Barzani to Asharq Al-Awsat: At Secret Meeting, Americans Informed us of Decision to Oust Saddam

Masoud Barzani during his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat Editor-in-Chief, Ghassan Charbel.
Masoud Barzani during his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat Editor-in-Chief, Ghassan Charbel.
TT

Barzani to Asharq Al-Awsat: At Secret Meeting, Americans Informed us of Decision to Oust Saddam

Masoud Barzani during his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat Editor-in-Chief, Ghassan Charbel.
Masoud Barzani during his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat Editor-in-Chief, Ghassan Charbel.

Saddam Hussein’s shadow often looms large over my meetings with Masoud Barzani. My career has allowed me to follow the thrilling and painful tales of both these officials. Both have an iron will and lived on a hot tin plate called Iraq.

Saddam believed that the spirit of the nation tasked him with the mission of reclaiming Iraq’s former glory. Barzani believed that fate had chosen him to act as the guardian of the Kurdish dream. Saddam was the boldest Iraqi leader in dealing with the demands of the Kurds. He was also the cruelest in leaving their country in tatters. Barzani, however, remained steadfast and undeterred in maintaining the approach taken by his father, historic Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani.

Neither Saddam nor Masoud Barzani would succeed in taking the other out. Their relationship over the years would witness several strained handshakes and painful blows. However, two decades ago, destiny would determine the fate of the relationship when the American empire invaded Iraq.

Saddam was shown the gallows while Masoud Barzani would become president of Iraqi Kurdistan that would be ruled under the Iraqi and Kurdish flags. He succeeded in achieving the dream that the Kurds in Türkiye, Iran and Syria failed in achieving.

The current century began with an Iraq that appeared headed towards a long period of stability. The Kurds in the north continued to benefit from the no-fly zone, while in Baghdad, Saddam’s regime remained firmly in control, manipulating international inspectors and the conditions of the Oil-for-Food Program. His atrocities while quelling the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings after he was forced to withdraw from Kuwait remained heavily present in memory.

The opposition retained its dream of overthrowing the regime, but it appeared out of reach. It could defeat Saddam’s military machine alone. American air power was not for hire to provide Iraqi factions with cover to advance their international and regional agendas. A shocking development was needed to change calculations and equations. It would soon happen.

Planes and towers

The date September 11 is significant for the Kurds. On that day in 1961, Mustafa Barzani launched the Kurdish uprising whose embers would remain aflame until they were put out in 1970 through an agreement with the Baath party.

On September 11, 2001, Masoud and his son Masrour were in Iraq's Duhok city. They saw on television a plane flew into one of the World Trade Center towers. For a moment he thought the channel was airing a scene from a movie. Then he saw another plane fly into the second building. Breaking news then flooded in about a very major dangerous development taking place in the United States. It was unheard of that any country would attack the world’s lone superpower on its own soil.

It was difficult to predict that Saddam’s regime would end up paying the price dearly when it was revealed that the al-Qaeda organization was behind the attack. It was difficult to image that the regime and al-Qaeda were associated with each other. Each one followed contradictory agendas even though they were bound by their hatred of the US or at least made statements against it.

The leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party believed that a new phase had been opened, but its dangerous features had not yet emerged. He mended ties with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, headed by Jalal Talabani, and dispatched envoys to Türkiye, Syria and Iran to determine their reading of the potential impact of the attacks on New York and Washington.

Wounded America was boiling. The world was trying to guess where it would vent its anger and 2002 would bring signs that Masoud believed would help him predict what was to come. On January 30, US President George W. Bush would name Iraq in the Axis of Evil along with Iran and North Korea. Later that month, US Secretary of State Colin Powell would speak of the need to change the regime in Iraq and that the US would go about the mission alone if it had to. It wouldn’t take long for British Prime Minister Tony Blair to support the American position.

Decisive secret meeting

On February 17, 2002, Masoud welcomed a delegation from the CIA. The delegation spoke of how “America has decided to remove the Saddam regime”, “the attack would take place on several fronts” and that the “Kurdistan Region had a major role to play in our calculations.” The Kurds were invited to visit Washington.

Masoud informed the delegation that the Kurds would “support any operation that would lead to the establishment of a pluralistic federal democratic Iraq.” He recalled to Asharq Al-Awsat that he also demanded guarantees from the US that the Kurds would be protected and that Washington inform Iraq’s neighbors that the Kurds would not pose a threat.

On April 1, Masoud received a US Department of State delegation that reiterated Washington’s position for the ouster of the regime. On April 15, Masoud, his son Masrour, and leading member of his party and future foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari headed to the US. They would be joined by Talabani, his son Bafel, and leading member from his party and future Iraqi president Barham Salih.

The meeting in Virginia was attended by officials from the CIA and State Department. The Americans spoke firmly that the decision to oust Saddam had been taken and there can be no going back from it. They stressed that the Kurds were to receive their “full rights” and that Washington had approved the establishment of a federal Iraq. They added that Washington “would not allow any foreign meddling” and hoped that the Kurds would play a part in bringing together the Iraqi opposition.

