The Consequences of ‘Normalization’ with Damascus

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives the UAE Foreign Minister (SANA)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives the UAE Foreign Minister (SANA)
TT

The Consequences of ‘Normalization’ with Damascus

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives the UAE Foreign Minister (SANA)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives the UAE Foreign Minister (SANA)

Key Arab countries are expected to take more steps towards the normalization of ties with Syria before re-admitting Damascus into the Arab League by a more significant political initiative next spring when the regional organization holds its scheduled summit in Algeria.

Attention is now directed towards the parties conducting the next steps in normalizing ties with Damascus.

This comes after the visit of UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed to Damascus and his meeting with President Bashar al-Assad last week, Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad meeting with a number of his counterparts in New York two months ago, and the head of Syria’s main spy agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, Maj. Gen. Hossam Louka, participating at an intelligence forum in Cairo a few days ago.

In the past few days, a series of public and non-public meetings were held between Arab and foreign officials to discuss the Syrian crisis and to coordinate between the involved parties “so that normalization would not come for free.”

Several ideas were put on the table of main Arab countries.

As for these states, they have taken the “first step” with Damascus, and therefore are waiting for “reciprocal steps” on Syria’s part before the normalization train goes to its next stations.

Individual or collective Arab expectations relate to three levels:

The first level pertains to Syrian files, such as Damascus positively handling the political process and the meetings of the Constitutional Committee.

The seventh round of Committee meetings led by Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen is currently under consideration by the UN to be held on December 13. Talks will tackle the return of refugees, detainees, and displaced persons, and finally the implementation of Resolution 2254.

The second level revolves around geopolitical expectations regarding the Iranian presence in Syria, the Turkish incursion into its north, and the possibilities of opening channels between Tel Aviv and Damascus.

Demands are no longer focused on removing Iran completely from Syria.

Rather, expectations revolve around mitigating, redefining, or dissolving the Iranian role, in addition to lowering Syria’s provision of logistical-military-training support to Iran in other files related to Arab countries.

As for the third level, it concerns Damascus’ cooperation in the areas of combating terrorism and crime, controlling the borders with Jordan, and stopping drug smuggling to Arab countries, whether from Jordan’s borders or from Syrian and Lebanese ports.

It also concerns not having more refugees pouring into neighboring countries.

Washington has not prevented Arab countries from normalizing ties with Damascus. Instead, the US is asking these countries to obtain internal or geopolitical “Syrian concessions” while reminding them of sanctions under the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act.

Washington, at the same time, informed European countries of the need to maintain the “three no’s”: No to financing the reconstruction of Syria, no to breaking isolation, and no to lifting sanctions before achieving progress in the political process according to UNSC resolution 2254.

Indeed, countries are still committed to their positions and have sanctioned new Syrian ministers.

However, a number of European countries began to ask questions about the future of European policies towards Syria, which are confused between three directions: the urgency of Arab countries to normalize ties with Damascus, and the great doubts, especially from France and Germany, about the feasibility of engaging with Russia, which increases pressure on Europe with the “weapon of refugees” in Belarus, and American advice about the need to commit to traditional policy with Syria.

Doses of Arab normalization renewed the call for the need of reaching an international-Arab formula for a “step-for-step” approach that defines what is required of Damascus and the incentives offered to it, but a collective understanding on this has not yet emerged.



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

Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
TT

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

Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
Jamal Mustafa Sultan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saddam’s respect for Qassim

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

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

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

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

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

Abdul Karim Qassim. (Getty Images)

Mustafa's reflection on Saddam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Returning to Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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