عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Episode 3: Chirac Asked Assad to Disarm Hezbollah In Exchange for Maintaining Presence In Lebanon

Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on July 16, 1998 (Getty)
Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on July 16, 1998 (Getty)
TT
TT

Episode 3: Chirac Asked Assad to Disarm Hezbollah In Exchange for Maintaining Presence In Lebanon

Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on July 16, 1998 (Getty)
Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and French President Jacques Chirac in Paris on July 16, 1998 (Getty)

Asharq Al-Awsat reveals messages exchanged between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in the mid-1990s, which are part of the many documents that late Syrian Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam carried from his office to Paris when he left Syria in 2005.

In 1996, Assad decided to dispatch Khaddam to Paris to meet with French President Jacques Chirac and inform him of the decision to re-open the Syrian-Iraqi borders closed since 1982.

In fact, Assad wanted to coordinate with Chirac to mitigate any violent US reaction to the attempt to break Saddam Hussein’s “isolation.”

He was also seeking to gain the French president’s trust, after succeeding in putting pressure on the US to include France in the arrangements for the monitoring of the “April Understanding”, which was concluded in 1996 following the Israeli Grapes of Wrath war in Lebanon.

Chirac met with Khaddam on July 31, 1996. According to the minutes of the meeting, the Syrian president sought to inform his French counterpart that the situation in Iraq was worrying – “a bomb about to explode” - and that reopening the borders “stop on any new adventures by the Iraqi regime.”

The French president, who wanted to keep the content of the meeting confidential, surprised Khaddam by opening another file that falls within Assad’s priorities: the Syrian military presence in Lebanon and the possibility of starting negotiations with the new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On July 7, 1996, Khaddam recommended that Assad send an envoy to France, carrying a letter to Chirac to explain Damascus’ position. Assad agreed and Chirac received the Syrian vice president on July 31.

According to the minutes of the meeting, Khaddam told the French president: “The subject that Mr. President assigned me to convey is related to Iraq. President Chirac knows that there are old rivalries between us since the 1960s. We have borne a great deal of harm from Iraq and we have objected to the unwise policy, both in the war against Iran (1980-1988) and then in the invasion of Kuwait (1990).”

He continued: “In fact, the situation in Iraq is now worrying. It is a bomb that threatens to explode in the region due to the embargo imposed on the country. Therefore, Syria took an approach to open the borders with Iraq, which have been closed since 1982. Of course, such a move will be within the framework of Security Council resolutions. You know that the international borders between Iraq and Jordan are open, the borders with Turkey are open, so with Iran.”

Khaddam detailed the reasons behind the approach envisaged by Damascus, saying: “First, the great sufferings of the Iraqi people. The second matter is the ongoing work by outside parties to cause fighting, a civil war among some segments of the Iraqi people. If such war erupts, it will blow up the whole region.”

He added: “Third, we believe that a new and realistic atmosphere for relations between the two countries would stop the Iraqi government from taking any action that undermines security and stability in the region […] Our step curbs Saddam’s adventures.”

Chirac replied: “I need not say that for me this is good news. I am making the same analysis about the risks of this embargo. France has worked a lot at the United Nations to take a step forward with Resolution 986. Of course, one can judge as he likes the grave responsibilities, which are Saddam’s responsibilities, for what happened. But no one wants to push the Iraqi people, given their situation, to a movement that could explode the entire region. The return to normalcy between Syria and Iraq is very good news.”

The French president went on to say, according to the minutes of the meeting: “I very much welcome this decision, because it is very important for the stability in the region. Of course, neither America nor Israel may appreciate this very much, but France fully agrees with it.”

He continued: “We want to participate in the peace process, and no peace process is possible without Syria. Please be confident that France will not take any position, especially regarding the peace process, that could upset Syria […] I say this because I had a long call with Netanyahu upon his request, and he said that he would also call this week. I found him relatively more flexible than he was 10 or 15 days ago when he was in America […]He did not change his position on the principle of land for peace, but he did not say anything about the Golan. We believe that it is necessary to negotiate the Golan. He confirmed his desire to return to the peace process with Syria and Lebanon, but without saying anything about any preparations he might make.”

