Saudi Crown Prince: Triangle of Evil is Trying to Build Extremist Empire to Control Region

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. (AFP)
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. (AFP)
TT
20

Saudi Crown Prince: Triangle of Evil is Trying to Build Extremist Empire to Control Region

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. (AFP)
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. (AFP)

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, accused Iran of seeking to “rule the world” and its supreme leader Ali Khamenei of “making Hitler look good.”

In remarks to the US Atlantic magazine, he stressed: “In the 1920s and 1930s, no one saw Hitler as a danger. Only a few people. Until it happened. We don’t want to see what happened in Europe happen in the Middle East.”

“We want to stop this through political moves, economic moves, intelligence moves. We want to avoid war.”

He spoke of “triangle of evil” that includes, Tehran, the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist organizations.

The Atlantic asked Prince Mohammed to explain his ambition plan to “shift” the culture in Saudi Arabia, asking him about the role Islam should play in the world.

“Islam is a religion of peace. This is the translation of Islam. God, in Islam, gives us two responsibilities: The first is to believe, to do good things, and not bad things. If we do bad things, God will judge us on Judgment Day.

“Our second duty as Muslims is to spread the word of God. For 1,400 years, Muslims have been trying to spread the word of God. In the Middle East, in North Africa, in Europe, they weren’t allowed to spread the word. That’s why they fought to spread the word. But you also see that, in a lot of countries in Asia—Indonesia, Malaysia, India—Muslims were free to spread the word. They were told, ‘Go ahead, say whatever you want to say, the people have free will to believe whatever they want to believe in.’ Islam, in this context, was not about conquering, it was about peacefully spreading the word.

Asked to elaborate of the “triangle of evil,” Prince Mohammed replied: “In this triangle, they are trying to promote the idea that our duty as Muslims is to reestablish the caliphate, to reestablish the mindset of the caliphate—that the glory of Islam is in building an empire by force. But God didn’t ask us to do this, and the Prophet Mohammed did not ask us to do this. God only asked us to spread the word. And this mission is accomplished. Today, every human has the right to choose their belief. In every country, it is possible to buy religious books. The message is being delivered. We have no duty anymore to fight to spread Islam. But in the ‘triangle of evil’, they want to manipulate Muslims, to tell them their duty as Muslims—their dignity as Muslims —requires the establishment of a Muslim empire.

“First in the triangle we have the Iranian regime that wants to spread their extremist ideology, their extremist Shi’ite ideology (Wilayet al-Faqih). They believe that if they spread it, the hidden Imam will come back again and he will rule the whole world from Iran and spread Islam even to America. They’ve said this every day since the Iranian revolution in 1979. It’s in their law and they’re proving it by their own actions.

“The second part of the triangle is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is another extremist organization. They want to use the democratic system to rule countries and build shadow caliphates everywhere. Then they would transform into a real Muslim empire. And the other part is the terrorists—al-Qaeda, ISIS—that want to do everything with force. Al-Qaeda leaders, ISIS leaders, they were all Muslim Brotherhood first. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of ISIS. This is very clear.

“This triangle is promoting an idea that God and Islam are not asking us to promote. Their idea is totally against the principles of the United Nations, and the idea of different nations having laws that represent their needs. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Yemen—all of these countries are defending the idea that independent nations should focus on their own interests, in building good relations on the foundation of UN principles. The evil triangle doesn’t want to do that.”

The Atlantic countered Prince Mohammed’s remarks, arguing that after 1979, but before 1979 as well, the more conservative factions in Saudi Arabia were taking oil money and using it to export a more intolerant, extremist version of Islam, Wahhabist ideology, which could be understood as a kind of companion ideology to Muslim Brotherhood thinking.

At this, the Saudi Crown Prince retorted: “First of all, this Wahhabism—please define it for us. We’re not familiar with it. We don’t know about it. No one can define this Wahhabism.”

The Atlantic then explained that it is “a movement founded by Ibn abd al-Wahhab in the 1700s, very fundamentalist in nature, an austere Salafist-style interpretation.”

Prince Mohammed dismissed the statement, stressing: “No one can define Wahhabism. There is no Wahhabism. We don’t believe we have Wahhabism. We believe we have, in Saudi Arabia, Sunni and Shi’ite. We believe we have within Sunni Islam four schools of thought, and we have the ulema [the religious authorities] and the Board of Fatwas [which issues religious rulings]. Yes, in Saudi Arabia it’s clear that our laws are coming from Islam and the Quran, but we have the four schools—Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki—and they argue about interpretation.

“The first Saudi state, why was it established? After the Prophet Mohammed and the first four caliphs, the people of the Arabian Peninsula went back to fighting each other like they did for thousands of years. But our family, 600 years ago, established a town from scratch called Diriyah, and with this town came the first Saudi state. It became the most powerful economic part of the peninsula. They helped change reality. Most other towns, they fought over trade, hijacked trade, but our family said to two other tribes, ‘Instead of attacking the trade routes, why don’t we hire you as guards for this area?’ So trade grew, and the town grew. This was the method. Three hundred years later, this is still the way. The thought was always that you need all the great brains of the Arabian Peninsula—the generals, the tribal leaders, the scholars—working with you. One of them was Mohammed ibn abd al-Wahhab.

