عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Exclusive - 7 Developments and Surprises Return Syria Back to the Spotlight

A student walks along a damaged street in the town of Kafr Batna, in eastern Ghouta, Syria September 5, 2018. (Reuters)
A student walks along a damaged street in the town of Kafr Batna, in eastern Ghouta, Syria September 5, 2018. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Exclusive - 7 Developments and Surprises Return Syria Back to the Spotlight

A student walks along a damaged street in the town of Kafr Batna, in eastern Ghouta, Syria September 5, 2018. (Reuters)
A student walks along a damaged street in the town of Kafr Batna, in eastern Ghouta, Syria September 5, 2018. (Reuters)

The Syrian conflict is once again garnering the attention of western and Arab observers, sparking nearly the same heated debates that prevailed during 2012. The media has speculated over various political and military scenarios in store for the war-torn country. Current and former Syrian officials and economists have once again emerged on the scene to present their credentials. Western officials have also expressed their stance and expectations on Syria’s future.

Despite the world’s preoccupation with the coronavirus pandemic, Syria has returned to the spotlight due to seven developments:

1 – Rami Makhlouf
For two decades, he was the face of Syria’s economy and had the final say over its economy. However, since summer 2019, the tide started to turn against him. A campaign has since been launched to dismantle all of his economic institutions and military, humanitarian and political networks. Makhlouf responded with behavior that goes against “Syrian norms”. He sought defiance through diplomacy and then began making statements and social media videos. He refused to accept the government’s demand for his Syriatel telecommunications company to pay 185 million dollars in dues.

What are Russia and Iran’s positions from all of this? What does this mean for the regime? And why now? Is Makhlouf being backed by some foreign power? Is what is taking place in Syria similar to what happens in all civil wars when political change occurs when the warlords seek to legitimize their work?

Clarification after silence

2 – Russian campaign
A media campaign from circles close to the Kremlin kicked off shortly after Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited Damascus in March when he requested President Bashar Assad to commit to the Russian-Turkish agreement on Idlib and brought up Syria’s reconstruction. Moscow remained silent for several weeks, but just days ago, it emerged with a counter-campaign. A Russian military official had toured Damascus recently to stress that Russian President Vladimir Putin has not changed his stance towards Assad. The Russian ambassador to Damascus was interviewed by a Syrian newspaper on Thursday during which he said relations between Moscow and Damascus were “friendly and strategic”, dismissing claims of turmoil in relations.

Has Moscow changed its stance? Did it deliberately remain silent over the campaign so that the message could reach Damascus before later retracting it? How far will Moscow go: Will it simply pressure Assad or have him removed? Does Russia really want to become embroiled in Syria’s messy economy? Has Russia’s influence in the region hit a wall and does it need a new approach?

3 – Russian-American dialogue
American officials have spoken of Moscow’s desire to resume bilateral dialogue. Most notably, US envoy James Jeffery told Asharq Al-Awsat that his country does not mind for Russia to maintain a military presence in Syria, but it does want Iran to leave. United Nations envoy Geir Pedersen recently told the Security Council that Russian-American dialogue could play a “key role”, encouraging both parties to resume it.

Diplomats wonder why Moscow would want dialogue at the moment. To what extent has its stances changed? Can an agreement be reached before the American elections? Is Putin really “angry” with Assad or is this just another of his maneuvers?

Tactical withdrawal

4 – Iranian withdrawal

American and Israeli officials have confirmed that Iran was “tactically” withdrawing from Syria after Israel carried out a series of heavy raids on Iranian positions from Damascus to Aleppo to Deir Ezzour. The development coincided with Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei and other officials’ declaration that Tehran was keeping its forces in Syria and they were committed to “Dr. Bashar Assad as the legitimate president.” Iran also encouraged factions loyal to it to speed up their return to southern Syria in areas close to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in what is seen as defiance of the 2018 Russian-American-Jordanian-Israeli agreement to keep “non-Syrian” forces - meaning Iran - away from the region. Days ago, Russia did not hesitate in deploying its troops to force Iranians out of the Daraa countryside. Significantly, an Iranian official had recently declared that his country had spent some 20 to 30 billion dollars to support Damascus and it now wants that money back.

What is Iran seeking to achieve from the withdrawal and redeployment? Is it related to its economic crisis incurred from the sanctions and coronavirus outbreak or Russian pressure at Israel’s behest? Why has it brought up Damascus’ financial debt to Tehran? Why have Washington and Tel Aviv started to again focus on the Iranian presence?

5 – Idlib truce
Despite the many violations to the Idlib truce, in place since March 5, Russia and Turkey continue to respect their commitments and deploy joint patrols. One patrol had moved deep into Idlib towards Latakia and Turkey has set up base atop a strategic mountain. Despite the tensions between Moscow and Ankara over Libya, where each side supports rival forces in the country, they are still cooperating in Idlib and the area east of the Euphrates River.