Chirac also said, according to the minutes of the meeting: “If the Israeli army withdraws from southern Lebanon, this assumes that the Lebanese army will take over the guarantee of the entire border. France has said that it is ready to put observers, but on the other hand, this means disarming Hezbollah, and this is of course a matter that is related to Syria and concerns it. Syria, cannot accept this for free. The question is: What is the reward? For example, withdrawing from the Golan and ensuring its military presence in Lebanon for some time after the operation? And if I say so, for two reasons:

1 - France will only act after consulting with Syria. We are keen on Lebanon and its independence, as well as the special ties between Lebanon and Syria, and we will not do anything against Syria’s interests.

2- The Israelis always try to contact those who can help them, but in the end, they make their own decisions and do not care of what others think […] Of course, we will not dictate their behavior, but what we must say is that withdrawal is not excluded.”

Khaddam said that he thanked the French president for the information and France’s stance towards Syria, adding: “In our opinion, Netanyahu is making a maneuver. In Lebanon, he does not want to withdraw according to Resolution 425. Withdrawal according to Resolution 425 is not a problem for us. The state there will carry out its tasks and assume its responsibilities. But he wants to kill two birds with one stone. He wants to sabotage the relations inside Lebanon and between the Lebanese factions. He also wants to create a rift between Syria and Lebanon.”

Here, President Chirac said: “There is an element that must be taken into account. I met Netanyahu before he came to power […] The idea I had of him at the time was that he was intelligent, young and ambitious, but not a man of convictions. The problem is that it is poorly surrounded. Some military men want and seek revenge, and religious people on the other hand, but he is young and ambitious and wants to stay in power as long as possible. Since he is intelligent, he knows that he cannot remain in the future unless he seeks peace, for a man of war is a man of the past, and a man of peace is a man of the future […] The only place where he can act is Lebanon. Lebanon costs him a lot without giving him anything. I fear that one day he will take an initiative that upsets Syria, Lebanon, and everyone else. Therefore, I say that this possibility must remain, so as not to be surprised by it.”

Khaddam replied: “Suppose we wake up one morning and see that Israel has withdrawn from the South. Trust me, no one will cry about it. But this should not be done in the context of negotiations or in a separate peace.”

Chirac answered: “They know it well, but the problem is that you wake up in the morning and see that the Israelis are gone.”

“Then we shall drink to them,” the Syrian vice president said.

Chirac asked: “But what happens later?”

“Nothing. There is an existing state, but the question now is: Will the resistance in Lebanon stop? Nobody guarantees that,” Khaddam remarked.

The French president asked again: “But can (Hezbollah) be disarmed?” The army can do this tactically, but politically it cannot. Syria can. What does Syria demand in return for this disarmament?”

He continued: “If the withdrawal takes place and (Hezbollah) is not disarmed, this will lead to provocations... But if it is disarmed, then Syria loses (something), and there must be something in return for that, which is to guarantee a Syrian presence in Lebanon. Perhaps these are dreams. What I want is for us to have a strong and intimate connection.”

Khaddam replied: “As President Chirac said, and as I said, and as President Assad asked me to say, we want to raise the level of contacts between us. We want a French presence in the region because this is a window that gives us some hope in the current international situation. This orientation requires communication, coordination and discussion. […] We want a just and comprehensive peace, and we want France to be at the center of this peace. […] we must remain wary of Netanyahu’s maneuvers. He is intelligent and ambitious, but also dogmatic. He may try to improve himself but without letting go of his beliefs.”

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Report: Europe’s Options in the Strait of Hormuz Are Few and Risky

A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026. (Reuters file)
A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026. (Reuters file)
TT
TT

Report: Europe’s Options in the Strait of Hormuz Are Few and Risky

A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026. (Reuters file)
A cargo ship in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026. (Reuters file)

When senior officials from 40 countries met virtually this week to discuss how to bring shipping traffic back to the Strait of Hormuz, Italy’s foreign minister had a proposal. He urged them to establish a “humanitarian corridor” allowing safe passage for fertilizer and other crucial goods headed to impoverished nations.

The plan, described after the meeting by Italian officials, was one of several competing proposals from Europe and beyond that were meant to prevent the Iran war from causing widespread hunger. But it was not endorsed by the envoys on the call, and the meeting ended with no concrete plan to reopen the strait, militarily or otherwise, reported the New York Times.

