Alliances, Conspiracies Overshadowed the Letters between Assad, Saddam

Former Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad (left) Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (Right)
Former Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad (left) Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (Right)
TT

Alliances, Conspiracies Overshadowed the Letters between Assad, Saddam

Former Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad (left) Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (Right)
Former Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad (left) Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (Right)

The relationship once shared between the late Syrian and Iraqi leaders, Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein, can be described as both complicated and intertwining. So was the history between Damascus and Baghdad.

Many factors, such as politics, sectarianism, ideology, and geography, defined the characteristics of the ties between Iraq and Syria and the race towards leadership in the region.

The roots of the competition for regional domination can be traced back to the interlocked fate of the two countries. Baathists had arrived in power in Damascus in March 1963 but ended up losing Baghdad by the end of the same year.

However, after managing to steer governance in Syria to a new direction in 1966, the Baath party made its way back to the forefront of authority in Iraq a couple of years later. In 1970, Assad went on to end all struggles facing the movement with his Corrective Revolution.

There were several attempts to reconcile the two Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria.

Indeed, Iraq assisted with the 1973 October War and Oil Embargo. But the relationship would soon return to falling apart. At the time, Saddam was “soaring” under the wing of former Iraqi President Aḥmad Ḥasan Bakr, while Assad was solidifying his position and influence in Damascus and Lebanon in 1976.

Breakthroughs in Egyptian-Israeli negotiations and tokens of a “revolution” in Iran meant that both Syria and Iraq would lay on a “bed of thorns.” This led to presidents Bakr and Assad signing the Charter of Joint National Action in 1978, which culminated in plans and treaties that would lead to the unification of Iraq and Syria at the start of 1979—two weeks before a “revolution” was announced in Tehran.

Hungry after more power, each of Saddam and Rifaat al-Assad, former Vice President of Syria and Assad’s younger brother, opposed the initiative.

While Assad managed to toe his brother back in line, Saddam succeeded in overthrowing Bakr and rise to power in July 1979. On the way to becoming Baghdad’s new ruler, Saddam ordered the execution of unification “enthusiasts” and accused Syria’s then Vice President of “conspiracy.”

After the signing of the Camp David Accords, Assad sought to reinforce the “southern front” against Israel. This effort was mirrored by a similar endeavor by Baghdad fortifying Iraq’s eastern gates against Iran.

Soon after the Iraq-Iran war began after the “revolution” in Tehran, Assad sided with Saddam’s enemy, and the Damascus-Baghdad track dove into yet another deep valley. Baghdad responded by severing relations with Damascus in October 1980 and supporting the “Muslim Brotherhood” in Syria.

Preoccupied with its agenda in Lebanon, Syria shut down borders with Iraq in 1982, cutting off the Iraqi oil pipeline to the Mediterranean. Iran then moved on to replace lost Iraqi oil with its own.

Secret Meetings

In the mid-80s, towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Jordan’s King Hussein brought Assad and Saddam together for a “stormy marathon” meeting.

Moreover, “secret” and “experimental” meetings were held between former Syrian vice presidents Farouk al-Sharaa, Abdul Halim Khaddam, and Saddam’s close aid, Tariq Aziz.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Assad decided to join the international coalition to liberate the Gulf country. While the Syrian president strengthened his internal economic status and influence in Lebanon, his Iraqi counterpart, Saddam, was drowning in a quagmire of isolation and sanctions.

In the mid-90s, the Baathist “comrades” would try to take the pulse of bilateral relations once again.

Assad was motivated to look for alliances that would protect him from the uncertainty of peace negotiations with Israel and help solve an economic crisis at home. At the same time, Saddam sought any way he could break the siege on Iraq.

Turkish pressure, the aftermath of Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, fleeing to Amman under the banner of changing his father-in-law’s regime, and Jordan’s talk of “federalism” would also bring Assad and Saddam closer.

The two kingpins referred to choosing two of their most trusted companions to head a secret communication backchannel.

