri al-Maliki. (Getty Images)

The Maliki question

The American admired Maliki. Then Vice President Dick Cheney had repeatedly declared that he was committed to the establishment of a stable Iraq. Before that however, he had dispatched James Steele - who was once complicit in running dirty wars in El Salvador in the mid-1980s - to Baghdad to confront the “Sunni rebellion”. Steele set up the Shiite “death squads”. Steele was the man in the shadows behind Ahmed Kazim, then interior minister undersecretary, and behind him stood the new warlords.

In 2006, the political process was shaken by the bombing of the Al-Askari Shrine in Samarra. Questions were asked about the “need” to draw up new maps. Shiite high authority Ali al-Sistani said in February 2007 that the Sunnis were not involved in the attack. In July 2013, Maliki denied an American accusation that Tehran was behind it.

In those days, Maliki’s ego was growing ever bigger, and Steele’s death squads were rapidly growing greater in numbers.

The Iran and ISIS questions

Maliki tried to save himself as one city after another fell into the hands of ISIS. On June 9, 2014, as ISIS was waging battles in Mosul, Maliki met with senior Sunni tribal elders based on advice he had not heeded earlier and which could have averted the current disaster.

It was said that he made reluctant pledges to them and a third of Iraq later fell in ISIS’ hands. Sistani later issued a fatwa for “jihad” against the group, which later turned out not be aimed at saving the premier.

Maliki left the scene and Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Quds Force, took over. Successive prime ministers would know from then on what it is like to be shackled by Tehran’s pressure as IRGC officials made regular visits to their offices.

Soleimani reaped what Steele sowed. By 2017, armed factions were the dominant force in Iraq. Running in their orbit were other factions that took turns in “rebelling” against the government or agreeing with its choices.

Today, and after 14 years, Iran has consolidated what can be described as the “resistance playground” in Iraq that is teeming with armed factions and massive budgets.

Protesters in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square in October 2019. (AFP)

The October question

The Iraqis were unable to answer the ISIS question and the armed factions claimed “victory” against the group. Many ignored Sistani’s “answer” about whether the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) was there to protect Iraq or just its Shiites.

Exhausted Iraqis asked: “What next?”

Next came Adel Abdul Mahdi’s government in October 2018. It was weighed down by unanswered questions and a year later, thousands of youths took to the streets to protest the state of affairs in Iraq, specifically the dominance of armed groups.

They were met with live bullets. Many were abducted and others were silenced. Abdul Mehdi acquitted the killers, saying instead that a “fifth column” had carried out the bloody crackdown on protesters.

After he left office, some Iraqi politicians were brave enough to tell the truth, dismissing former PM’s acquittal and pinning blame on the factions.

Sistani called for PMF members to quit their partisan affiliations. His demand was left unheeded. Mustafa al-Qadhimi became prime minister in May 2020. He left office months later, also failing in resolving the issue of the PMF and armed factions.

By 2022, everyone had left the scene, but Iran remained, claiming the Iraqi crown for itself, controlling everything from its finances to its weapons.

Question about post-Assad Syria

On December 8, Syria’s Bashar fled the country. Everyone in Iraq is asking what happens next. The whole system in Iraq is at a loss: Do we wait for how Tehran will deal with Ahmed al-Sharaa, or do we ask Abu Mohammed al-Golani about his memories in Iraq?

The Iraqi people’s memories are what’s ruling the country, more so than the constitution, political parties and civil society because they are burdened with questions they don’t want to answer.

And yet they ask: What if we weren’t part of the “Axis of Resistance”? Iraq’s history would reply that it has long been part of axes, or either awaiting a war or taking part in them.