“But our project is based on the people, on economic interests, and not on expansionist ideological interests. Of course we have things in common. All of us are Muslim, all of us speak Arabic, we all have the same culture and the same interest. When people speak of Wahhabism, they don’t know exactly what they are talking about. Abd al-Wahhab’s family, the al-Sheikh family, is today very well known, but there are tens of thousands of important families in Saudi Arabia today. And you will find a Shi’ite in the cabinet, you will find Shi’ites in government, the most important university in Saudi Arabia is headed by a Shi’ite. So we believe that we are a mix of Muslim schools and sects.”

Asked about the funding of extremists, Prince Mohammed responded: “When you talk about funding before 1979, you are talking about the Cold War. You had communism spreading everywhere, threatening the United States and Europe and also us. Egypt had turned in that time to this sort of regime. We worked with whomever we could use to get rid of communism. Among those was the Muslim Brotherhood. We financed them in Saudi Arabia. And the United States financed them.

“If we went back in time, we would do the same thing. We would use these people again. Because we were confronting a bigger danger—getting rid of communism. Later on we had to see how we could deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember, one of the presidents of the United States called these people freedom fighters.

“We tried to control and manage their movements. But then came 1979, which exploded everything. The Iranian revolution [created] a regime based on an ideology of pure evil. A regime not working for the people, but serving an ideology. And in the Sunni world, extremists were trying to copy the same thing. We had the attack in Mecca [on the Grand Mosque]. We were in a situation of revolution in Iran, and they were trying to copy it in Mecca. We were trying to keep everything tied together, to keep everything from collapsing. We faced terrorism in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt. We called for the arrest of Osama bin Laden very early, because he was not in Saudi Arabia. We suffered quite a lot by fighting terrorism, until 9/11 happened. This is the story.

“This is what America wanted us to do. We had a king who paid with his life trying to counter these people, King Faisal, one of the greatest kings of Saudi Arabia. When it comes to financing extremist groups, I challenge anyone if he can bring any evidence that the Saudi government financed terrorist groups. Yes, there are people from Saudi Arabia who financed terrorist groups. This is against Saudi law. We have a lot of people in jail now, not only for financing terrorist groups, but even for supporting them. One of the reasons we have a problem with Qatar is that we are not allowing them to use the financial system between us to collect money from Saudis and give it to extremist organizations.”

Addressing the crisis, with Qatar, the Atlantic asked if Riyadh would ever become friends with Doha again.

Prince Mohammed said: “It has to happen, one day. We hope they learn fast. It depends on them.”

Turning to Iran, he remarked: “I believe that the Iranian supreme leader makes Hitler look good. Hitler didn’t do what the supreme leader is trying to do. Hitler tried to conquer Europe. This is bad.

“But the supreme leader is trying to conquer the world. He believes he owns the world. They are both evil guys. He is the Hitler of the Middle East. In the 1920s and 1930s, no one saw Hitler as a danger. Only a few people. Until it happened. We don’t want to see what happened in Europe happen in the Middle East. We want to stop this through political moves, economic moves, intelligence moves. We want to avoid war.”

Asked if he believed that this was a sectarian problem, the Crown Prince said: “As I told you, the Shi’ites are living normally in Saudi Arabia. We have no problem with the Shi’ites. We have a problem with the ideology of the Iranian regime. Our problem is, we don’t think they have the right to interfere with our affairs.”

On Barack Obama and US President Donald Trump’s stances on this issue, he stated: “Both of them understand it. I believe that President Obama had different tactics. President Obama believed that if he gave Iran opportunities to open up, it would change. But with a regime based on this ideology, it will not open up soon. Sixty percent of the Iranian economy is controlled by the Revolutionary Guard. The economic benefits of the Iran nuclear deal are not going to the people. They took $150 billion after the deal—can you please name one housing project they built with this money? One park? One industrial zone? Can you name for me the highway that they built? I advise them—please show us something that you’re building a highway with $150 billion. For Saudi Arabia, there is a 0.1 percent chance that this deal would work to change the country. For President Obama it was 50 percent. But even if there’s a 50 percent chance that it would work, we can’t risk it. The other 50 percent is war. We have to go to a scenario where there is no war.

“We are pushing back on these Iranian moves. We’ve done this in Africa, Asia, in Malaysia, in Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon. We believe that after we push back, the problems will move inside Iran. We don’t know if the regime will collapse or not—it’s not the target, but if collapses, great, it’s their problem. We have a war scenario in the Middle East right now. This is very dangerous for the world. We cannot take the risk here. We have to take serious painful decisions now to avoid painful decisions later.”

Asked to comment on the situation in Yemen in wake of the Arab coalition’s intervention and criticism against it, Prince Mohammed replied: “First of all, we have to go back to real evidence, real data. Yemen started to collapse not in 2015, but in 2014—based on UN reports, not based on our reports. So it’s collapsing for one year before of the campaign started. We had a coup d’état in 2015 against a legitimate government in Yemen. And from the other side al-Qaeda tried to use this move for its own sake and to promote its own ideas. We fought to get rid of extremists in Syria and Iraq and then they started to create a haven in Yemen. It would be much harder to get rid of extremists in Yemen than Iraq or Syria. Our campaign is focused on helping the legitimate government and bringing stability. Saudi Arabia is trying to help the people of Yemen. The biggest donor to Yemen is Saudi Arabia. The people who are manipulating this aid in the 10 percent of Yemen not controlled by the government is the Houthis.