Saddam picked his former bureau chief and ambassador in Doha, Anwar Sabri Abdul Razzaq al-Qaisi, and Assad assigned Khaddam, who had served him well during his struggle with Baathist comrades in the 60s.

Each of Qaisi and Khaddam was well aware of the need for utmost confidentiality with their task.

When comparing Khaddam’s records, which he took to Paris in 2005 and Asharq Al-Awsat had access to, and an exclusive interview with Qaisi, a difference in opinions surfaces about who jumpstarted the channel.

Khaddam says that Saddam broke the ice in August 1995, but Assad met this initiative with “doubts” in light of their shared history and Saddam’s role in thwarting the Charter of Joint National Action in 1979.

Rising above his doubts, Assad decided to hold dialogue and test Saddam before turning on a new leaf, according to Khaddam.

But Qaisi claims that Assad first launched the initiative after publicly declaring Jordan’s ambitions for federalism as a threat to Syria and Iraq. According to the former ambassador, after Assad’s declaration, he received a signal from Khaddam to open a channel between the two presidents.

Rushing in…Slowing Down

In his letters to Assad, Saddam seemed in a rush to reopen the two embassies that were closed in 1982 and to hold political meetings and open the borders.

In early 1996, Assad responded to Saddam’s request with patience and cautiousness to not drive a wedge between Damascus and Arab countries. He informed his Iraqi counterpart that he intends to “conduct contacts with a number of Arab countries in order not to complicate the Arab situation further.”

Qaisi told Asharq Al-Awsat that he secretly visited Damascus six times, four of which were made through trips transited from Sudan.

“Saddam was serious about opening a new page with Assad to restore relations,” he told the newspaper, adding that he was given the green light to show Iraqi readiness for far-reaching reconciliation.

“The president told me to tell the Syrians that if Assad took a step forward, he would match it with ten ahead,” said Qaisi.

Opening the channel, according to Qaisi, was to “convince brothers in Syria not to receive Kamel.”

“Indeed, he was not received due to the common concern about Jordan’s ambitions for proposing federalism,” noted Qaisi, adding that Saddam had proposed holding a secret summit with Assad on the border, forming a “joint political leadership,” and holding bilateral discussions on reviving the Charter of Joint National Action, as well as floating the idea of an Arab summit in Damascus for Iraqi-Arab reconciliation.

“King Hussein’s recent statements, before his visit to Washington, confirm that he is accelerating the push for the United States concluding a military agreement and forming a regional alliance with Israel and Turkey at its backbone; this is certainly directed against Iraq and Syria,” Saddam wrote to Assad in March 1996.

Corollary, the then director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service Mani Rashid revealed that Iraqi-Syrian covert security meetings were held to ensure coordination “against Jordan and Turkey placing the two countries between the claws of a pincer.”

According to Qaisi, Saddam “openheartedly” welcomed Assad’s stingy criticism of establishing federalism in the region.

“Abu Uday”

In the letter exchanges and records of the top-secret meetings, the discourse between Saddam and Assad saw a significant shift, to the extent that Khaddam would convey the latter’s greetings to “Abu Uday (father of Uday: Saddam)” – in Arabic, referring to someone by their fatherhood is considered a sign of respect and amiability.

For his part, Saddam would refer to Assad as “the brother President.” The letter exchange proceeded to be dominated by what the two can do and what they want to do.

Besides talking to Saddam, Assad carried on with contacting Arab nations and informing French President Jacques Chirac that “the situation in Iraq is worrying and has become a ticking bomb about to explode.”

Behind closed doors, Chirac surprised Assad by opening yet another issue: The Syrian presence in Lebanon. The French president made an offer regarding disarming Hezbollah vs Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights, but Syria would have to guarantee its military presence in Lebanon.

By the second half of 1996, Assad’s primary goal became preventing the collapse of the regime in Iraq and reopening borders with the fellow Levantine country. This followed his initial try at overthrowing Saddam.