European leaders are under pressure from US President Donald Trump to commit military assets, immediately, to end Iran’s blockage of the strait and tame a growing global energy and economic crisis. They have refused to meet his demands by sending warships now. Instead, they are hotly debating what to do to help unclog the vital shipping lane once the war ends.

But they are struggling to rally around a plan of action.

That partly reflects the slow gears of diplomacy in Europe and the sheer number of nations, including Gulf states, that are invested in safeguarding the strait once the war ends. Many nations involved in the talks, including Italy and Germany, have insisted that any international effort be blessed by the United Nations, which could slow action further. Military leaders will take up the issue in discussions next week.

More than anything, the struggle reflects how difficult it could be to actually secure the strait under a fragile peace — for Europe or for anyone else. None of the options available to Europe, the Gulf states and other countries look foolproof, even under the assumption that the major fighting will have stopped.

Naval escorts

French officials, including President Emmanuel Macron, have repeatedly raised the possibility that French naval vessels could help escort merchant ships through the strait after the war ends.

American officials have pushed for Europeans and other allies, like Japan, to escort ships sailing under their own countries’ flags.

Naval escorts are expensive. Also, their air defense systems alone might not be sufficient to stop some types of attacks, like drone strikes, should Iran choose to start firing again.

“What does the world expect, what does Donald Trump expect, from let’s say a handful or two handfuls of European frigates there in the Strait of Hormuz,” Defense Minister Boris Pistorius of Germany said last month, “to achieve what the powerful American Navy cannot manage there alone?”

Sweep for mines

German and Belgian officials, among others, say they are prepared to send minesweepers to clear the strait of explosives after the war.

Western military leaders aren’t convinced that Iran has actually mined the strait, in part because some Iranian ships still pass through it. So while minesweepers might be deployed as part of a naval escort, they might not have much to do.

Help from above

Another option is sending fighter jets and drones to intercept any Iranian air assaults on ships. American officials have pushed Europe to do this.

It is quite expensive and still not guaranteed to work. Iran can attack ships with a single soldier in a speedboat, and if just a few attempts succeed, that could be enough to spook insurers and shipowners out of attempting passage.

Diplomacy

Another option are negotiations and economic leverage to pressure Iran to refrain from future attacks, and deploy a variety of military means to enforce that. This effort would go beyond Europe. On Thursday, the German foreign ministry called on China to use its influence with Iran “constructively” to help end the hostilities.

This option is expensive and still not guaranteed. Negotiations seem to have done little to stop the fighting. But this may be Europe’s best bet, for lack of a better one.

What if none of that works?

Iranian officials said this week that they would continue to control traffic through the strait after the war. They have already made plans to make ships pay tolls for passing through the strait, which is supposed to be an unfettered waterway under international law.

A continued blockage risks global economic disaster. Countries around the world rely on shipments through the strait for fuel and fertilizer, among other necessities.

In some regions, shortages loom. In others, like Europe, high oil, gas and fertilizer prices have raised the specter of spiking inflation and cratering economic growth.

“The big threat right now is stagflation,” said Hanns Koenig, a managing director at Aurora Energy Research, a Berlin consultancy. “You’ve got higher prices, and they strangle the tiny growth we would have seen this year.”

*Jim Tankersley for the New York Times

Features

US Military Jets Hit in Iran War Are the First Shot Down by Enemy Fire in Over 20 Years

An F-15E Strike Eagle turns toward the Panamint range over Death Valley National Park, Calif., on Feb. 27, 2017. (AP)
An F-15E Strike Eagle turns toward the Panamint range over Death Valley National Park, Calif., on Feb. 27, 2017. (AP)
TT
TT

US Military Jets Hit in Iran War Are the First Shot Down by Enemy Fire in Over 20 Years

An F-15E Strike Eagle turns toward the Panamint range over Death Valley National Park, Calif., on Feb. 27, 2017. (AP)
An F-15E Strike Eagle turns toward the Panamint range over Death Valley National Park, Calif., on Feb. 27, 2017. (AP)

Iran shooting down two American military jets marks an exceedingly rare assault for the US that has not happened in more than 20 years and shows Iran’s continued ability to hit back despite President Donald Trump asserting it has been “completely decimated.”