“What I want to say here, to make it simple, is that sometimes in the Middle East you don’t have good decisions and bad decisions. Sometimes you have bad decisions and worse decisions. Sometimes we have to choose the bad option. We don’t want to come here, as Saudi Arabia, and be asked these questions. We want to be asked about the economy, our partnerships, investment in America and Saudi Arabia. We don’t want to spend our lives arguing about Yemen. This is not something about choice here. This is about security and life for us.”

Shifting topics, the Atlantic asked Prince Mohammed if he believed in women’s equality, he responded: “I support Saudi Arabia, and half of Saudi Arabia is women. So I support women.

“In our religion there is no difference between men and women. There are duties to men and duties to women. There are different forms of equality. In the Saudi government women are paid exactly like men. We have regulations like this that are going into the private sector. We don’t want divided treatment for different people.

“Before 1979 there were societal guardianship customs, but no guardianship laws in Saudi Arabia. It doesn’t go back to the time of the Prophet Mohammed. In the 1960s women didn’t travel with male guardians. But it happens now, and we want to move on it and figure out a way to treat this that doesn’t harm families and doesn’t harm the culture.”

Asked if he will get rid of those laws, Prince Mohammed said: “There are a lot of conservative families in Saudi Arabia. There are a lot of families divided inside. Some families like to have authority over their members, and some women don’t want the control of the men. There are families where this is okay. There are families that are open and giving women and daughters what they want. So if I say yes to this question, that means I’m creating problems for the families that don’t want to give freedom for their daughters. Saudis don’t want to lose their identity but we want to be part of the global culture. We want to merge our culture with global identity.”

The interview then shifted to comparing values between the US and Saudi Arabia, with Prince Mohammed noting: “We don’t share values. But I also believe that different states in the US don’t share values. There are different values between California and Texas. So how come you want us to share your values 100 percent when you are not sharing values? Of course there is a foundation of values that all humans share. But there are differences, state-to-state, country-to-country.”

Asked about “absolute monarchy” in Saudi Arabia, he replied: “Absolute monarchy is not a threat to any country. You say ‘absolute monarchy’ like it’s a threat. If it were not for absolute monarchy, you wouldn’t have the US. The absolute monarch in France helped the creation of the US by giving it support. Absolute monarchy is not an enemy of the United States. It’s an ally for a very long time.

“Each country, each regime, it has to do what the people think is workable. Saudi Arabia is a network of thousands of absolute monarchies, and then has a large absolute monarchy. We have tribal monarchies, town monarchies. Moving against this structure would create huge problems in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi fabric is much more complicated than you think. And actually our king doesn’t have absolute power. His power is based in law. If he is making a royal decree, he can’t say, ‘I’m King Salman and I’m doing this.’ If you read decrees, you first see the list of laws that allow the king to take this decision. By the way, the queen of the United Kingdom, she has absolute power with any law. But she doesn’t practice it. So it’s complicated.”

Asked if he could move toward a system in which people vote for their representatives, the Saudi Crown Prince said: “What I can do is encourage the power of law. We would like to encourage freedom of speech as much as we can, so long as we don’t give opportunity to extremism. We can improve women’s rights, improve the economy. There is tension here, but we should do it.

“One American visitor told me a really interesting thing. He said that Americans don’t recognize the difference between the two things—there is the end, and there is the means. The end here is development, rights and freedom. The way to get to it, and this is the American view, is democracy, but the way to get to it in Saudi Arabia is our more complex system.”

Turning to the broader Middle East, the Atlantic asked Prince Mohammed if believes the Jewish people have a right to a nation-state in at least part of their ancestral homeland.

He responded: “I believe that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation. I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land. But we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations.

“We have religious concerns about the fate of the holy mosque in Jerusalem and about the rights of the Palestinian people. This is what we have. We don’t have any objection against any other people.”

Commenting on alleged anti-Semitism in Saudi Arabia, Prince Mohammed remarked: “Our country doesn’t have a problem with Jews. Our Prophet Mohammed married a Jewish woman. Not just a friend—he married her. Our prophet, his neighbors were Jewish. You will find a lot of Jews in Saudi Arabia coming from America, coming from Europe. There are no problems between Christian and Muslims and Jews. We have problems like you would find anywhere in the world, among some people. But the normal sort of problems.”

The Atlantic asked if Riyadh’s problems with Iran pushed it closer to Israel, to which the Crown Prince said: “Israel is a big economy compared to their size and it’s a growing economy, and of course there are a lot of interests we share with Israel and if there is peace, there would be a lot of interest between Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and countries like Egypt and Jordan.”

The magazine then turned its attention to Prince Mohammed himself and his youth, speculating that he holds a “complicated job” for a young man.

The Crown Prince replied: “I believe humans learn to the last days of their life. Anyone who claims he knows everything doesn’t know anything. What we are trying to do is to learn fast, to understand fast, to be surrounded by smart people. I don’t believe my youth is a problem. I believe the best creations in the world came from young people. Apple is a good example. Apple was created by Steve Jobs, who was in his early 20s when he started inventing. Social media, Facebook, created by guy who is still young. I believe that my generation can add a lot of things.

