Ilham Ahmed to Asharq Al-Awsat: Giving Legitimacy to Syrian Regime Will Not Yield Political Solution

A general view shows a damaged mosque in the aftermath of a deadly earthquake, in opposition-held al-Maland village, in Idlib province, Syria February 24, 2023. (Reuters)
A general view shows a damaged mosque in the aftermath of a deadly earthquake, in opposition-held al-Maland village, in Idlib province, Syria February 24, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

Ilham Ahmed to Asharq Al-Awsat: Giving Legitimacy to Syrian Regime Will Not Yield Political Solution

A general view shows a damaged mosque in the aftermath of a deadly earthquake, in opposition-held al-Maland village, in Idlib province, Syria February 24, 2023. (Reuters)
A general view shows a damaged mosque in the aftermath of a deadly earthquake, in opposition-held al-Maland village, in Idlib province, Syria February 24, 2023. (Reuters)

Head of the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) Ilham Ahmed said cooperating with the Damascus regime “unconditionally” will only grant it some form of legitimacy and will not lead to a political solution to the Syrian conflict.

Her remarks reflect the SDC’s opposition to Arab and regional efforts to normalize ties with the regime, most notably in wake of the disaster caused by the devastating earthquake that struck Syria and neighboring Türkiye on February 6.

The SDC is the political arm of the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that controls northeastern Syria.

In an interview to Asharq Al-Awsat, Ahmed revealed that American officials assured the Kurds that the recent sanctions waivers on Syria do not go against the Ceasar Act. The sanctions were eased to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the victims of the earthquake.

Asked about her position about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's recent trip to Oman, his second in a decade since the eruption of the Syrian conflict, she replied: “I don’t believe such visits will lead to a political solution in Syria.”

She explained that the unconditional approach to the regime will only grant it legitimacy and not yield political solutions.

“The regime has not changed a fraction of its policies,” she stressed. “These visits will not serve the Syrian people.”

“The delivery of international and Arab humanitarian aid should be monitored by international observers and distributed fairly to all citizens who were affected by the earthquake no matter where they are,” she urged.

The SDC has held a number of official meetings with Arab figures. Ahmed said the SDC underscored to the officials “the need to present an Arab project to resolve the Syrian crisis, for Türkiye to pull out from northwestern Syria and for Iran to cease its flagrant military interference.”

“We also urged the Arab League to draft a roadmap for a political solution and play its role in putting a stop to the war, ending the suffering of the people and resolving pending disputes between the Syrians themselves,” she stated.

Türkiye has meanwhile expressed its willingness to normalize relations with Damascus. Turkish officials have held official meetings with regime figures to that end. “How do you assess the role of the opposition Syrian coalition towards these meetings?” asked Asharq Al-Awsat.

“Unfortunately, the coalition statements have always supported Türkiye, including its stance on normalization,” replied Ahmed. However, she noted the opposition of the people in regions held by the pro-Ankara factions that had staged protests to express their rejection of normalization between the regime and Türkiye.

“This was a message to the forces that control these areas. Our hand is extended to hold dialogue with the parties that staged these protests,” she added.

On the United States’ easing of sanctions on the regime to facilitate aid delivery after the earthquake, Ahmed revealed that the SDC had contacted American envoys present in northeastern Syria. They were assured that these waivers had humanitarian aims and did not violate the Ceasar Act.

Turning to Russia’s role in mediating between the Kurds and Damascus, Ahmed said these efforts have not yielded results as everyone knows that the Russians support the regime.

Moscow, she explained, supports a political solution that “tightens the grip of the regime on all of Syrian territories.”

“We did not sense any neutral position from the Russians towards the conflict during our meetings with them.” They are more aligned to the regime, which contradicts with their role of mediator, she stated. “This was the main reason why we could not reach the desired result with them.”

Asked if the regime has changed any of its behavior in wake of these efforts, Ahmed responded: “The ruling regime has not changed its stance, not on the humanitarian or political levels.”

“It has not shown any flexibility towards the Syrians who are at odds with it. It rejected channels of communication to address the aftermath of the earthquake and ensuing humanitarian catastrophe,” she noted.