Even though Assad was uncomfortable with Saddam delegating Aziz to redevelop relations with Syria, he welcomed him in Damascus in November 1997. Assad also received then Iraqi Foreign Minister Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahaf in February 1998.

At the time, Assad’s conviction was that Saddam isn’t working to remove “justifications” for a military strike during a crisis with international inspectors. So he agreed with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to relay to Saddam that a strike was on the way and that it would target both his regime and country.

Once again, there was an overlap in the regional matters. After Chirac’s offer to “swap” between Iraq and Lebanon, US President Bill Clinton linked Iraq with the resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations.

On February 21, 1998, Clinton wrote to Assad that if Saddam was forced to take up arms, it is essential that Syria remains impartial, and that Iraq complies with UN resolutions. He also noted that he was not willing to go back to the starting point after all that was accomplished in previous negotiations.

Assad responded on March 13 that year, talking about “anxieties and tensions building up around the possibility of military action against Iraq.”

He stressed the desire to resume negotiations (with Israel) from the point where they had stopped, following the loss of Shimon Peres and the victory of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996.

Afterward, Iraqi-Syrian borders were reopened, and reconciliation bureaus were set up in the two capitals. “Transition” took place in Damascus, and the “regime was brought down in Baghdad.”

As the US attack on Iraq started dawning in 2003, Assad flew to Tehran. He met with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to agree on “resisting” Americans in Iraq, which was seen as a buffer zone between Syria and Iran.

The content of the letters exchanged between Saddam and Assad was unknown. However, revealing them, while also being acknowledged by Qaisi, aims to highlight parts of the shared history between Syria and Iraq and how it affected the region.



The Perfect Storm That Turbocharged Venezuela’s Twin Quakes

A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
TT

The Perfect Storm That Turbocharged Venezuela’s Twin Quakes

A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)

A dangerous cocktail of tectonic positioning, loose earth and shoddy construction contributed to the unprecedented damage caused by Venezuela's twin earthquakes, experts say.

Jennire Garcia's home in the coastal Catia La Mar neighborhood was rendered unlivable by the tremors in late June, which devastated the state of La Guaira.

The 7.2 and 7.5 magnitude quakes killed over 6,300 people and sent 190 buildings crashing down, while 856 more sustained damage.

Garcia and her family are now living in tents next to the ruins, and the 42-year-old says she is "sick with stress all day long."

This was the same site as deadly mudslides that killed thousands of people in 1999.

The region's "unconsolidated" soils, where construction requires specific geotechnical studies, added to the severity of the damage, according to engineer Feliciano De Santis.

"These soils generally tend to be loose soils" and caused the ground to move with even greater intensity, said De Santis, who is president of the Venezuelan Geologists Society.

Garcia's residential complex, which was declared uninhabitable, was built after the landslide.

Deep cracks run through its yellow walls, several balconies have dislodged from the building and some high-rises have crumbled altogether.

- 'So anxious' -

Rescuers across the quake zone have not abandoned the search for victims under the rubble, and are working through the debris of buildings up to 12 stories high.

The last adjustment made to earthquake regulations for buildings was in 2019, and before that, in 1967 when a horrific 6.6 magnitude tremor struck the country.

A closer look at La Guaira's infrastructure reveals significant construction flaws, said Japanese engineer Kit Miyamoto, who is touring the state with support from Washington.

For instance, large quantities of steel "seems like it's really good," he told AFP.

"But once you get down to look at how actually the rebar (steel reinforcement) is connected to the foundation, it's not much," the engineer added.

In the early 2010s, the government of late leader Hugo Chavez built 43 flagship social housing high-rise buildings.

The quakes flattened 16 of them, crushing hundreds of residents underneath.

A recent investigation by Armando.info revealed that "contracts awarded at discretion to companies whose experience was unknown" fueled the damage.

In Caracas' worst-hit neighborhood Chacao, 68 people died while three buildings collapsed and dozens more are uninhabitable.

Most of these buildings were constructed before the 1967 earthquake, Venezuela's Engineering Order said.