“In Saudi Arabia you can do whatever you want to do in a business, in what kind of work and what kind of project you want to develop. Also, there is a different standard of freedom of speech. In Saudi Arabia we have just three lines—anyone can write whatever they want to write, speak about whatever they want to speak about, but they shouldn’t reach these three lines. This is not based on the interest of the government, but on the interest of the people. Line one is Islam. You cannot defame Islam. Line two—in America, you can attack a person and his company or a minister and his ministry. In Saudi Arabia it’s okay to attack a ministry or a company, but the culture of the Saudis, they don’t like to attack a person, and they like to leave the personal issue out of it. This is part of the Saudi culture.

“The third line is national security. We are in an area not surrounded by Mexico, Canada, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. We have ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hamas and ‘Hezbollah’ and the Iranian regime, and even pirates. We have pirates that hijack ships. So anything that touches the national security, we cannot risk in Saudi Arabia. We don’t want to see things that happen in Iraq happening in Saudi Arabia. But other than that, people have the freedom to do whatever they want to do. For example, we didn’t block Twitter. Or access to social media. Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat. Name it, it’s open for all Saudis. We have the highest percentage of people around the world using social media. In Iran, they block social media and in other countries they block social media. Saudis have free access to whatever media around the world.”



Elias Atallah: Syrian Officer Jameh Jameh Pressed the Button and Killed President René Moawad

Elias Atallah (not seen) holds a photo of George Hawi and Samir Kassir during Kassir’s funeral in 2005 (AFP)
Elias Atallah (not seen) holds a photo of George Hawi and Samir Kassir during Kassir’s funeral in 2005 (AFP)
TT
20

Elias Atallah: Syrian Officer Jameh Jameh Pressed the Button and Killed President René Moawad

Elias Atallah (not seen) holds a photo of George Hawi and Samir Kassir during Kassir’s funeral in 2005 (AFP)
Elias Atallah (not seen) holds a photo of George Hawi and Samir Kassir during Kassir’s funeral in 2005 (AFP)

In this final part of an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Elias Atallah, former political bureau member of the Lebanese Communist Party and coordinator of operations for the Lebanese National Resistance Front (JNFR), recounted a turbulent chapter of Lebanon’s modern history.

Atallah revisited the blood-soaked years of the 1980s, when Lebanon was torn apart by wars with Israel, battles in Beirut, and the volatile triangle of Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese entanglements. He said his experience had been “harsh and painful.”

Confrontation with Israel had reached its zenith; the price of war in Beirut had been high; and relations within the Lebanese-Palestinian-Syrian triangle had been dangerously booby-trapped.

He said that a long-running exchange of strikes had taken place, between the Communist Party and Elie Hobeika, who served as the security chief and later head of the Lebanese Forces.

“I met him about twenty times,” Atallah explained. “He was a man without a heart and absolutely without feeling. It would be wrong to call him pragmatic. He was Machiavellian, willing to do anything to get what he wanted. He was physically brave and would openly state his opinion. He tried to present himself as a deep intelligence man. He had no cultural formation but he was physically strong and courageous.”

Atallah recounted a hunting trip that illustrated Hobeika’s ruthlessness. “I intended to go to Syria to shoot birds,” he said. “George Hawi (the Communist Party’s secretary-general) said we would go together with Elie Hobeika. I disliked the idea but I went. In the wheat plain I noticed Hobeika sliding the rifle under his arm and firing - a method that did not hit birds but could be used against people. I told him, ‘It seems you only go hunting people.’ He replied, ‘Yes, I killed people, but they deserved to die.’ We argued. George invited us to lunch; he had bought a lamb. I pretended I would join them but I climbed into a car and returned to Beirut.”

Atallah added that Hobeika boasted of operations he had carried out, including the explosive device that struck the Communist Party office on Baalbek Street near the Arab University. “We were supposed to hold a Central Council meeting,” he said. “It seems Hobeika received information, so he put his men to plant the explosives. Chance played its role. Our comrade George Batal asked me to drive him to the meeting and I was delayed a few minutes. I was about 150 meters away when the blast shook out. There were dead and injured.”

Atallah also described kidnappings. “One day Hobeika’s group kidnapped three of our youths in the Jiyyeh area; they were transporting explosives for the resistance. I had no option but to kidnap an important person in return,” he recalled. “That was what happened. Two were released because he had killed the third. They two told us Hobeika’s fighters were testing new rifles and pistols by firing at captives they had.”

When asked whether the two men had spoken about the Iranian diplomats whose fate later became the subject of rumors - that one of them had died while his captors were testing a firearm on the bulletproof vest he had been compelled to wear - Atallah replied: “I did not know the fate of the Iranian diplomats, but Hobeika told me in a meeting that he had kidnapped them.”

The former Lebanese Communist Party official contended that Hafez al-Assad had not stopped at Hobeika’s past because he sought to push through a “tripartite agreement,” a formula Atallah described as “a plan to consume Lebanon.” He suggested that Hobeika’s relationship with General Michel Aoun (who later became president) had not begun in the mid-1980s as commonly reported; rather, Atallah believed they had “a prior relationship somewhere in Syria, a matter that required research to untangle.”

He claimed Walid Jumblatt had suffered humiliations under Hafez al-Assad, including being forced to eat lunch with military officers among them Major General Ibrahim Huweija, who had overseen the assassination of Jumblatt’s father, Kamal. While Atallah did not deny that Assad supplied Jumblatt with weapons and tanks during the Mountain War, he stressed that Assad had not given Jumblatt “the right to decide.”

