عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

The US and Russia In Syria After the 'Afghan Journey'

US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin - AFP
US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin - AFP
TT
TT

The US and Russia In Syria After the 'Afghan Journey'

US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin - AFP
US President Joe Biden and Russia's President Vladimir Putin - AFP

Moscow and Washington are collecting negotiating cards in Syria - each according to its priorities - in preparation for a new round of dialogue between the two sides, which will be attended by the US National Security Council’s coordinator for the Middle East, Brett McGurk, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin, and Presidential Envoy Alexander Lavrentiev.

The upcoming round of dialogue will be the first after the “Afghan journey”, and will go beyond the previous secret tour that was held in Geneva at the beginning of July, and resulted in a “historic” agreement on a draft resolution for “cross-border” and “cross-lines” humanitarian aid to Syria.

Russia is moving in the south and north of the country, with its eastern and western wings, to present itself as the main negotiator between the warring parties. The Russian strike on the camp of a pro-Turkish Syrian opposition faction in the countryside of Aleppo was not accidental. As usual, Moscow does not threaten to raid, but directly bombs to obtain a compromise. This happened at the beginning of 2020 when a Turkish military base was struck south of Idlib to force Ankara to make concessions ahead of a meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

This was repeated two days ago in the countryside of Afrin. At the beginning of 2018, Moscow allowed Ankara to use the airspace of northern Syria to launch its “Olive Branch” operation in the city of a Kurdish majority.

The recent airstrike in the Afrin countryside was a Russian reminder to Turkey of the need for its consent.

What was the goal this time?

There was an aid convoy waiting to pass “across the lines” from Aleppo to the Idlib countryside, that is, from government-controlled areas to the opposition enclave, and Ankara was slow to provide approval.

After the strike, the convoy could finally pass. Moscow achieved a great political goal, represented by strengthening the trend to provide humanitarian aid “across the lines” in the three areas of influence, i.e. to consolidate and expand the idea of providing aid from Damascus in exchange for reducing dependence on “the Turkish border,” in implementation of the Russian-US understanding.

The Russian delegation had succeeded in obtaining a concession from the Americans in Geneva, by increasing reliance on “cross-line” aid to accept the extension of the international resolution. This is a political goal for Moscow, aimed at “consolidating the recognition of the Syrian government”, and was reflected in the remarks of the UN Under-Secretary-General, Martin Griffiths, when he called for engagement with the Syrian government.

There were other Russian “strikes”. In the south, government forces, specifically the Fourth Division, were “allowed” to attack the last opposition neighborhoods of Daraa. There was a double reminder for Damascus and Daraa: The need for the mediation of the Hmeimim base. After the strike, the Russian police entered what is known as the “cradle of the revolution” in Syria – the starting place of one of the “color revolutions” that Moscow despises. So from this particular area, this revolution must end.

In the broader context, this strike aims to extend the government’s influence and control to reach the Jordanian borders, “restore its legitimacy”, and open economic channels with the Gulf and Jordan.

In the eastern side of the north, the Turkish bombing of the positions of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the allies of the United States, was taking place under the Russian eye.

It is “okay” for Russia to remind the Kurds of the importance of its “satisfaction” with the understandings in the east of the Euphrates between the armies of Washington and Moscow, between the forces of Ankara and Moscow, and with Damascus, which raised its expectations after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

What about the United States?

Syria is not a priority for the Joe Biden administration. But the price this administration paid for its withdrawal from Afghanistan helped it define more precisely its goals in Syria.

In his farewell speech to two decades of intervention in Kabul, Biden said that the era of nation-building or regime change ended in Afghanistan and others, that is, in Syria as well, and that the priority now was to fight terrorism, specifically ISIS.

Thus, the US condemnations of the bombing of northern and southern Syria are nothing more than political statements.

As for the clearest policy, it is the one that the acting US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Joe Hood, brought to Qamishli a few days ago.

“We will not withdraw from northeastern Syria as we did in Afghanistan,” he asserted, knowing that the US presence there is linked to the mission of fighting ISIS in Iraq.

There is a consensus in Washington to continue the fight against ISIS, which parallels the consent to withdraw from Afghanistan. The Biden administration does not want to appear as if it was retreating in the face of Russia and Iran, in addition to the Israeli factor and the pressure exerted by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett during his recent visit to Washington. There are two intertwined factors: Great sympathy for the Kurds in the US, and suspicion over Biden’s position toward Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Biden’s stance is different from that of his predecessor, Donald Trump, who wanted to “give the Kurds to Turkey” at the end of 2019.

Syria is among the top Russian priorities in the Middle East. In fact, Moscow is searching for a “successful model” for its vision of “nation-building” through the triad of centralization - decentralization – sovereignty.

But Syria occupies a different position among America’s priorities, with a focus on fighting ISIS and favoring the Kurds. This may be an entry point for an American-Russian intersection in Syria after the “Afghan disappointment.”

There is no doubt that the upcoming McGurk-Vershinin meeting will witness an evaluation of the results of the “historic humanitarian breakthrough” and the possibility of developing it into political deals and arrangements that serve both parties.

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.