By Abdullah as Siddiq
With the fall of the al-Assad regime in Syria on December 8th, 2024 the country entered a new era. Syria’s position in the Middle East has seen it targeted by numerous powers in the modern era and in this two-part series we look at the many era’s that have shaped the country. In Part 1 we look at the creation of Syria and the numerous coups that were supported by the global powers which eventually led to the al-Assad family to dominate the country.
The First Era: The French and British Struggle Over Syria
The country known today as Syria was formally created through the Paris Peace Conference that took place over 1919 and 1920. This conference was organized by the countries that had been victorious in the First World War, which were primarily Great Britain, France and the United States, with the objective to agree on the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers, Germany and the Ottoman Empire.
Among the outcomes of the conference was that as per the Sykes-Picot agreement, which had been agreed between the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot in 1916, France would have a mandate over the territories in the Middle East that lay north and east of Palestine, named Syria. This French Mandate over Syria was formalized by the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, on the 24th of July, 1922.
In 1918 the British army defeated the Ottoman army defending Damascus, which established British control over Syria. Despite the Sykes-Picot agreement, the British decided to use their military victory to make Syria a colony of the British Crown. For this reason, it rushed to make the people of Syria accept its client, Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein, as their leader. Faisal promised the people that he would implement Islam over them, by making the Quran his unofficial constitution and the example set by the Prophet Mohammed, the Sunnah, his benchmark. In return, Syria’s leading Islamic scholars gave him a pledge of allegiance, the bay’ah, expecting him to become their Caliph. With this support secured, the British then ensured that Syria did not become a Caliphate, and that instead it was their preferred political system that would be implemented. Therefore, on the 8th of March 1920, Faisal was declared King of Syria, while a parliament, the Syrian National Congress, was established.
The French would have none of it, however, and sent an army into Syria to change the country’s political situation. This French army, led by general Henri Gouraud, reached Damascus on the 24th of July 1920. The resulting battle between the French army and King Faisal’s troops was decisively won by the French. Faisal was then dethroned by the French and sent into exile with orders never to return. On the 1st of August 1920 he headed to British-controlled Haifa in Palestine, and from there he travelled on to Italy, where he stayed for months before being received by King George V of Britain during November. Following this meeting, the British decided they could still make use of Faisal, so they sent him to Baghdad where they crowned him King of Iraq on the 23rd of August 1921.[1]
French Syria
Once in control, France changed Syria’s political reality. General Henri Gouraud became the first High Commissioner of the Levant, the highest political position in the French Mandate area, and he subdivided the region into six “autonomous” states. These states were the State of Damascus, the State of Aleppo, the Alawite State, the State of Jabal Druze, the State of Greater Lebanon, and the Sanjak of Alexandretta. The State of Greater Lebanon would later become the country of Lebanon, while the Sanjak of Alexandretta would eventually become part of modern-day Turkey. Modern Syria therefore comprises the French mandate states of Damascus, Aleppo, the area of the Alawites around Latakia by the Mediterranean coast and Jabal Druze.
During the years of the Second World War, the ability of the French to govern the Mandate area significantly weakened. France itself was divided during the war years, with the north being occupied by Nazi Germany while the south was governed from the city of Vichy by Marshal Philippe Petain, who was closely aligned with Nazi Germany. This state known as “Vichy France” took over the colonies of France and as such became the colonial power in the French Mandate area. Vichy France’s limited ability to effectively govern created an opportunity for Syrian nationalists to call for independence in 1941. Shukri Al Quwatli, a Sunni Muslim from the wealthy Al Quwatli family of merchants in Damascus, who had a history of leading pan-Arab nationalism in Syria going back all the way to the times of Ottoman rule, led these Syrian nationalists. In 1920, upon their entry into Syria, the French had issued an arrest warrant for Shukri Al Quwatli and sentenced him to death over his pan-Arab nationalist activities. This caused Al Quwatli to flee to Egypt, but under pressure from the British, France later allowed him to return to Syria.[2]
Vichy France tried to suppress the Syrian independence movement led by Al Quwatli, but the British supported a third French movement, named Free France which was headed by general Charles de Gaulle and based in London, to take control over Lebanon and Syria. General Charles de Gaulle then agreed to Syrian independence, despite his ambition to preserve control over the French colonies around the world, including Syria. De Gaulle reasoned that through allowing formal independence, he could build goodwill with Syrian nationalists and thereby get them to agree on a treaty with France that would keep Syria within the French orbit. Based on this plan, in 1943 Free France allowed elections for a Syrian president which were won by Al Quwatli. He officially became president of Syria on the 17th August 1943.