The Soviet abduction

Atallah described the 1985 abduction of four Soviet embassy staff in Beirut in detail. “They called us at the Soviet embassy,” he said. “They told me that yesterday four people from the embassy apparatus were kidnapped; I did not think they were high-ranking, then they disappeared.”

Despite intense searching, day after day, they had found no trace. Walid Jumblatt mobilized everything he had; Atallah and his group did all they could, both publicly and covertly. Days passed without a hint.

Then a senior KGB general, “Yuri,” arrived as an envoy. He thanked them and, it seemed, realized they had failed to locate the missing men. “He told me, in broken Arabic: ‘Look, sheikh; today the detainees ate a breakfast that included labneh, olives and cucumbers, and they were wearing striped pajamas of a particular color. Your fate is at stake. We, the Soviet Union, do not let these matters pass without consequence, be it from the small or the big. I expect them tomorrow at 4 pm, and after that everyone will know his role.’”

General Yuri went alone to see Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, the cleric often portrayed in the media as the spiritual godfather of Hezbollah, a depiction Atallah said he did not necessarily accept as accurate. Fadlallah received him and, by four in the afternoon, three of the four Soviets had been released. Fadlallah’s guards explained that the fourth Soviet had resisted during the transfer, tried to seize a rifle, and was shot dead. The account appeared credible, as he had been killed only recently.

Finger-pointing fell on the Islamic Dawa Party and on an element hidden under the mantle of the Amal movement.

On assassinations and Tripoli battles

Atallah denied that the Communist Party had planned the assassination of Bashir Gemayel. “Absolutely not,” he insisted. “From the time I led these apparatuses, we decided in principle to refuse involvement in assassinations. There was one assassination attempt on General Michel Aoun in the Baabda palace courtyard, and when the Syrian army moved to remove Aoun, the perpetrator fired and we took custody of him. That attempt did not go through us.”

On the battles in Tripoli in the north, Atallah pointed to a bitter rift between Hafez al-Assad and Yasser Arafat. “One day Assad told him: ‘I will pursue an independent decision. Independent of whom?’ Arafat replied: ‘Independent of you. You do not recognize Palestine; Palestine, in turn, does not recognize Syria.’”

Arafat returned to Tripoli in 1983 and entered what Atallah described as Assad’s personal battle with the Palestinian leader. “One hundred percent, it was a mistake for us to participate,” Atallah admitted. “We should have declared ourselves unable to intervene.”

The Communist Party paid dearly: 34 dead in the first round in 1983, and 21 more in the second round during the period of Sheikh Saeed Shaaban. “We paid 55 martyrs for no justification,” he said.

A meeting with Hafez al-Assad

Atallah recalled a 1984 visit with George Hawi to Hafez al-Assad in which Hawi had pushed for immediate unity between Lebanon and Syria. The idea, Atallah said, had been alien to Lebanese sentiment and even dangerous.

In their palace meeting Assad spoke for two hours, repeating themes that were familiar from other encounters, according to Atallah. Oddly, Assad probed into where exactly Atallah lived in Ramlet, down to the house’s location on the side of the road near Saida. As they departed, Assad turned to Hawi with a warning: “Never repeat the story of immediate Lebanon-Syria unity. This talk is dangerous and forbidden. There are things to be carried out silently, without words.”

On Hariri, Hawi and Syrian-Iranian partnerships

When asked who killed Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Atallah answered bluntly: “Three, and one leader: Bashar al-Assad.” He argued that after the departure of investigator Detlev Mehlis, the tribunal had lost its way. He named Assef Shawkat and other Syrian officers, as well as Hezbollah, as participants. He noted wryly that all Syrian intelligence officers who had overseen Lebanon were themselves later killed, including Rustom Ghazaleh, who was “torn to pieces.”

As for George Hawi’s assassination, Atallah maintained that until 2005 most assassinations in Lebanon were Syrian operations, but from that year onward there had been Syrian-Iranian partnerships in carrying out killings.

The killing of René Moawad

The climax of Atallah’s testimony came with his version of the assassination of President René Moawad, elected on November 5, 1989. Moawad had no presidential palace or guard, as Baabda Palace was still held by General Michel Aoun. He lived instead in a Hariri-owned building in West Beirut, considered secure because it lay inside the Syrian intelligence perimeter.

Atallah said Syrian intelligence had placed Major Jameh Jameh in charge of Moawad’s security, with Ghazi Kanaan and Hafez al-Assad’s blessing. Moawad, suspicious, had asked that Jameh be lodged in the adjacent Beaurivage Hotel and kept away from his entourage.

Atallah then recounted a chilling episode: A Communist soldier, recruited into Moawad’s guard at Syrian request, was later given a tiny explosive to attach to the president’s clothing during a church crowd in Ehden. Atallah said he learned of the plan and warned Moawad personally, along with George Hawi and Karim Mroueh. He remembered Moawad’s hands trembling as he heard the soldier’s name and the Syrian officer behind the plot.

The attempt failed when the soldier vanished. Ten days later, Moawad was killed. Witnesses later told Atallah they saw Jameh Jameh on the rooftop of the building, holding a device. “He pressed the button and the explosion went off,” they said. Jameh descended calmly and walked away.

