Jomaili to Asharq Al-Awsat: Punishing Gaddafi, Assad… Financial Aid to Chirac, Plot to Kill Danielle Mitterrand

Salem Al-Jomaili, director of the US branch of the intelligence agency under Saddam Hussein (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Salem Al-Jomaili, director of the US branch of the intelligence agency under Saddam Hussein (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Jomaili to Asharq Al-Awsat: Punishing Gaddafi, Assad… Financial Aid to Chirac, Plot to Kill Danielle Mitterrand

Salem Al-Jomaili, director of the US branch of the intelligence agency under Saddam Hussein (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Salem Al-Jomaili, director of the US branch of the intelligence agency under Saddam Hussein (Asharq Al-Awsat)

The lack of camaraderie between Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi stemmed from their distinct personalities, with the latter nurturing a delusion of being the rightful leader of the Arab world.

 

Differences and tensions between the two leaders were exacerbated by Libya’s alliance with Iran during their war with Iraq.

 

Similarly, Saddam’s relationship with Hafez Al-Assad was characterized by animosity, fueled by fierce competition between the Baathist regimes, as well as the countries and capitals they represented. Adding to the tension was Syria’s alignment with Iran.

 

Once Iraq’s war with Iran concluded, Saddam vowed to seek vengeance against both men.

 

Conversely, Saddam Hussein established friendly connections with the late French President Jacques Chirac, even providing financial support for his election campaigns. Similarly, he fostered amicable relations with the late Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Nevertheless, the Iraqi authorities were infuriated by Danielle, the wife of former French President François Mitterrand, and targeted her with an explosive device. Fortunately, she survived by chance.

 

Salem Al-Jomaili, director of the US branch of the intelligence agency under Saddam, reminisced about numerous forgotten events and shared his stories.

 

In the 1970s, Saddam forged a friendly alliance with Chirac, then prime minister of France, during his visit to Iraq.

 

Chirac was deeply impressed by Saddam's personality and showed a keen understanding of Arab perspectives, displaying the ability to approach Middle Eastern problems in a constructive manner. The two countries collaborated on various projects, some of which were highly sensitive.

 

Given this connection, Saddam ordered the Iraqi intelligence agency to back Chirac in the French elections, supplying him with financial assistance for two election campaigns in the 1980s.

 

Due to the delicate nature of the matter, it was not feasible to use banks to transfer the funds. Instead, the agency had to dispatch the amount in a suitcase, and the drop-off location had to be a Paris metro station to evade detection by security agencies.

 

Chirac’s associates would dispatch a man who was privy to the password to the designated metro station to retrieve the suitcase.

 

Danielle Mitterrand, on the other hand, engaged in activities that were detrimental to Iraq. She was an advocate for human rights, civil liberties, and the plight of ethnic and religious minorities.

 

She enjoyed a close relationship with Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani and paid significant attention to the Kurdish issue.

 

Following the Kurdistan region gaining de facto autonomy in 1991, she made numerous trips to Sulaymaniyah and engaged in harmful media and political activities, including supporting France’s efforts to pass UN Security Council Resolution 688, which imposed no-fly zones.

 

She heavily publicized the Halabja incident and Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, which led to a decision to put an end to her behavior.

 

During her visit to the Sulaymaniyah province in July 1992, Danielle was en route to the Halabja martyrs’ monument when a bomb was planted on her path.

 

Fortunately, she survived the incident by a stroke of luck, as a passing truck happened to come between her and the bomb, shielding her from harm. Afterward, she departed from Sulaymaniyah without any intention of returning.

 

In search of missiles capable of attacking Baghdad, Iran sought the help of Syria, who advised them to reach out to Libya instead.

 

Initially, Gaddafi was hesitant about getting involved, but his second-in-command, Abdel Salam Jalloud, eventually convinced him. Some speculate that Gaddafi’s desire to improve ties with Iran was motivated by several reasons, including ending allegations of him being behind the disappearance of Iranian-born Lebanese scholar and political leader Musa Al-Sadr.