What general De Gaulle did not fully appreciate at that time, however, was that Al Quwatli collaborated with Britain. Britain wanted to use him to end the influence of France in the Middle East, such that the entire region could be brought under their control. In 1942 already, and again in 1943, Al Quwatli had made secret pledges to the British that if they supported him to free Syria from French influence, he would establish close relations between Syria and British controlled Palestine and Iraq.[3] In these pledges Al Quwatli swore on his honor, in his name and on behalf of the Syrian nation, to establish Greater Syria; to grant Britain concessions for oil exploration in Syria; to grant Britain a preferential political, economic and financial status in the country; to adopt a foreign policy compatible with Britain’s and to allow Britain a role in establishing the Syrian army.[4]
Eventually, thanks to the work by the French intelligence officer Fernand Oliva-Roget, general De Gaulle became fully informed of the secret deals between Al Quwatli and the British, as well as the British aim to use its relations with Al Quwatli to remove French influence from Syria. Therefore, once de Gaulle had been appointed formal leader of France, after its liberation from Nazi Germany occupation in 1944, he started work to counter the British schemes. In 1945 de Gaulle instructed the French army in Syria to take back control. On the 29th of May 1945 French troops stormed the Syrian parliament and tried to arrest president al Quwatli. Al Quwatli was rushed to safety by the British, who then organized a military counteroffensive against the French in Syria. On the 1st of June 1945, the British forces moved into Syria from Transjordan to confront the French army. The British forces took control over Damascus and forced the French army to return to its barracks. Eventually, the British forced the French to completely pull its army out Syria, leading Al Quwatli to formally declare Syrian independence from France on the 17th of April 1946.[5]
The Second Era: The American Effort to Seize Syria from Britain
Because of Al Quwatli’s relations with the British and his decision to allow the Syrian Communist Party (SCP) to operate freely in Syria,[6] he did not have many friends in America. Therefore, when Al Quwatli in 1947 approached America requesting arms for his newly created army, America refused. Al Quwatli then further aggravated the situation when he refused to allow the Americans to build the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) through Syria, to bring Saudi oil to the Mediterranean port city of Sidon in Lebanon. The reason he refused was that the American oil operations in Saudi Arabia were a direct threat to the Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) that was under the control of Britain.[7] For this reason, in 1948 Miles Copeland, a CIA officer stationed at the American embassy in Damascus, began planning to overthrow Al Quwatli. Copeland searched for a person inside Syria with the ability to influence Syrian politics, and with the personality that would make him useful to America. He found that person in Husni al Za’im, a career Syrian soldier who the American CIA agents described as “corrupted”, “power crazy”, and “not very clever”.[8] Throughout his career, Al Za’im had never shown any interest in principles or convictions. Instead, he worked to further his own interests irrespective of who was in power in Syria. He had joined the Ottoman army when it ruled over Syria, and then joined the French army in Syria after the establishment of the French Mandate. Because he had supported Vichy France, he was fired by the Free France regime in Syria, which left him roaming the streets of Syria. After Syrian independence in 1946 he therefore begged Al Quwatli to give him a position in the new Syrian army, which he was granted. By 1948 Al Za’im was the leader of the Syrian army, which at the time was being trained by America.[9] All this made him useful to the Americans. In conversation with the American CIA agent Stephan Mead he promised that in return for American support, he would establish a dictatorship in Syria that would enable him to ban the communist party and put its leaders in jail, allow the Tapline to be built through Syria and sign a peace treaty with Israel. The Americans agreed to support Al Za’im who then, on the 29th of March 1949, executed a coup against president Al Quwatli. The Americans quickly supported the regime of Al Za’im in Syria by sending him an official letter of recognition on the 27th of April 1949. Thereafter, Al Za’im did as he had promised. He instituted a military dictatorship in Syria, arresting and imprisoning all who he thought opposed him, signed a contract for the Tapline with the Americans, and started secret negotiation with Israel about a peace treaty and the resettlement of 300,00 Palestinians to Syria. He also requested American support for the development of the Syrian army, but this the Americans refused on the request of Israeli prime minister Ben Gurion, who asked America not to arm his neighbours.[10]
The Americans agreed to support Al Za’im who then, on the 29th of March 1949, executed a coup against president Al Quwatli.