Reflections on failure and lessons

Atallah ended the final part of his Asharq Al-Awsat interview with reflections on the futility of the cycle of violence. “I review this past not because I want to live in it, but because I hope no one will repeat it,” he said. His aim was twofold: “To state my criticisms of what happened, and to show the truth about the national resistance and the failure of resistances that were political projects, not national ones.”

He continued: “Hezbollah’s so-called resistance was not resistance. It was the occupation of the liberated land and turned into a profession. Resistance ceased to be a mission and became a career.”


Atallah to Asharq Al-Awsat: We Refused to Hand Assad the Resistance, the Punishment Was Brutal

Atallah, Yasser Arafat, George Hawi, Mohsen Ibrahim and other fighters during the siege. (Courtesy of Elias Atallah)
Atallah, Yasser Arafat, George Hawi, Mohsen Ibrahim and other fighters during the siege. (Courtesy of Elias Atallah)
TT
20

Atallah to Asharq Al-Awsat: We Refused to Hand Assad the Resistance, the Punishment Was Brutal

Atallah, Yasser Arafat, George Hawi, Mohsen Ibrahim and other fighters during the siege. (Courtesy of Elias Atallah)
Atallah, Yasser Arafat, George Hawi, Mohsen Ibrahim and other fighters during the siege. (Courtesy of Elias Atallah)

On September 16, 1982, just days after the assassination of President-elect Bashir Gemayel and the Sabra and Shatila massacres, Beirut’s residents heard a call to arms. From the home of Kamal Jumblatt, two men — George Hawi, secretary-general of the Lebanese Communist Party, and Mohsen Ibrahim, leader of the Organization of Communist Action — issued an appeal to resist the Israeli army that had pushed into the capital.

By month’s end, the people of Beirut were stunned once more: loudspeakers mounted on Israeli army vehicles broadcast a message that seemed almost unreal. “People of Beirut,” the occupiers announced, “do not fire on us. Tomorrow we will withdraw. We have no missions inside the city.”

That very withdrawal, to Khaldeh on the city’s southern edge, filled Beirut with pride. Its residents had seen their own sons and daughters strike fear into one of the region’s most powerful armies. Yet almost no one knew who had orchestrated the string of seven attacks, carried out over just eleven days, that had forced the invaders to retreat.

The answer was Elias Atallah — then a young political bureau member of the Communist Party, serving as its military commander. He had been secretly tasked with founding and coordinating the Lebanese National Resistance Front (Jammoul). In his telling, only three people knew of his role: Hawi, Ibrahim, and Khalil Debs.

The early days

In the second of a three-part interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Atallah said he began by selecting 21 young men, arming them, and dividing them into three sectors across Beirut. Israeli intelligence had little insight into their plans, which allowed Atallah to scout attack sites personally and sometimes even shadow operations from nearby streets.

The first strike came on September 20, 1982, when two fighters hurled grenades at a group of Israeli soldiers gathered around a fire near a pharmacy in the Sanayeh district. The attackers escaped unharmed; the Israelis suffered casualties.

Soon after, two armored vehicles were ambushed near the Patriarchate area with B-7 rockets. Another team assaulted Israeli troops occupying the PLO’s former offices on Mazraa Street. But it was the fourth attack that sent shockwaves: two young men walked into the famed Wimpy Cafe on Hamra Street and shot dead an Israeli officer and two soldiers as they sipped coffee.

Three more operations followed in rapid succession: in Tallet al-Khayyat, on the Selim Salam bridge, and outside the Alexander Hotel in Ashrafieh. Beirut had become a battlefield where the occupier was no longer untouchable.

Then PM Rafik al-Hariri welcomes Soha Beshara after her release. (AFP)

The attempt on Antoine Lahd

Perhaps the most audacious operation came years later. On November 17, 1988, General Antoine Lahd, commander of the Israel-backed South Lebanon Army, was shot at close range by a young woman, Soha Beshara.

Atallah recalled: “Soha came from a communist family. She was athletic, often visited her village near Marjeyoun, and never raised suspicion. She befriended Lahd’s wife, who asked her to tutor their children privately at home. For months she taught lessons, drank coffee with the family, and gained their trust. That’s when the idea emerged.”

Only three people knew of the plan: Atallah, Hawi, and a young man living in Belgium. Atallah admitted he was uneasy: “I told her this wasn’t just about military difficulty. Could you really look him in the eye and pull the trigger? It wasn’t to discourage her, but I felt the operation lacked humanity. Still, she was determined.”

Soha fired several bullets into Lahd, wounding him critically, but he survived miraculously after being airlifted to Israel. She was captured instantly. Imprisoned in Khiam, she endured for 10 years before being released in 2000 through French intervention and at the request of then Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Atallah revealed that he tried to intercept her release convoy: “I believed she should be returned to us, not paraded elsewhere. But we were outmaneuvered; they took a different route.”

Walid Jumblatt and the resistance

Was Walid Jumblatt, Atallah’s longtime ally, aware of his coordination of operations? Atallah replied that Jumblatt was not directly involved: “I informed him later. He was uncomfortable, but told me: ‘If you need anything, I will help. But don’t let operations come too close to Mokhtara [his stronghold].’”