"Some had been reinforced," said organization representative and engineer Felix Ojeda, adding that rubble samples taken on site can provide clues about the state of the infrastructure.

"The obvious next step," said Miyamoto, "is to take down the buildings," adding that retrofitting and strengthening buildings was also important to do as much as possible.

Public fury about the government's slow response to the quakes is widespread.

Interim leader Delcy Rodriguez -- who effectively governs under Washington's thumb since her predecessor Nicolas Maduro's ouster -- has promised to deliver around 4,000 housing units this year.

Back in Catia La Mar, Garcia pines for her former home.

"It makes me sad because I see it there every day. I think about the comforts I had and that I can't have here," she said.

"We are so anxious," she said, "waiting for an answer, and we don't have one."


China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)

China's test of a nuclear-capable missile last month has exposed the limits of Pacific leaders' ambition to make the region an "Ocean of Peace", free from the crossfire of major-power rivalry.

The July launch, China's first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, was fired into the Pacific just hours after Fiji and Australia signed a major defense treaty, marking Fiji's first ever alliance.

More than a month after the test, Pacific Islands foreign ministers were unable to agree on a collective statement condemning Beijing's missile test, despite individual leaders expressing alarm, publicly and privately, about militarization of the region.

The test was "totally inappropriate", Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko told Reuters on the sidelines of the foreign ministers' meeting in Suva last week.

"China is a very close friend and ally to Papua New Guinea, but we feel this doesn't help at all," he said, adding that Beijing had given PNG advance notice of the launch but no details on where ‌the missile would ‌land.

At the time of the launch, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said it was ‌conducted "safely", ⁠adding: "We hope relevant ⁠countries will not over-interpret the matter."

The missile launch capped a year of more visible military activity across the Pacific, which is fiercely contested between the US and China for influence. That has included Chinese naval deployments and live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea, US-allied exercises around Guam and Hawaii, and a steady flow of warship visits linked to expanding security partnerships.

The United States, meanwhile, retains a substantial military presence across the region, including in Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands.

Tuvalu permanent foreign secretary Pasuna Tuaga, who was speaking in a personal capacity, was concerned about growing militarization, not only because of the missile test but also security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, ⁠Britain and the United States.

UNITED, BUT DIVIDED

In September 2025, Pacific Leaders endorsed the Ocean ‌of Peace Declaration, which committed to safeguard the region, recognized the right of the ‌people to peace, and resolved to contribute to and strengthen international peace and security.

David Peebles of the Australian National University's Pacific Security College said ‌Pacific countries had long resisted having peace and security defined by outside powers and their competing Indo-Pacific strategies. The Ocean ‌of Peace initiative was an attempt to reclaim that agenda, he said.

The regional declaration inspired the defense pact signed between Australia and Fiji last month, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance.

Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not immediately respond to a request for comment on concerns that the growing number of regional security pacts could further militarize the Pacific.

For many governments, security partnerships bring benefits: surveillance against illegal fishing, ‌disaster response, policing support and access to equipment and training. But critics fear a proliferation of bilateral arrangements could leave Pacific countries with little say over how their territory, waters and infrastructure ⁠are used.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister ⁠Rick Houenipwela, who chaired the talks in Suva, said the region's agenda must remain "conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific."

Yet by the end of the one-day meeting, no unified statement in response to the missile test had emerged.

Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened ties with Beijing since switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan in 2019 and 2024 respectively, did not support the statement's wording, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters blamed foreign influence for the failure to reach consensus, without naming a country.

The impasse illustrates the central challenge facing these small island nations which have different economic, political and security interests.

In the northern Pacific, where the US has maintained a military presence for decades, some governments want deeper security engagement with the US while others remain wary.

Fiji Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka said Pacific governments faced an unavoidable tension.

Countries wanted "to be free of all these war-making paraphernalia," he said, but also recognized that some security capabilities helped keep them safe. "I believe it's maintaining that balance."

Fiji for the first time participated last month in US-led war games in the Pacific known as RIMPAC.