This raises questions about the fate of the Idlib truce and how sustainable it is. How much will the tensions in Libya spill over in Syria? What about the extremists in Idlib and when will Russia’s patience run out?

Change

6 – Syrian elections
Parliamentary elections were postponed to July due to the coronavirus outbreak, but attention is fixed on the presidential elections, set for mid-2021. Western officials have spoken of supporting an opposition candidate and the US has again resumed financial support for the opposition. Some opposition figures have even declared their candidacy. An Israeli researcher even named Tel Aviv’s preferred candidate for the presidency. Pedersen said the elections will be held based on current constitutional arrangements. He explained that the UN has not been asked to monitor the polls. The envoy said the elections must be held in line with resolution 2254 and that they must be free and transparent. They should be held based on the new constitution and under UN supervision, he suggested.

Will the US, which is in store for its own presidential elections in November, and Russia reach understandings that would allow the Syrian elections to serve as a gateway for change? Will they reach understandings on reconstruction, sanctions, Iranian presence and the political process? Will this be the way out for Moscow since it opposes the idea of regime change?

7 – Sanctions and change
The US has again brought up the opening of the Al-Yarubiyah border crossing between Iraq and the eastern Euphrates region in order to send aid after noticing that Russia had not met its commitments to deliver aid from Damascus in line with an agreement that was reached earlier this year. Observers are predicting that Russia and the West will clash over this issue at the Security Council. A dispute already exists over sanctions. Russia blames American and European sanctions for Damascus’ inability to tackle the coronavirus and living crises. Washington and Brussels retorted by saying that the sanctions have not impeded the delivery of medical or humanitarian aid to Syria.

Will these issues pave the way for a gradual agreement or will they lead to more division?

It is not easy to predict where these developments will lead Syria, but there is no doubt that they raise many questions that local and foreign parties are trying to analyze to suit their positions, while everyone else wallows in uncertainty.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Jamal Mustafa: Saddam and Other Iraqi Officials Headed to the Gallows with Heads Held High

Jamal Mustafa al-Sultan. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Jamal Mustafa al-Sultan. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT
TT

Jamal Mustafa: Saddam and Other Iraqi Officials Headed to the Gallows with Heads Held High

Jamal Mustafa al-Sultan. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Jamal Mustafa al-Sultan. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Saddam Hussein’s entourage never expected that they would one day find themselves in jail. It never occurred to them that the American military machine would use all of its might to oust Saddam’s regime and overthrow the ruling party and army. They never believed that forces allied to Iran would assume positions of power in the new regime.

Times changed and Saddam, who controlled the fate of the nation and its people, found himself in prison where he counted the days until his execution. The man was unyielding until his last breath and his will remained unbroken.

The men who made up the Revolutionary Command Council or government soon found themselves in prison. They were interrogated by the Americans and Iraqis and a death sentence was always going to be their fate.

In the second installment of his interview to Asharq Al-Awsat, Dr. Jamal Mustafa al-Sultan, late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law and second secretary, recalled the execution of his colleagues and relatives. He also recalled how he married Hala, the youngest of Saddam’s daughters, and how the late president acted around his family, away from state affairs.

Other officials who were held along with Saddam included “Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, my uncle and member of the Revolutionary Command Council Ali Hussein al-Majid, my other uncle Abed Hassan al-Majid, head of the Revolutionary Command Council Awad al-Bandar, Saddam’s half-brother Barzan Ibrahim al-Hassan, Secretary Abed Hammoud and aide to the intelligence chief Farouk Hijazi,” said Mustafa.

He showed Asharq Al-Awsat a video that recently came to light of Khodair al-Khozaei, the former vice president during the American occupation. “In it, he said that he saw no justification for the death sentence against Abed Hammoud. Most dangerous of all, he confessed that he visited Iran and consulted with a judicial official, who encouraged him to sign the death sentence, which he did,” added Mustafa.

“The truth is that we sensed from the beginning that our trial was a means of revenge acting at Iran’s orders. One day, Abed Hammoud was informed that he was going to be moved to hospital and later that day the guards informed us that he was executed,” he continued.

“Mr. President (Saddam) expected to be executed. The truth is that his very existence, whether in jail or otherwise, was a source of concern for them. I can firmly attest that the members of the leadership bravely faced their death sentence. None of them showed any weakness or faltered,” he revealed.

He recalled the day they informed Barzan and Awad that they were going to be executed. “I was working out with al-Bandar when we received the news. I am not exaggerating when I say that he maintained his optimism even in that moment. They were executed the next day. Days later, I learned that Abed Hassan al-Majid, Farouk Hijazi and Hadi Hassan, an intelligence officer, were executed,” Mustafa said.