The attacks came five weeks after US and Israeli strikes first pounded Iran, with Trump saying earlier this week that Tehran's “ability to launch missiles and drones is dramatically curtailed."

Iran shot down a US F15-E Strike Eagle fighter jet Friday, with one service member getting rescued and the search still underway for a second, US officials say. Iranian state media also said a US A-10 attack aircraft crashed after being hit by Iranian defense forces.

The last time a US warplane was shot down by enemy fire in combat was an A-10 Thunderbolt II during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, a former F-16 fighter pilot.

But, he said, that’s because the US had largely been fighting insurgents who didn’t have the same anti-aircraft capabilities. The fact that there have not been more fighter jets lost in Iran, Cantwell said, is a testament to the capabilities of US forces.

"The fact that this hasn’t happened until now is an absolute miracle,” said Cantwell, who served four combat tours and is now a senior resident fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “We’re flying combat missions here, they are being shot at every day.”

Shoulder-fired missile likely used, experts say

US Central Command said in a statement Wednesday that American forces have flown more than 13,000 missions in the Iran war while striking more than 12,300 targets.

After more than a month of punishing US-Israeli airstrikes, a degraded Iranian military nonetheless remains a stubborn foe. Its steady stream of strikes against Israel and Gulf Arab neighbors have been causing regional upheaval and global economic shock.

When it comes to American dominance over Iran's airspace, there’s still a distinction between air superiority and air supremacy, said Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iran program senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.

“A disabled air defense system is not a destroyed air defense system,” he said. “We shouldn’t be shocked that they’re still fighting.”

American planes have been flying missions at lower altitudes, which makes them more vulnerable to Iran's missiles, Taleblu said. It’s possible that Iran fired at the F-15 with a surface-to-air missile, but it's more likely that a portable, shoulder-fired missile was used, he said. Those are much harder to detect and reflect how Iran is “weak but still lethal.”

“This is a regime that is fighting for its life,” he said.

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and a senior defense adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed that a shoulder-fired missile was likely used against the fighter jet.

Nonetheless, the American air war against Iran has been a “tremendous success” so far, he said.

To put things in perspective, he said the loss rate for American warplanes flying over Germany during World War II was 3% at one point, which would equal about 350 warplanes in the US war against Iran.

“But then there’s the political side — you have an American public that is accustomed to fighting bloodless wars,” Cancian said. “Then a large part of the country doesn’t support the war. So to them, any loss is unacceptable.”

Pilots are trained on what to do if their plane is hit

The last US jet shot down in combat was struck by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile over Baghdad on April 8, 2003. The pilot safely ejected and was rescued, according to the Air Force.

In high-threat environments like missions over Iran, Cantwell, the retired general, said an aviator's blood pressure goes up and they become highly alert to incoming missiles. Those are typically either infrared- or radar-guided missiles, he said, requiring different evasive tactics.

If they are hit and need to eject from their aircraft, they are trained on what to do next, he said.

Pilots learn to check for wounds after a violent ejection and the shock of a missile explosion and, most crucially, how they are going to communicate their location so rescuers can find them.

At the same time, he said, the enemy is likely working to intercept the communications or even spoof the location.

Helicopters are more at risk than other aircraft

The planes that went down Friday were not the first crewed American aircraft to be lost overall in Iran.

A military helicopter and airplane exploded in 1980 during an aborted mission to rescue several dozen American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran, according to the Air Force Historical Support Division.

After a series of setbacks, including severe dust storms and mechanical failures, the mission was called off. As the aircraft took off, the rotor blades of one of the RH-53 helicopters collided with an EC-130 aircraft full of fuel and both exploded, killing eight.

More US helicopters have been shot down in recent decades, including a MH-47 Army Chinook helicopter that was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan in 2005, killing 16. Helicopters are more dangerous because “the lower and the slower, the more susceptible you are,” Cantwell said.

That’s why those who went out on this week's rescue missions, likely in helicopters, he said, did “such a brave and honorable act.”