“All Syrians, the regime and opposition alike, must handle this catastrophe from the humanitarian angle alone. They must set aside political disputes,” she demanded.

“Any Syrian, who sincerely has their country’s interests at heart, can set aside political disputes and move towards the comprehensive solution,” she said. “The regime’s exploitation of this humanitarian disaster to strengthen its position at the expense of the pain of the Syrian people is a catastrophe in itself.”

Asked if the earthquake may lead to change in Syria, Ahmed noted that several examples throughout history have shown that natural disasters lead to shifts in ruling regimes, the formation of national governments and a change in policies.

“This has not happened in Syria. I see no positive indications that the situation will change in this divided country, given the ongoing disputes between the warring parties and regional and international agendas that have imposed themselves on the country,” lamented Ahmed.

“They are the main obstacle in unifying the Syrian vision,” she stated. “Moreover, the rejection of aid provided by the Kurdish autonomous administration and its political council is the greatest evidence that the situation in this country will not change.”

She accused the regime of politicizing the earthquake disaster and “imposing itself on the international community as the point through which humanitarian aid can be delivered.” The regime has effectively “monopolized” how the aid is delivered. These are all signs of its weakness.

She revealed that the United Nations has sent aid to regime-held regions, but they ended up stuck in Damascus for days. Furthermore, the regime took a week to declare that the cities of Jabla and Aleppo were disaster zones, when the people there were pleading for aid.

The international community dealt with the regime as if it were the only legitimate authority and side responsible for the Syrians. This was the greatest error committed by the international community and UN agencies during the quake disaster, said Ahmed.



Fakhri Karim: My Complaint to Sistani on Corruption Spurred Suggestion of Saddam-Era Minister

Fakhri Karim, senior adviser to late Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Fakhri Karim, senior adviser to late Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Fakhri Karim: My Complaint to Sistani on Corruption Spurred Suggestion of Saddam-Era Minister

Fakhri Karim, senior adviser to late Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Fakhri Karim, senior adviser to late Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

In post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, the prime minister's office gained significant power. It became customary for the prime minister to be Shiite, the president Kurdish, and the speaker of Parliament Sunni.

This power-sharing arrangement, focusing on sectarian representation over institutional structure, has remained strong.

Attempts to break this norm have failed, including when former US President Barack Obama and his Vice President Joe Biden tried to support Ayad Allawi, a Shiite politician, for the presidency. The aim was to keep Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in power with support from both Washington and Tehran.

Despite Allawi’s parliamentary majority win, he didn’t become president.

Arab states were slow to react to changes in Iraq, allowing Iran to step in. Iran supported the US-created Iraqi Governing Council and sought to bring together Shiite factions to join the political process.

Its influence grew due to its backing of groups that opposed Saddam Hussein. Iran gained a key role in Iraq, effectively having veto power over decisions and a say in forming governments, while also expecting an eventual US military withdrawal.

Fakhri Karim, senior adviser to late Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, said Iran stepped in to fill a vacuum in Iraq, solidifying its role and protecting its interests.

This made Iran’s Quds Force commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani a key figure in Iraq, shaping everything from the reduction of US military presence to the formation of governments.

A foreign power’s influence in a neighboring country grows only if locals accept its role.

Soleimani and deputy leader of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed in a US strike near Baghdad airport in January 2020.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Karim noted that Soleimani “was dedicated to serving his country’s interests, and the other side should have defended its own role and interests.”

He recalled Soleimani as being “skilled, effective, and able to earn trust, shifting from flexibility to rigidity when needed.”

This was clear in a letter Soleimani sent to Talabani when he considered supporting a no-confidence motion against Maliki’s government.

Karim also mentioned that al-Muhandis was deeply trusted by the Iranian general.

Talabani assigned his senior adviser various missions in Iran, focusing on forming Iraqi governments and relations with Kurdistan.

During a visit to Tehran, Adil Abdul Mahdi, who would later become prime minister, informed Talabani and Karim that “Soleimani’s claim that Iran supports Nouri al-Maliki for prime minister is false.”

“I was told that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei supports me,” argued Abdul Mahdi at the time.