Jumblatt even offered logistical support, though without formally endorsing the resistance. To Atallah, this reflected the careful balance Jumblatt maintained in Lebanon’s fractured landscape.

Atallah with Walid Jumblatt (R) and George Hawi (C). (Courtesy of Elias Atallah)

How Jammoul was undermined

The resistance’s decline was gradual, not sudden. One early sign came when the Soviets supplied the movement with five sniper rifles, which are powerful weapons capable of reaching targets at a kilometer’s range. The rifles arrived in Syria but were seized by Hafez al-Assad’s regime. Damascus denied receiving them; Moscow confirmed they had been delivered.

Soon tensions arose with the Amal movement, led by now parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. “The hostility wasn’t uniform,” Atallah recalled, “but at the leadership level, it was never friendly. Information leaks and betrayals followed - and behind it, I am convinced, stood the Syrian regime that had already silenced Imam Moussa al-Sadr.”

Ghazi Kanaan’s ultimatum

In February 1985, Atallah and Hawi were summoned to meet General Ghazi Kanaan, Syria’s intelligence chief in Lebanon. “He began with endless praise, saying that we were disciplined, brave, ideological... But the more he praised, the more uneasy I became,” Atallah recalled.

Kanaan then revealed his demand: “President Assad says the resistance is not a Lebanese affair but a strategic Arab cause. It must be directed accordingly. From now on, no operation will be carried out by one side alone. We will form a joint command. And you must merge with Hezbollah.”

Indignant, Atallah pushed back: “Yesterday one of our fighters was shot in the back in the South. We know Hezbollah did it. How can you ask us to join them? We will not be chess pieces.”

Kanaan slammed his hand on the table, sending coffee cups flying. “You will pay dearly,” he thundered. And he left without farewell.

Atallah and Hawi knew they had crossed Assad’s red line. “When he invoked ‘His Excellency the President,’ we understood this came directly from Hafez al-Assad. Refusing meant punishment.”

Assassinations begin

The punishment soon followed. “We paid first in blood,” Atallah said. “They began killing our leaders. Between 1986 and 1987 alone, some 30 of our cadres were assassinated.”

Among them were Khalil Naous, a central committee member respected across Beirut; Hussein Mroueh, the 87-year-old intellectual shot in his wheelchair; Hassan Hamdan, better known as the philosopher Mahdi Amel, whose lectures drew students from all faculties; and Suhail Toula, editor-in-chief of al-Nidaa.

The message was unmistakable. At Hamdan’s funeral, Kanaan himself appeared. “He didn’t come to offer condolences,” Atallah recalled bitterly. “He told our leaders to their faces: ‘Was it necessary to bring yourselves to this?’ It was as if he were signing his work.”

Despite the losses, Jammoul pressed on. “By 1988, we were still averaging three to four operations daily. Israeli deaths totaled around 300. And we never harmed Lebanese civilians, not once. That was our principle.”

Ghazi Kanaan and Bashar al-Assad in Beirut in 1999. (AFP)

Numbers and losses

In total, Atallah estimated the resistance carried out more than a thousand operations. About 160 fighters were killed. “We were hunted, constantly. But we kept going,” he said.

Syrian interference grew more direct. Kanaan stoked clashes between the resistance and Amal, sparking fierce battles in Beirut. Syrian tanks rolled in from Aley and Sawfar. At one point, Atallah recalled, Communist Party offices were stormed without cause.

Exile and Moscow

Atallah also recounted being effectively exiled. After Israeli forces discovered their radio frequencies, he traveled to Moscow seeking technical help.

There, he was told he would remain six months - a decision, he later learned, that had been requested by Syrian intelligence. “Muhammad al-Khouli, Assad’s air intelligence chief, told George Hawi: ‘Either you find Atallah’s corpse on the street or you send him away.’ They chose exile. I refused and returned home.”

The final blow

The beginning of the end came with an Israeli strike on the party’s headquarters in Rmeileh, Atallah’s hometown on the Chouf coast. Intelligence had warned of the threat. The central committee was due to convene there, but Atallah urged evacuation.

The Israeli attack, using a vacuum bomb, destroyed the compound. Only two were killed, spared by the prior evacuation. But morale was shattered. “That was the heaviest blow,” Atallah admitted.

Asked whether Jammoul was penetrated, Atallah conceded only “very limited” infiltration, by an Israeli agent. He denied Arab involvement, and said the Soviets never pressured him personally to cooperate with the KGB.


Spanish FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: We are Ready to Provide Ukraine with Arms

José Manuel Albares. (Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
José Manuel Albares. (Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
TT
20

Spanish FM to Asharq Al-Awsat: We are Ready to Provide Ukraine with Arms

José Manuel Albares. (Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
José Manuel Albares. (Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares affirmed that his country has prepared a set of measures to sanction Israel for its relentless killing of Palestinians and the occupation of Gaza. He also acknowledged Spain’s readiness to provide weapons to Ukraine, while stressing the importance of US guarantees to translate President Donald Trump’s vision for resolving the Russian–Ukrainian crisis.

Regarding the expected outcomes of the Alaska Summit on the future of the Russian–Ukrainian crisis, he said in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat: "We welcome any efforts to bring us closer to achieving a just and lasting peace, including those of President Trump."