Features

Iran Leaders Join Crowds on Tehran’s Streets to Project Control in Wartime

An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
TT
TT

Iran Leaders Join Crowds on Tehran’s Streets to Project Control in Wartime

An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)

After more than a month of being stalked by targeted assassinations, Iran's leadership has adopted a new tactic to show it is still in control - with senior officials walking openly in the streets among small crowds who have gathered in support of the regime.

In recent days, Iran's president and foreign minister have separately mixed with groups of several hundred people in central Tehran. On Tuesday, state television aired footage of the two posing for selfies, talking to members of the public and shaking hands with supporters who had gathered in public areas.

According to insiders and analysts, the appearances are part of a calculated effort by Iran's theocratic leadership to project resilience and authority — not only over the vital Strait of Hormuz but also over the population — despite a sustained US-Israeli campaign aimed at "obliterating" it.

One insider close to the hardline establishment said such public outings are intended to show that the regime is "unshaken by strikes and that it remains in control and vigilant" as the war grinds on.

The US-Israeli war ‌on Iran began on ‌February 28 with the killing of veteran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior military ‌commanders ⁠in waves of ⁠strikes that have since continued to target top officials.

Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not been seen in public since taking over on March 8 from his father. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, meanwhile, was removed from Israel's hit list amid mediation efforts last month, including by Pakistan, to bring Tehran and Washington together for talks to end the war.

Talks aimed at ending the war have since appeared to have petered out, as Tehran brands US peace proposals "unrealistic". Against that backdrop, recent public appearances by President Masoud Pezeshkian and Araqchi appear designed to project defiance, if not a convincing display of public support.

A senior Iranian source said officials' public presence demonstrates that "the establishment is not intimidated by Israel's targeted killing of top Iranian ⁠figures".

Asked whether Iran's foreign minister or president were on any sort of kill list, an Israeli ‌military spokesperson, Nadav Shoshani, said on Friday he would not "speak about specific personnel."

NIGHTLY RALLIES TO ‌SHOW RESILIENCE

Despite widespread destruction, Tehran appears emboldened by surviving weeks of intense US-Israeli attacks, firing on Gulf countries hosting US troops and demonstrating its ability ‌to effectively block the Strait of Hormuz.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump vowed more aggressive strikes on Iran, without offering a timeline ‌for ending hostilities. Tehran responded by warning the United States and Israel that "more crushing, broader and more destructive" attacks were in store.

Encouraged by clerical rulers, supporters of the regime take to the streets each night, filling public squares to show loyalty even as bombs rain down across the country.

Analysts say the establishment is also seeking to raise the "political and reputational" cost of the strikes at a time when civilian casualties are deeply disturbing for Iranians.

Omid Memarian, ‌a senior Iran analyst at DAWN, a Washington-based think tank, said the decision to send officials into gatherings reflects a layered strategy, including an effort to sustain the morale of core supporters ⁠at a moment of acute pressure.

"The system ⁠relies heavily on this base; if its supporters withdraw from public space, its ability to project control and authority weakens significantly," Memarian said.

Speaking to state television, some in the crowds voice unwavering loyalty to Iran's leadership; others oppose the bombing of their country regardless of politics; and some have a stake in the system, including government employees, students and others whose livelihoods are tied to it.

Hadi Ghaemi, head of the New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran, said the establishment is using such loyal crowds as human shields to raise the cost of any assassination attempts.

"By being in the middle of large crowds they have protections that would make Israeli-American attacks against them very bloody and generate sympathy worldwide," he said.

POTENTIAL PROTESTERS STAY OFF STREETS AT NIGHT

The Islamic republic emerged from a 1979 revolution backed by millions of Iranians. But decades of rule marked by corruption, repression and mismanagement have thinned that support, alienating many ordinary people.

While there has been little sign so far of anti-government protests that erupted in January and abated after a deadly crackdown, the establishment has adopted harsh measures, such as arrests, executions and large-scale deployment of security forces, to prevent any sparks of dissent.

Rights groups have warned about "rushed executions" during wartime after Iran hanged at least seven political prisoners during the war.

"Many potential protesters are frightened by the continuing presence of armed men and violent crowds in the streets and largely stay at home once darkness falls," Ghaemi said.