“Let me tell you what used to happen. One day, they came up with false charges that before the US occupation, I gave Mr. Khamis al-Khanjar (a Sunni politician) a sum of 250,000 dollars. Of course, the charge is baseless. They told me that I would remain in jail for life if I did not confess to the charge. I refused and told them that I enjoyed normal relations with Khanjar,” he went on to say.

“They later came up with a different scenario. They told me that they would take me to the Iraqi embassy in Jordan if I confessed to the charge and that I would late be released in Amman with a hefty sum of money. I told them that I would reject whatever they have to offer because I would not abandon my values to betray Khanjar, who was a friend,” he stated.

“They later accused me of complicity in the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes, which I had nothing to do with,” he added.

Saddam Hussein with his daughter Hala in this undated photo. (Getty Images)

First call after Saddam’s execution

Mustafa recalled the first telephone call he had with his wife Hala and her mother, Sajida Khairallah Talfah, right after Saddam’s execution. “Five days after Mr. President’s martyrdom, I contacted my family. I spoke with my wife, and she was in very good spirits. She had very high faith and patience. I asked her about her mother, and she reassured me that she was also doing very well despite the pain,” he said.

“I pray that Gold Almighty will give her health and a long life. We have always derived our strength from her. My mother-in-law lost her two sons, Uday and Qusay, and then her husband. She had played a major role in supporting her husband from the beginning of his struggle. She always used to support him and stood by him throughout his career,” he remarked.

First meetings with Saddam

Mustafa recalled the early days of his meeting with Saddam. “They started when I began working for his special guard. That was when I first met him. Like most Iraqis and Arabs, I believed that he would be a difficult person, but the truth is that I saw him as a paternal figure,” he added. “When you work with him, you begin to develop a different opinion than the public impression. He was a very paternal figure.”

During their first meeting, they learned that they came from the same tribe and were distant cousins.

“I stayed by Mr. President’s side for around 20 years. I started off as part of his personal guard and he then tasked me with people’s affairs, meaning seeing to their needs and addressing their problems. He was very concerned with the people’s affairs and refused any one of them to be wronged. The truth is that many laws were amended or changed at the time following complaints from the people,” he revealed.

“There were two telephones at Mr. President’s office, and both were connected to my office. Whoever had a problem could call the president through the citizens’ line. I used to answer their calls and listen to their problems and set an appointment with the president. Sometimes I used to ask the caller to come in person with their request so that their problem could be tackled. Sometimes Mr. President would interject on the call to ask about the issue and would request to talk to the citizen on the line,” Mustafa said.

“He would listen to the person’s grievance and tell him to head to the dedicated office to tackle the issue. (...) So we used to receive hundreds of citizens every week to solve their problems. Mr. President was very concerned about these issues,” he stressed. “I have never met another person like him. He would listen, care and then come up with a solution.”

President’s son-in-law

Asharq Al-Awsat asked Mustafa about when he asked Hala to marry him. “It was in 1994. As is the tradition in Iraq, I headed with my uncles to Saddam’s family to ask her hand in marriage,” he said. “One of my uncles made the request to Mr. President on my behalf and he agreed and welcomed it.”

“A judge was summoned immediately for the ceremony, and we were married. We had lunch at the president’s house that same day. I first met Hala on September 12, and we were married on September 26. It was a short engagement in line with tradition.”

“Mr. President used to separate state affairs from his relationship with his family. His work was completely separate from family, which had nothing to do with political or state affairs. It never intervened in those issues. Mr. President was a man of state when he was doing his job, and a father when he came home. He treated his family as if he were its father – the perfect father. Every family wishes to have a father that can measure up to him because he looked after all of his children and all of his relatives,” Mustafa said.

“When he sat down to the dinner table, he himself used to serve his own food and ask his children about their day. He would serve them food and generally cared very much for them. The state is one thing and family is another. At the same time, he acted as a father to all Iraqis. He treated them fairly. This is Saddam Hussein,” stressed Mustafa. “He was always keen that Iraqis be treated justly and that none of them be wronged. He was also very firm with his children if they made any mistake.”

Saddam’s hobbies

Saddam was a “very traditional Arab man. He loved traditional Arab and Iraqi dishes. He himself used to cook his own version of the traditional Iraqi dish al-Habeet. (...) He also loved seafood and would cook the Masgouf fish dish himself,” Mustafa told Asharq Al-Awsat.

His hobbies included horseback riding, hunting, swimming and sharpshooting. “Occasionally, before heading to the front to fight against Iran, he would visit the al-Amarah region, where gazelle and geese are abundant, to hunt. As circumstances became more challenging, he limited himself to fishing, which he did regularly,” he added.

He was a skilled shooter from his youth. “Generally, growing up in a tribe, children are taught at a young age how to become a good shooter. This is part of our upbringing. He was also an avid reader. He was always reading something,” Mustafa said of Saddam.