Witness Tells Asharq Al-Awsat about Meeting Saddam Twice during US Occupation

Saddam Hussein firing his gun in the air from a balcony in Baghdad on December 31, 2000 (Getty Images)
Saddam Hussein firing his gun in the air from a balcony in Baghdad on December 31, 2000 (Getty Images)
TT

Witness Tells Asharq Al-Awsat about Meeting Saddam Twice during US Occupation

Saddam Hussein firing his gun in the air from a balcony in Baghdad on December 31, 2000 (Getty Images)
Saddam Hussein firing his gun in the air from a balcony in Baghdad on December 31, 2000 (Getty Images)

A retired Iraqi, who had a working relationship and friendship with former President Saddam Hussein, revealed on the anniversary of the 2003 battle of Baghdad that he met with him twice after the Iraqi capital was captured.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, the retired Iraqi disclosed that he had two meetings with Saddam: the first was in Fallujah on April 11, just two days after the US capture of Baghdad, and the second meeting was in the Iraqi capital on July 19, four months after the city had fallen.

He confirmed that Saddam was traveling to enhance resistance operations against the US occupation.

The retiree, who requested anonymity for security reasons, claimed that Saddam was near Firdous Square in Baghdad on the day an American tank toppled his statue.

He went on to say that Saddam led the first resistance operation from a nearby location that night, targeting US positions around the Abu Hanifa al-Numan Mosque in Baghdad’s Azamiya neighborhood.

The attack involved young members of the Arab Socialist Baath Party, Fedayeen Saddam, and fighters from various Arab nationalities. It also resulted in several casualties.

As the battle intensified, Saddam’s aides were surprised to see him attempting to approach the fight scene with an RPG launcher. His entourage surrounded and prevented him from charging into the thick of the fray.

“We want you to continue leading us,” they told him. At that moment, some concluded that Saddam had a desire to be martyred that night.”

The battle continued until dawn on April 10.

Saddam then headed to Heet, where he spent the night at the house of a Baath Party member before leaving to the outskirts of Fallujah the next day.

“On April 11, the president’s entourage summoned five people, including myself, for a meeting,” the source said.

“The meeting was held at a place adjacent to a gas station on the outskirts of Fallujah, and attended with Saddam were his son Qusay and a number of security and party officials, but his personal secretary, Lt. Gen. Abid Mahmud, was not present,” they added.

Saddam was dressed in casual clothing and appeared calm and composed. He inquired about the situation inside Fallujah and the presence of US troops in Anbar.

When told that US soldiers had entered houses in Fallujah, Saddam responded firmly and said: “Drive them out.” This was seen as an order to begin operations.

“We must be patient. The battle is long. It is our duty to drain the enemy and open fronts everywhere to ensure their instability in Iraq. Set ambushes for them on the main roads, and they must know that Iraq is a tough nut to crack, let this be a lesson to them,” said Saddam according to the source.

During the meeting, an attendee mentioned that some Shiite fighters had begun targeting the Fedayeen who had come to fight against the US.

Saddam Hussein quickly interrupted, clarifying that the Shiites were fellow Iraqis and that such actions could not be attributed to them as a group.

“After giving further instructions, Saddam left the meeting for security reasons,” recalled the source.

Before noon the following day, Saddam met with accountants from the Presidential Diwan on the outskirts of the Dora area in southern Baghdad and received from them a sum of money to support the resistance.

Saddam insisted on signing a paper proving that he owed a sum of $1.25 million. On the paper, the reason for the loan was cited as a fund to sustain resistance operations against the US occupation.

On July 18, the retiree, located in Baghdad at the time, was approached by a young man who gave them a rendezvous at a secret location in Azamiya after the dawn prayer.

The following day, the source found themselves in the presence of Saddam and four new companions.

Saddam was dressed in a traditional robe and carried a pistol.

He expressed his sadness and disappointment that “some provinces in Iraq have accepted not to resist the occupation after promising to do so.”

“How can some people accept being subservient to the occupiers?” wondered Saddam.

“We must read our people well,” he added.

“This responsibility falls on the religious leaders, tribal sheikhs, and authorities who had previously sent and promised to issue a strong fatwa against the occupation as soon as its forces crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border,” he said at the secret meeting, according to the source.

Saddam then reminded of how Iraqis as whole were united during the war against Iran.

“Iraq is the last line of defense, and if it falls, some Arab countries will be directly occupied, and others will suffer indirect occupation,” explained Saddam.