The Americans were firm and decisive and the Kurdish response was the same. “As long as America has taken its final decision about the ouster of the regime, then we will do our best to make sure it happens,” they said. “As long as the alternative is a democracy and will allow the rise of a federal Kurdistan, then we will do everything we can.”

The Kurdish delegation departed Washington for Paris. French officials were convinced that the US had taken the final decision to oust Saddam. They, therefore, asked the Kurds about the alterative. Masoud stressed that the alternative would be agreed upon by the Iraqi opposition and that the new regime would be democratic and federal.

The delegation then headed to Damascus where the regime was informed of the American plan. The regime was “very pleased,” recalled Barzani, who assured the Syrians that Iraq would not be divided and that foreign meddling would not be allowed. The Syrian vice president was convinced that the US would not intervene militarily in Iraq and was ready to bet on it, added Barzani.

US criticizes Turkish ‘blackmail’

On July 21, an American delegation of experts landed in Erbil. Discussions revealed that Türkiye was concerned that the ouster of the Saddam regime would lead to the establishment of a Kurdish state. An American official said Türkiye was “blackmailing the US and demanding hefty sums of money.” He stressed that Türkiye would not be allowed to meddle “in any way, shape or form in Kurdistan’s affairs.”

Türkiye would continue to pose an obstacle as the countdown for the invasion wound down.

Later that month, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would declare that the invasion of Iraq must be launched from the south and north. Iran, meanwhile, was observing the developments. It had a long, torrid hateful history with the ruler of Baghdad. It was difficult for it to openly declare support for the American invasion, whose repercussions were unpredictable. It also believed that the removal of Saddam would remove an obstacle for it in Iraq and the region.

Iran ultimately allowed its loyalist Iraqi factions to take part in the meetings of the Iraqi opposition that preceded the war. It took the decision to facilitate the process of the ouster of the Saddam regime, while also taking another decision to destabilize the American military presence in Iraq and prevent the rise of a stable and pro-western system in Baghdad.

Damascus appeared to have supported Tehran’s position. General Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, would be tasked with the mission to exhaust the American army, which would be surrounding Iran from Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US resorted to various justifications for its invasion. It claimed that the Baath party had ties with al-Qaeda, that it possessed weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons. Masoud adamantly stressed that his party did not provide any support to these claims.

As the war drew near, Türkiye’s concerns grew deeper. Commander of the United States Central Command, Tommy Franks met with Turkish officials who made a series of demands. They objected to the establishment of a Kurdish state and to Kurds seizing control of Kirkuk and Mosul. They stressed that Türkiye should have a say in the shape of the new system of rule in Iraq and objected to the Kurds being part of the process of overthrowing the Saddam regime.

The Kurds were informed that Türkiye’s involvement in the coalition that would oust Saddam was essential and important. The Americans were planning on attacking from the south and north, meaning Turkish territories. The Kurds rejected any form of regional involvement, whether from Iran or Türkiye.

Ultimately, the US did not yield to the Turkish demands and Türkiye did not allow the American forces to advance from its territories.

On the night of March 19, 2003, the war erupted, changing Iraq and the regional balances.

No international front was powerful enough to deter the Americans. Russian President Vladimir Putin was preoccupied in fortifying his country and China was still in the process of becoming the world’s second largest economy.

The fiercest objection came from French President Jacques Chirac, who warned Bush during a NATO summit in Prague that the war would destabilize the region and among its consequences would be the arrival of Tehran loyalists to power in Baghdad and consolidate Iran’s power in Damascus and Lebanon.

Attention turned to Iran to sense its position from the war. It facilitated the ouster of Saddam but at the same time, tasked Soleimani with preparing plans to destabilize the American military presence in Iraq. Masoud told Asharq Al-Awat that American officials later complained to him about Iran’s malign role, but they never spoke of targeting it or Syria, whom they accused of opening the borer to extremists to fight US forces in Iraq.

Iran would later send more messages. In 2007, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in occupied Baghdad to remind everyone that Iran is part of Iraq’s geographic destiny and that it would remain its neighbor after the American withdrawal.

Saddam’s end

Masoud never attempted to visit Saddam in prison. He never attended his trials. “Gloating is not a sign of a man,” he said. Along with the rest of the world, he watched as Saddam’s statues were toppled.

He was pleased with the overthrow of his enemy but feared that Iraq would drown in bloody vendettas, and they are many. He feared the eruption of a conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, and Arabs and Kurds. He feared that regional powers would turn Iraq into an arena to pursue old and new dreams. The developments would justify his fears and Baghdad would wallow for years in bloodshed.

Saddam probably never imagined that he would end up paying the price for what Osama bin Laden did in New York and Washington. He probably imagined that he would be remembered by history with the likes of Salaheddine and Abou Jaafar al-Mansouri, who built Baghdad.