Talabani felt awkward despite being close to Abdul Mahdi. He asked Karim to visit Tehran, where he met Soleimani and al-Muhandis. Soleimani denied Abdul Mahdi’s claims, saying he could take Karim to the Supreme Leader to hear the truth.

For his part, Karim said the Supreme Council didn’t support al-Maliki and that influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s stance was hardening. Soleimani assured that the Iranians were in contact with al-Sadr and would handle the issue of the Supreme Council.

When Karim returned, he informed Talabani and Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani that the Badr Organization, led by Hadi al-Amiri, had left the Supreme Council to join Maliki, shifting the balance and allowing the formation of a government without the Council’s interference.

Karim remembered that Iran initially supported Ibrahim al-Jaafari for prime minister (2005-2006). However, Jaafari quickly became a burden on the political process and Shiite leaders then signaled the need for change.

The US Ambassador advised Jaafari to resign, threatening him if he didn't comply.

Maliki’s name wasn’t initially considered; Ali al-Adib from the “Dawa” party, of which Maliki was a member, was the favored choice. But Maliki didn’t support Adib, so after deliberations, the party settled on Maliki instead.

Breakfast with Soleimani

Karim remembers a breakfast meeting with Soleimani and al-Muhandis. He brought up Maliki’s performance during his second term and the widespread corruption in Iraq.

Soleimani suggested discussing it further, but Karim insisted the issue was urgent.

He questioned why, if all major Shiite forces agreed, change couldn’t happen. Soleimani indicated that decisions within the Shiite alliance were made by those who remained in it, prompting Karim to ask if Soleimani was implying it was him. Soleimani then replied : “Think what you wish.”

Sadr’s misstep

In the post-Saddam Hussein era, Sadr emerged as a major political force in Iraq. He led a large popular and armed movement.

Dealing with Sadr was challenging for political factions, especially among Shiites. Some disputes even culminated in armed conflicts. Managing Sadr’s influence was difficult both internally and for external interests, especially given his unpredictability.

When asked about Sadr’s decision to quit politics in 2022, Karim called it a major mistake.

He believed Iraq suffered greatly from this move, as it left parliament without any influential Shiite force capable of standing up against decisions not aligned with common goals.

Karim highlighted that filling seats with losing candidates seemed odd and turned the minority into the majority, undermining the constitutional process. He also noted the Shiite community’s fragmentation, with many Shiites not participating in recent elections due to their disenchantment with the political parties.

Karim warned against underestimating the potential for renewed protests and uprisings among the marginalized against the government and ruling powers.

Sistani’s unexpected proposal

When discussing top Shiite Religious Authority in Iraq, Ali al-Sistani, Karim highlighted his political astuteness, surpassing the majority of other Shiite leaders. Sistani’s Friday sermons, delivered by his representatives, reflect this forward-thinking approach.

Karim noted a key observation about Sistani’s mindset. Despite corruption concerns, Sistani surprised Karim by suggesting bringing back the former Minister of Trade for his effectiveness in managing the ration card distribution.

He even proposed considering a Christian minister if they were honest and prioritized the people’s interests.

Furthermore, Sistani emphasized the importance of inclusivity in the new Iraq, advocating for the rights of Sunni and Kurdish components. He rejected marginalization and insisted on their participation and rights.

Sistani’s fatwa and the PMF

Karim believes that Sistani issued a fatwa on “jihad” to rally people against the significant threat posed by ISIS in 2014. He didn’t specifically mention the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) or any other organization but referred to volunteers.

“Many responded to Sistani’s call and made significant sacrifices alongside the armed forces and Peshmerga. Volunteers participated in liberating areas once occupied by the terror group,” said Karim.

Karim further noted that there was a belief that those who made sacrifices had the right to be part of the armed forces and receive state support.

“The idea of integrating militias or military entities into the armed forces is not new,” explained Karim.

“US diplomat Paul Bremer [the first post-invasion governor of Iraq] proposed something similar to factions and organizations under the banner of integration into the army, and steps were taken in this direction,” he added.

“The goal was to eliminate the threat of ISIS, not to create a parallel army or establish another institution.”