“If Iraq falls, all the doors will be opened to Iran, and its influence will spread as far as Morocco,” he warned.

Furthermore, Saddam criticized the Arab stance and expressed his disappointment with Syria’s position.

“I received a promise from Bashar al-Assad that Syria would stand with Iraq as soon as the first shot was fired. But he changed his mind.”

“Many will pay the price for leaving Iraq to fall,” forewarned Saddam.

The story began on April 6, 2003, at 10:30 p.m. in Baghdad when a small group of US tanks arrived at the Republican Palace and the Rashid Hotel.

The phone of Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush, director of intelligence at the time, rang, and on the other end was Lt. Gen. Mahmud, Saddam’s secretary.

Though relations between the two sides were strained, Lt. Gen. Mahmud was the sole conduit for receiving orders from Saddam and delivering messages to him.

What Lt. Gen. Mahmud said next was explosive.

He instructed the director of intelligence to scout the Baghdad-Salahuddin and Baghdad-Diyala roads, to determine which one was safer to exit Baghdad in case of emergencies.

“Do you think I lead a military corps to be able to secure these two roads?” Gen. Habbush replied.

Lt. Gen. Mahmud then retorted with a veiled threat and hung up the phone.

The request seemed strange to Gen. Habbush as he discussed it with his office director at the alternate headquarters of the intelligence agency.

They both concluded that Saddam would be leaving Baghdad to lead the military operation against the invasion from outside the city.

After receiving orders from Saddam, Gen. Habbush was left with no option but to carry them out no matter the difficulties or risks. The consequences of any failure to fulfill his duty were well known, and the director of intelligence did not need to be reminded of the price of angering Saddam.

Gen. Habbush decided to personally conduct reconnaissance and set out at night to the town of Tarmiyah, where he found the road to be safe. Communications had been cut in Baghdad, so he asked his companion, Col. Mahmoud, to return to the capital and use his office phone to inform Lt. Gen. Mahmud that the road to Diyala was open and safe, and that he would personally return within hours.

During his attempt to scout the other road, Gen. Habbush spotted convoys of cars, and it became clear that US planes had dropped bombs on the road, making it extremely dangerous to continue towards Baghdad.

At midnight, Gen.Habbush made his decision: he would not return to Baghdad since Saddam was leaving it.

He closed his phone and decided to join the resistance.

Gen. Habbush joined the resistance and Saddam later faced his well-known fate.



Desperate Gazans Pull Iron Bars from Rubble to Construct Tents and Scratch Out a Living

A Palestinian worker breaks concrete to extract steel bars from destroyed homes, using only simple hand tools amid a severe shortage of construction materials caused by long-standing restrictions on the entry of cement and iron, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 9, 2025. REUTERS/Haseeb Alwazeer
A Palestinian worker breaks concrete to extract steel bars from destroyed homes, using only simple hand tools amid a severe shortage of construction materials caused by long-standing restrictions on the entry of cement and iron, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 9, 2025. REUTERS/Haseeb Alwazeer
TT

Desperate Gazans Pull Iron Bars from Rubble to Construct Tents and Scratch Out a Living

A Palestinian worker breaks concrete to extract steel bars from destroyed homes, using only simple hand tools amid a severe shortage of construction materials caused by long-standing restrictions on the entry of cement and iron, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 9, 2025. REUTERS/Haseeb Alwazeer
A Palestinian worker breaks concrete to extract steel bars from destroyed homes, using only simple hand tools amid a severe shortage of construction materials caused by long-standing restrictions on the entry of cement and iron, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 9, 2025. REUTERS/Haseeb Alwazeer

As winter bites in Gaza, displaced Palestinians set out every day to homes destroyed by Israel. There they rip out iron rods from the walls and use them to prop up their flimsy tents or sell to scratch out a living in an enclave that will take years to recover from war.

The rods have become a hot item in Gaza, where they are twisted up in the wreckage left by an Israeli military campaign that spared few homes. Some residents spend days pounding away at thick cement to extract them, others do the back-breaking work for a week or more, Reuters.

With only rudimentary tools such as shovels, pickaxes and hammers, work proceeds at a snail's pace.

UN SAYS WAR GENERATED 61 MILLION TONS OF RUBBLE

Once the bars helped hold up cement walls in family homes, today they are destined for urgently-needed tents as temperatures at night fall. Heavy rainstorms have already submerged many Gazans' meagre belongings, adding to their misery.