"While we would love to see progress, we currently observe no commitment from the Russian side. We still believe that peace should begin with a verifiable and sustainable ceasefire to save lives. As we speak, the attacks, killings and destruction continue. Our first demand is for Russia to stop its aggression immediately," he added.

On the Spanish-European view of President Trump’s proposals for the Russian–Ukrainian crisis, Albares explained: "In Spain and Europe, we believe that the future of Ukraine should be decided by the Ukrainian people, and that any sustainable agreement requires Ukraine and Europe to be present at the negotiating table. We reject any peace agreement that rewards the aggressor."

"This would only encourage further aggression and could lead to another war. We are ready to contribute to Ukraine’s security, because Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security. This is why we welcome the US's commitment to providing much-needed security guarantees. Fundamental principles of international law are at stake here, namely the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, and these must be upheld," he added.

"Europe is united in its support for Ukraine, and as long as Russia continues its aggression, Spain stands ready to provide military and economic support alongside its European partners, and to maintain pressure on Russia by strengthening sanctions and introducing wider economic measures."

On Palestine, the minister said: "We are working closely with our Saudi partners to stop the killing and humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and to foster new hope for peace in the region, based on the establishment of a Palestinian State alongside Israel. We launched Madrid+ and the Global Alliance for the Implementation of a Two-State Solution to mobilize political will and a sense of collective responsibility within the international community. This will encourage respect for humanitarian law, justice for Palestinians and security for all in the region."

He also affirmed that Spain's recognition of the State of Palestine, alongside Norway, Ireland and Slovenia, was "therefore only the first step, and many others are now following suit."

He added: "Last July, the United Nations Conference for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution finally convened in New York, following hard work by Spain and Saudi Arabia, and it will resume in September. On 12 September, the New York Declaration was endorsed by 142 Members of the United Nations General Assembly. We will continue our efforts until the State of Palestine is admitted to the United Nations and until a realistic and viable State of Palestine is established in Gaza and the West Bank under a unified Palestinian Authority with access to the sea and its capital in East Jerusalem."

Concerning Israel’s plan to invade Gaza, Albares stated: "Our position is very clear. We condemn the obstruction of humanitarian aid and the escalation of military operations in Gaza, where the United Nations has declared a famine. We have led a group of like-minded countries within the European Union and globally to issue a joint statement, and this group is growing. However, talking is not enough. We cannot tolerate the continued suffering of innocent civilians or the deaths of children from hunger while trucks carrying food are prevented from entering Gaza."

The Spanish FM recalled that in light of the scale of the catastrophe, on 9 September Spain adopted a new set of national measures aimed at ending the war and supporting the Palestinian people.

"These measures include an arms embargo on Israel, sanctions against individuals involved in human rights violations or war crimes in the Gaza Strip, a ban on imports from settlements, increased cooperation with the Palestinian Authority, and an additional contribution of €10 million to UNRWA. There is also an increased humanitarian and cooperation budget for Gaza of up to €150 million until 2026," he noted.

"At the same time, we presented a new package of urgent EU measures to increase pressure and end this nightmare, including suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement."

On measures to prevent the conflict in Israel from spreading across the region, he said:”I am convinced that the state of permanent war we are witnessing will only divide the peoples of the region and will not deliver security for anyone in the end. Regional security can only be achieved through dialogue, cooperation, mutual recognition and peace."

"This is the clear lesson we learnt in Europe after centuries of war. This is why we unequivocally condemned the Israeli attack on Qatari territory, which violated its sovereignty and international law, threatening the region's overall stability.
Saudi Arabia and our other regional partners are more determined and united than ever on this agenda of mutual recognition and peace. We all condemn terrorism and violence. Therefore, everything depends on establishing the State of Palestine, implementing the two-State solution and respecting international law. The international community must assume its responsibility in this regard, just as it must do to end the tragedy in Gaza. The credibility of the international community and the upholding of United Nations principles and values are at stake," he added.

On the strategic Saudi–Spanish partnership, Albares noted: "The historical friendship between the two countries has deep roots, nurtured by feelings of profound sympathy and sincere friendship between our royal households, and the will of our Governments and peoples to explore the full potential of our bilateral relations."

"Our commitment to strengthening our partnership is reinforced by our shared interests. At the diplomatic level, Saudi Arabia is a key regional partner, and we look forward to raising the level of our strategic relations in the near future. In this regard, during the recent visit of my dear friend and colleague, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah, to Madrid for the Madrid+ meeting on Gaza in May, we had the opportunity to further develop our strategic relationship, based on mutually beneficial economic projects, a shared vision for the region, peace in the Middle East, and respect for international law," he revealed.

Albares said that as the origin of the international alliance, "we are both countries that are clearly committed to implementing the two-State solution, and we have increased our efforts to foster the recognition of Palestine as a State among our partners. We have also condemned all actions that hinder the future creation of a Palestinian State, particularly the expansion of settlements in the West Bank."

Furthermore, both countries intend to increase the frequency of high-level visits in the future, the Spanish FM stressed.

"In economic terms, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is our country's most important commercial partner in the region. The recent visit of my colleague, the Spanish Minister of Economy Carlos Cuerpo, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided a valuable opportunity to explore new opportunities within the framework of Saudi Vision 2030."

Albares added: "Another way of strengthening our bilateral ties will be cultural promotion, through the celebration of Cultural Years or the promotion of the Spanish language in Saudi Arabia."