Goldrich to Asharq Al-Awsat: No US Withdrawal from Syria

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
TT

Goldrich to Asharq Al-Awsat: No US Withdrawal from Syria

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich has told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US does not plan to withdraw its forces from Syria.

The US is committed to “the partnership that we have with the local forces that we work with,” he said.

Here is the full text of the interview.

Question: Mr. Goldrich, thank you so much for taking the time to sit with us today. I know you are leaving your post soon. How do you assess the accomplishments and challenges remaining?

Answer: Thank you very much for the chance to talk with you today. I've been in this position for three years, and so at the end of three years, I can see that there's a lot that we accomplished and a lot that we have left to do. But at the beginning of a time I was here, we had just completed a review of our Syria policy, and we saw that we needed to focus on reducing suffering for the people in Syria. We needed to reduce violence. We needed to hold the regime accountable for things that are done and most importantly, from the US perspective, we needed to keep ISIS from reemerging as a threat to our country and to other countries. At the same time, we also realized that there wouldn't be a solution to the crisis until there was a political process under resolution 2254, so in each of these areas, we've seen both progress and challenges, but of course, on ISIS, we have prevented the reemergence of the threat from northeast Syria, and we've helped deal with people that needed to be repatriated out of the prisons, and we dealt with displaced people in al-Hol to reduce the numbers there. We helped provide for stabilization in those parts of Syria.

Question: I want to talk a little bit about the ISIS situation now that the US troops are still there, do you envision a timeline where they will be withdrawn? Because there were some reports in the press that there is a plan from the Biden administration to withdraw.

Answer: Yeah. So right now, our focus is on the mission that we have there to keep ISIS from reemerging. So I know there have been reports, but I want to make clear that we remain committed to the role that we play in that part of Syria, to the partnership that we have with the local forces that we work with, and to the need to prevent that threat from reemerging.

Question: So you can assure people who are saying that you might withdraw, that you are remaining for the time being?

Answer: Yes, and that we remain committed to this mission which needs to continue to be pursued.

Question: You also mentioned the importance of humanitarian aid. The US has been leading on this. Are you satisfied with where you are today on the humanitarian front in Syria?

Answer: We remain committed to the role that we play to provide for humanitarian assistance in Syria. Of the money that was pledged in Brussels, we pledged $593 million just this past spring, and we overall, since the beginning of the conflict, have provided $18 billion both to help the Syrians who are inside of Syria and to help the refugees who are in surrounding countries. And so we remain committed to providing that assistance, and we remain keenly aware that 90% of Syrians are living in poverty right now, and that there's been suffering there. We're doing everything we can to reduce the suffering, but I think where we would really like to be is where there's a larger solution to the whole crisis, so Syrian people someday will be able to provide again for themselves and not need this assistance.

Question: And that's a perfect key to my next question. Solution in Syria. you are aware that the countries in the region are opening up to Assad again, and you also have the EU signaling overture to the Syrian regime and Assad. How do you deal with that?

Answer: For the United States, our policy continues to be that we will not normalize with the regime in Syria until there's been authentic and enduring progress on the goals of resolution 2254, until the human rights of the Syrian people are respected and until they have the civil and human rights that they deserve. We know other countries have engaged with the regime. When those engagements happen, we don't support them, but we remind the countries that are engaged that they should be using their engagements to push forward on the shared international goals under 2254, and that whatever it is that they're doing should be for the sake of improving the situation of the Syrian people.

Question: Let's say that all of the countries decided to talk to Assad, aren’t you worried that the US will be alienated in the process?

Answer: The US will remain true to our own principles and our own policies and our own laws, and the path for the regime in Syria to change its relationship with us is very clear, if they change the behaviors that led to the laws that we have and to the policies that we have, if those behaviors change and the circumstances inside of Syria change, then it's possible to have a different kind of relationship, but that's where it has to start.

Question: My last question to you before you leave, if you have to pick one thing that you need to do in Syria today, what is it that you would like to see happening today?

Answer: So there are a number of things, I think that will always be left and that there are things that we will try to do, to try to make them happen. We want to hold people accountable in Syria for things that have happened. So even today, we observed something called the International Day for victims of enforced disappearances, there are people that are missing, and we're trying to draw attention to the need to account for the missing people. So our step today was to sanction a number of officials who were responsible for enforced disappearances, but we also created something called the independent institution for missing persons, and that helps the families, in the non-political way, get information on what's happened. So I'd like to see some peace for the families of the missing people. I'd like to see the beginning of a political process, there hasn't been a meeting of the constitutional committee in two years, and I think that's because the regime has not been cooperating in political process steps. So we need to change that situation. And I would, of course, like it's important to see the continuation of the things that we were talking about, so keeping ISIS from reemerging and maintaining assistance as necessary in the humanitarian sphere. So all these things, some of them are ongoing, and some of them remain to be achieved. But the Syrian people deserve all aspects of our policy to be fulfilled and for them to be able to return to a normal life.