Palestinian father-of-six Wael al-Jabra, 53, was putting together a makeshift tent, trying to hammer together two steel bars.

"I don’t have money to buy wood, of course. So, I had to extract this iron from the house. The house is made of five floors. We don’t have anything apart from God and this house that was sheltering us," he said.

In November, the UN Development Program said that the war in Gaza had generated 61 million tons of rubble, citing estimates based on satellite imagery.

Most of it can be cleared within seven years under the right conditions, it said.

A ROD CAN COST $15

A 10-meter metal rod costs displaced families $15 - a steep amount because many barely have cash.

The Palestinian group Hamas triggered the conflict after attacking Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 back to Gaza as hostages, according to Israeli calculations. Israel responded with a military campaign that killed over 70,000 people and laid waste to Gaza.

Carrying heavy buckets of rubble and pushing a wheelbarrow, Suleiman al-Arja, 19, described a typical day in the quest for iron rods.

"We pass by destroyed houses and agree with the house owner. He gives us a choice, whether to clean the house (clear the rubble) in exchange for iron or clean the house for money. We tell him that we want the iron and we start breaking the iron. As you can see, we spend a week, sometimes a week and a half," he said.

FOCUS IS ON DAILY STRUGGLE TO LIVE

US President Donald Trump promised to put together an international stabilization force and an economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza, which was impoverished even before the war. Palestinians in Gaza can't look so far ahead even though a ceasefire was reached in October. Every day is a struggle for Palestinians who have seen peace plans come and go over many decades.

Their minds are focused on finding ways to survive, every single day.

"We do this work to get our food and drink, to cover our living expenses and not need anyone, so we earn a living through halal (legitimate) means and effort. These are my hands," said Haitham Arbiea, 29.

Palestinians accuse Israel of depriving Gaza of the iron bars.

An Israeli official told Reuters that construction materials are considered dual use items - items for civilian but also potential military use - and will not be allowed into Gaza until the second phase of the US-led peace plan. The official cited concerns that the materials could be used for the building of tunnels, which have been used by Hamas.


Washington’s Opening Toward Damascus Clashes with Israel’s Ground Strategy

A meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House, July 2025 (AFP). 
A meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House, July 2025 (AFP). 
TT

Washington’s Opening Toward Damascus Clashes with Israel’s Ground Strategy

A meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House, July 2025 (AFP). 
A meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House, July 2025 (AFP). 

Washington’s recent openness toward Damascus is increasingly colliding with Israel’s assertive on-the-ground approach, highlighting a widening rift between the two traditional allies over the future of Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The United States now appears to be pushing for expanded security cooperation with the new Syrian government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, aiming to confront shared security threats and stabilize the country.

At a conference convened to assess the new phase in Syria, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), placed future cooperation with Damascus at the center of discussions about US policy toward “post-Assad Syria.”

Cooper stressed that Washington is working “increasingly” with the Syrian army to counter common security threats, asserting that integrating the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the national army would enhance internal stability, improve border control, and strengthen Syria’s ability to pursue Daesh.

Cooper added that since last October, US forces have provided advice, assistance, and enablement to Syrian authorities in more than twenty operations against Daesh and in thwarting weapons shipments bound for Hezbollah, noting that such gains are only possible through close coordination with Syrian government forces.

This American trajectory, however, now overlaps with an expanding disagreement between Washington and Tel Aviv over the contours of a “new Syria,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The paper reported an unusually sharp divergence between the two allies over Syria’s future one year after Assad’s fall, as President Donald Trump pushes a more open approach toward Damascus with Saudi and Turkish backing.

Trump has lifted sanctions on al-Sharaa, praising him as a “young, attractive, tough guy" with a “real shot at doing a good job", which signaled Washington’s readiness for a major policy shift.

In contrast, Israel quickly moved after the regime’s collapse to establish a military presence in southern Syria, taking control of an estimated 250 square kilometers.

The area became a launchpad for an expanded Israeli security posture that has included arrests, weapons seizures, airstrikes deep inside Syrian territory, and even a strike on the military command headquarters in Damascus, actions justified as protection of the Druze community.

The WSJ attributes this assertive field strategy to a shift in Israel’s security mindset after the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, noting that Israeli decision-makers now believe any security concession could open a dangerous breach.

Former Israeli national security adviser Yaakov Amidror remarked that making decisions from Washington is far easier than making them from the Golan Heights, reflecting Israel’s preference to secure its interests unilaterally.