 

An Airbridge to Retaliate against Gaddafi

 

In 1985, at the height of military operations in the Iraq-Iran war, Baghdad was surprised by the first Iranian missile falling in the middle of the city, targeting the Central Bank building. Since the beginning of the war, Iran had not been able to launch missile attacks on Baghdad.

 

Experts examined the missile parts and found that it was a Russian-made scud missile, which was not on the list of weapons of the Iranian army.

 

After investigation, it was discovered that Libya had supplied Iran with this type of missiles. In fact, Iran’s possession of scud missiles contributed to escalating what was then called the “war of cities.”

 

The motive behind Gaddafi’s reckless act was evidently rooted in his animosity towards the Iraqi president. In response, Saddam ordered for intelligence and military presence along the borders with Libya.

 

The Libyan opposition was situated on the border between Libya and Chad. While Iraq maintained a strong relationship with Chad’s Hissene Habre, Gaddafi's forces supported armed movements opposing him.

 

A military training camp for Libyan opposition forces was established on the Libyan-Chadian border, and Libyan opposition elements located in Baghdad and Chad were transferred there for military training.

 

Iraqi support was significant, with an airlift established from the Al-Rashid military base in Baghdad to the Chadian capital airport of N'Djamena. Transportation operations included light and medium weapons, mortars, and anti-tank missiles, all of which were supervised by Iraqi intelligence officers.

 

On the political side, Tariq Aziz was responsible for the file.

 

Upon completing their military training, the Libyan opposition launched a surprise attack on Gaddafi's forces, inflicting heavy losses and forcing them to withdraw from the battle.

 

Days later, Gaddafi sent his cousin Ahmed Gaddafi Al-Dam to Baghdad, where he was received by the head of intelligence, Fadel Al-Barrak, and General Hussein Kamel.

 

Al-Jomaili admitted to being in charge of arranging the visit. The two sides agreed to end Iraq’s support for the Libyan opposition in exchange for Libya ending its support for Iran.

 

Summer, Winter between Saddam, Assad

 

Tension was the norm in the relationship between the Iraqi and Syrian Ba'ath parties. Each side hosted the other's opposition and Syria’s support for Iran during its war with Iraq raised suspicions that were not dispelled by the few ceasefires.

 

Al-Jomaili was asked to recall some of the milestones in that file.

 

According to him, at the end of 1991, during Syria’s participation in peace negotiations with Israel in Madrid, tensions arose within Syria, particularly from the Muslim Brotherhood organization.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood decided to launch a second armed revolution against the Assad regime, taking advantage of public anger over Syria’s participation in the war against Iraq and its US-sponsored bilateral negotiations with Israel.

 

Al-Jomaili revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood had around 300 fighters who were training at a camp near the Iraqi city of Ramadi.

 

Their leadership, headed by Ali Sadreddine Al-Bayanouni, requested that they be provided with weapons and allowed to infiltrate into Türkiye, and then enter Syria to declare armed rebellion.

 

Al-Jomaili noted that during discussions with the Muslim Brotherhood, Saddam’s officials stressed the risks of this adventure and expressed concerns about a repeat of the scenario of the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in 1982, which led to the killing of at least 30,000 Syrians.

 

However, the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood insisted that the circumstances were different and that what happened in the past would not be repeated.

 

Based on this, Iraqi officials communicated the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to Saddam and proposed that their demands be approved.

 

Nonetheless, the president's reply took a different turn.

 

According to Al-Jomaili, Saddam did not concur and said that the conditions are unsuitable.

 

At the time, Saddam argued that the Syrian regime was currently engaged in negotiations with Israel, and if it senses vulnerability to an internal threat jeopardizing its existence, it will ask for protection from the US and the West.

 

Syria would have to give up concessions in favor of Israel that it wished to withhold at the time.

 



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.