عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Syrian War Brought Together Putin, Khamenei, Will 'Normalization' Pull them Apart?

Syrians wave the national, Iranian and Russian flags in Damascus in April 2019. (AP)
Syrians wave the national, Iranian and Russian flags in Damascus in April 2019. (AP)
TT
TT

Syrian War Brought Together Putin, Khamenei, Will 'Normalization' Pull them Apart?

Syrians wave the national, Iranian and Russian flags in Damascus in April 2019. (AP)
Syrians wave the national, Iranian and Russian flags in Damascus in April 2019. (AP)

One of the main drivers of the initiatives, raids and pressure on Syria is the Iranian presence there and questions about the future of its military entrenchment there.

Iran is largely present, both directly and indirectly, in the recent contacts and disclosed and undisclosed meetings that have been held with Damascus and Syrian president Bashar Assad.

Damascus and Tehran have formed a "strategic relationship" since Iran's 1979 revolution and it has developed even further in wake of the eruption of the conflict in Syria in 2011. Iran's intervention in the war has helped keep the regime alive before Russia's military intervention in 2015 swooped in to play the role of "savior and victor".

Iran has sought to entrench itself further in the Middle East through the Syrian "gate" in order to protect its "backyard" in Iraq, link Baghdad to Beirut through Damascus and establish an opening to the Mediterranean. It also sought to establish a foothold that would put Israel within the range of its weapons.

The United States sought to confront Iran's entrenchment by establishing its own military presence in northeastern Syria and in the al-Tanf military base, to block the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut route.

Iran responded to that move by opening an alternate land route between Tehran, Damascus and Beirut through the Alboukamal and Deir Ezzor regions in Syria.

Israel, meanwhile, set its own red lines against Iran's entrenchment and delivery of sophisticated and advanced weapons to its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Turkey, which is also involved militarily in Syria, has sought to confront Iran's presence south of its border. It did so by coexisting with it in line with the 2017 Astana process that Moscow was also party to.

The Astana process, with Ankara, Tehran and Moscow, led to understandings between the parties over the division of influence in Syria against the other main foreign parties involved in Syria, namely the US and Israel.

Some Arab countries, meanwhile, had banked on Russia in reining in Iran's influence, while others had turned to Washington when Donald Trump was still in the White House. Western countries have in the meantime insisted that all foreign forces, except Russia's, withdraw from Syria as a condition to normalizing ties with Damascus or helping in reconstructing the war-torn country.

The calculations have all changed now give the changes in Syria and the region and the arrival of Joe Biden to the White House.

Biden has adopted a different approach than Trump and like Barack Obama, has pitted high hopes on the nuclear negotiations with Iran in Vienna. When Tehran tests the waters by attacking the al-Tanf base or stokes tensions in the Gulf waters, Washington weighs its response by assessing how much its retaliation may impact the negotiations.

As it stands, the room for confrontation is now limited between two options: the first is engaging Assad and ending Damascus' isolation with the hope of easing Iran's influence. The purpose would not be to immediately shift Syria from the "resistance alliance", led by Iran, to the "moderate camp". Rather, the aim is for Damascus to be open between the two camps because this is the realistic option and because some Arab countries have signed normalization deals with Israel and left the door open for dialogue with Iran.

Some Arab countries have indeed forged ahead with normalization based on this assumption, while others believe the conditions are not ripe yet. They are instead demanding that Damascus take "tangible steps" and begin reining in Iran in Syria and the region.

The second option lies in banking on the leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his ability to rein in Iran. This option stems from the position that the war had brought together Putin and Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei in Syria, but peace and normalization will pull them apart. Iran wants to support the militias, establish a regime that is subordinate to it and divide Syria. Russia, on the other hand, wants to strengthen the Syrian army and preserve the unity of the state. In other words, it supports the "Russian Syria" against the "Iranian Syria".

Israel also figures in the picture. It wants to receive logistic and intelligence support from the US as it raids Iranian positions in Syria. It wants to sever the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut route. It is also hoping that its normalization of relations with Arab countries would open Damascus' eyes to other opportunities that would end its isolation. It is also relying on its military strikes on Syria and military understandings with Russia.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had struck a deep understanding with Putin that prioritizes Israel's security. This understanding had also received the blessing of Trump and his team. This allowed Israel free reign in striking Iran in Syria to prevent its entrenchment.

Netanyahu's successor, Naftali Bennett, met with Putin in Sochi on October 22 and largely received the same reassurances over Syria that his predecessor did. He appeared to have received approval to expand attacks on Iranian targets as evidences in strikes on the outskirts of Damascus and the intensification of raids, whether from Lebanese airspace or from above the al-Tanf base of occupied Golan Heights.

The nuclear negotiations are significant for the fate of Syria and Iran's presence there. One must monitor the course of Israeli strikes on Syria and the various diplomatic visits to Damascus to determine just how much Iran will remain entrenched there or not.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

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

Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
Jamal Mustafa Sultan.
TT
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.”