While the US administration works to broker security negotiations between Damascus and Tel Aviv - parallel to de-escalation efforts in Gaza and Ukraine - Trump is urging Israel to engage in a “strong, honest dialogue” with Syria. Yet these efforts face obstacles, chief among them al-Sharaa’s rejection of Israel’s proposal for a demilitarized zone stretching from southern Damascus to the border, which he argues would create a dangerous security vacuum.

Within Israel, influential voices warn against overreliance on force, fearing conflict with Washington’s desire to rehabilitate the new Syrian state and potentially integrate it into the Abraham Accords framework.

Some Israeli experts propose allowing Syrian army deployment near the border while banning heavy weapons and Turkish forces, shifting from displaying military power to building diplomatic power. Diplomats predict any future agreement may resemble the 1974 disengagement framework, albeit updated for current realities.

The Wall Street Journal concluded that the US–Israeli dispute over Syria is no passing episode but a test of the resilience of their longstanding alliance amid a reshaped regional landscape.

“The new Syria” has become an open arena for redefining Middle Eastern power balances, as Washington attempts to merge counterterrorism efforts with rebuilding the Syrian state and crafting a new security formula between Damascus and Tel Aviv.

 

 


Lebanese Foreign Minister Declines Invitation to Tehran, Proposes Meeting in Neutral Country

Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji receives his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beirut in June 2025 (File – IRNA)
Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji receives his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beirut in June 2025 (File – IRNA)
TT

Lebanese Foreign Minister Declines Invitation to Tehran, Proposes Meeting in Neutral Country

Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji receives his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beirut in June 2025 (File – IRNA)
Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji receives his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Beirut in June 2025 (File – IRNA)

Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji has declined an invitation from his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi to visit Tehran, proposing instead that the two meet in a mutually agreed-upon neutral country.

In a post on X on Wednesday, Raji said he was “unable to accept” the invitation at this time, citing unspecified “current circumstances.”

He stressed that his reply “does not mean rejecting dialogue,” rather “the proper atmosphere is not appropriate.”

He added that any renewed engagement with Iran must rest on clear principles, including respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, non-interference in its internal affairs, and adherence to international norms governing state-to-state relations.

Araghchi had recently invited Raji to Tehran for talks on bilateral relations.

Official Lebanese sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the invitation was sent personally to the minister, not to the Lebanese state, and that Raji’s response “expresses his own position.”

Lebanon and Iran continue diplomatic engagement despite Beirut’s repeated warnings - conveyed directly to visiting Iranian officials - that Lebanon rejects any foreign meddling in its internal affairs.

Tensions between Raji and Tehran were visible during the August visit of Ali Larijani, secretary-general of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Larijani said he lacked the time to meet Raji; the minister replied: “Even if I had the time, I would not have met him.”

Former Lebanese foreign minister Fares Boueiz said Raji’s latest stance is a clear diplomatic message that relations between Beirut and Tehran are “incomplete.”

When differences arise, Boueiz noted, first meetings are often held in a third country to establish a framework for resolving disputes.

Boueiz added that a foreign minister rarely deviates from the official position of the state. He argued that Raji’s move reflects the views of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and implicitly signal that Iran should halt its support for a particular Lebanese faction and stop its interference.

Lebanon has repeatedly accused Iran of meddling in its internal affairs. During his meeting with Larijani in August, Aoun reiterated that no group in Lebanon may carry weapons or rely on external backing.

While open to cooperation with Iran, Lebanon insists such engagement remains within the limits of sovereignty and mutual respect.

Boueiz recalled that Lebanese-Iranian diplomatic relations stabilized after 1990, when he restored protocol-based engagement in line with the Vienna Convention. During the civil war, Iranian delegations routinely entered Lebanon via Syria without coordinating with the Lebanese government and met directly with Hezbollah.

After Boueiz confronted Tehran’s ambassador in 1990, then-foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati agreed to normalize diplomatic procedures, leading to formal exchanges and signed agreements.

Some Lebanese observers view Raji’s stance as evidence of diminishing Iranian influence in Lebanon, long bolstered by Tehran’s support for Hezbollah.

Boueiz, however, argues that Iran’s role is closely tied to its evolving relationship with Washington. US-Iran dynamics, including ongoing discussions over sanctions relief and frozen assets, inevitably ripple into Lebanon: “Whenever US-Iran negotiations worsen, tensions rise in Lebanon; when talks calm down, Lebanon feels the relief.”