Pacific leaders will meet in Palau in three weeks for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting, where the missile test and regional unity are expected to return to the agenda.


One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
TT

One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

In the year since Donald Trump hosted Vladimir Putin on US soil for a summit designed to broker an end to Russia's offensive on Ukraine, the diplomatic initiative has fizzled out and the conflict has escalated.

For months, Russian officials talked up the "spirit of Anchorage" -- a supposed climate of detente, renewed dialogue with Washington and a framework for finding a way out of the deadliest European conflict since World War II, said AFP.

Now there are few traces of that atmosphere. US mediation efforts are at a standstill, both Russia and Ukraine are ramping up attacks and more civilians are being killed than at any point since the first months of the war.

- 'Ending the war'-

On August 15, 2025, Trump broke with the West's policy of isolating Putin, rolling out the red carpet as the Kremlin chief stepped off his plane at the Elmendorf-Richardson air base in Alaska.

It remains unclear what was decided or discussed behind closed doors.

Russia has always maintained some kind of understanding on a peace deal was struck -- "a compromise proposal", as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called it.

Washington has rebuffed any talk of a deal being reached.

"There was a proposal in Alaska, but there was no agreement. If there had been an agreement, we would have had an end of the war," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in June.

Moscow had hoped the summit would lay the foundations for a "lasting peace" by addressing what it calls the "root causes" of the conflict, said political analyst Sergei Markov -- designated a "foreign agent" but still close to the Russian authorities.

For years -- including right before launching its offensive in February 2022 -- Russia has called for a new overarching security deal with the United States over Europe, NATO and arms control.

The "compromise" Russia tabled in Alaska, Markov told AFP, was to limit its territorial claims on Ukraine to the eastern Donbas region in exchange for recognition of Russia's new borders by Washington and the lifting of sanctions.

- Disenchantment -

Those Russian demands were included in a 28-point document drafted by the United States -- later cut down to 19 -- after separate negotiations with Kyiv and Moscow.

The document was never published officially and never came to fruition.

US-brokered direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in early 2026 broke down, chiefly over the issue of territory.

Ukraine refuses to cede land it still controls and wants an immediate ceasefire along the current front line, with territorial status to be decided during fuller peace talks.

And since late February, Washington's attention has been consumed by the war on Iran.

Trump has since issued fresh sanctions on Russia and the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement -- New Start -- has been allowed to lapse.

Having once sensed a window of opportunity to press its demands and been at pains to praise Trump's efforts, Russia has lately allowed itself to publicly question Washington's commitment to diplomacy.

"I don't even want to imagine that Alaska ... was conceived to gain time in order to strengthen Ukraine militarily," Lavrov said in June.

A meeting between Lavrov and Rubio in Manila in July -- their first since September 2025 -- lasted only around 30 minutes.

"We'll have to find new suggestions and new ideas" that both "Russia and Ukraine can agree to," Rubio said after that meeting.

"That's going to require a lot of work," he added.

- Escalation -

The two sides' conditions for peace are irreconcilable.

Russia demands territory alongside political and military concessions that Ukraine rejects as capitulation.

At the same time, both are convinced force can improve their negotiating position.

"The Russian armed forces will continue their mission to liberate the Donbas and Novorossiya in line with the approved plan," Russia's army chief Valery Gerasimov told Putin in a televised meeting in early July -- referring to land stretching across eastern and southern Ukraine.

Buoyed by European support, Kyiv is banking on its long-range strike campaign to tip Russia's economy and society over the edge.

Its attacks triggered a nationwide fuel crisis over the summer, and have forced Moscow-installed authorities to put the annexed Crimean peninsula under a local "state of emergency".

Russia has upped its missile attacks on Kyiv, killing dozens there in recent weeks.

It has also brought Ukrainian exports through the Black Sea to a standstill through a campaign of port and ship strikes.

"The spirit of Anchorage has dissipated," said Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov -- close to the ruling elite -- in August.

The result? "Brutal escalation."