Just four months after Al Za’im’s coup, however, during the early hours of the 14th of August 1949, he himself was deposed through a coup led by colonel Sami Al Hinnawi. Al Hinnawi had been won over by Colonel Stirling of the British secret service. A fluent Arabic speaker, Stirling was an important element of the British secret service in the Middle East, leading, among other things, the clandestine operations designed to manipulate Syrian public opinion to align it with British interests.[11] Under Stirling’s guidance, Al Hinnawi had Al Za’im executed. Thereafter he established a new government led by Syrians loyal to the British. This new leadership invited King Faisal II of Iraq, the grandson of Faisal bin Hussein who had been king of Syria in 1920 and after being deposed by the French had been made king of Iraq by the British, to Damascus to organize a Syrian–Iraqi union.[12]
The plan for a Syrian–Iraqi union under British guidance would never come to fruition, however, because in December 1949 a third coup took place in Syria. This time, the regime established by colonel Al Hinnawi was overthrown by Adib Al Shishakli, another colonel in the Syrian army. Unlike Al Hinnawi, Al Shishakli was very much opposed to the British and against the vision of a Syrian–Iraqi union under British guidance. Once in power, Al Shishakli returned Syria to the policies of his predecessor Al Za’im, the agent for America. He renewed the concession for the Tapline as well as the offer to allow Palestinians that had been made refugees by Israel to resettle in Syria.[13] Politically, he also returned Syria to the track originally established by Al Za’im, that of effective military dictatorship. Al Shishakli’s spies and security agents were posted throughout the country to monitor any potential anti-Shishakli activity. All political parties were banned, especially religious parties since Al Shishakli promoted a general secularization of Syrian society.[14] Under Al Shishakli, diplomatic relations between Syria and America flourished. Formal meetings between Syrian officials and their American counterparts became regular occurrences. For example, in 1952 the American secretary of state John Foster Dulles travelled to Syria to meet Al Shishakli, becoming the first American official to do so. Despite this, what Al Shishakli was not able to achieve was firm American support for the military buildup he had in mind. Just as had happened to Al Za’im request, Al Shishakli’s requests for American military support were refused. Again on the request of the Israelis the Americans demanded assurances from Al Shishakli that any American weapons would never be used against Israel, something Al Shishakli could not accept due to the uproar this would cause inside Syria.[15]
The Short Lived Egyptian-Syrian Union
In 1954 Al Shishakli became a victim of another coup in Syria. This coup returned former president Hashim Al Atassi to political power. Al Atassi worked to return Syria to the British camp, aligning himself with the foremost British agent in Iraq, Nuri Al Sa’id.[16] Meanwhile, he strongly opposed efforts by Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was another army officer brought to power in Egypt by the CIA’s Miles Copeland, to bring Syria into his – and by extension America’s – orbit.
As president of Egypt, Abdul Nasser closely aligned Egypt with America. He nationalized the British owned Suez Canal, as a result of which Britain partnered with France and Israel to try and depose him via a military intervention. This effort failed, however, as America came to Abdul Nasser’s support. America harshly criticized the military response by Britain, France and Israel to Abdul Nasser’s nationalization of Suez at the United Nations. Furthermore, it threatened to sell its holding of British pounds, an act which would have crashed the value of the British pound and thereby cause a financial crisis in Britain. Britain therefore had no choice but to pull its troops from Egypt, followed soon thereafter by France and Israel. As a reward, America then allowed Britain to receive a large loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).[17]
In response to Suez, Abdul Nasser became a hero for the people across the Arab World. This established an opportunity to bring Syria back under American control, through a union of Egypt and Syria. Leveraging his immense popularity among the Syrians, Abdul Nasser achieved this union in 1958. On the 22nd of February of that year, the union charter for the United Arab Republic was signed. Effectively, this made Syria a province of Egypt, under the control of Abdul Nasser. The Syrian government was abolished, and all foreign embassies in Damascus were turned into consulates. Now with the ability to drive affairs in Syria, Abdul Nasser banned the Syrian Communist Party and exiled its leader Khaled Bakdash. After Al Za’im had introduced the police state in Syria, which Al Shishakli had developed further, Abdul Nasser perfected it. He promoted the merciless intelligence chief Abdul Hamid Sarraj to minister of interior, who organized mass surveillance of Syrian society. Every phone conversation was tapped and spies were placed on every street corner and every place of gathering. Those suspected of opposition views were arrested and thrown into prison without trial. Abdul Nasser gave junior officers in the intelligence services, the Mukhabarat, a free hand to torture at will. The dungeons were quickly filled. In one infamous incident, Farjallah al Helou, founder of the Lebanese Communist Party, was tortured to death by Sarraj’s henchmen in 1958. Traces of the crime were eliminated by dissolving al Helou’s body in acid.[18] As far as foreign policy was concerned, Abdul Nasser ensured both Egypt and Syria were aligned with American plans for the Middle East.[19]
On the 28th of September 1961 another coup in Syria brought an end to Abdul Nasser’s United Arab Republic. It was led by a thirty-five-year-old officer named Abdul Karim Al Nehlawi. Al Nehlawi was supported by the business communities of Damascus and Aleppo, which had been hit hard by Abdul Nasser’s economic policies, and supported regionally by Abdul Nasser’s opponents in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. He was also supported by Britain’s longtime agents in Syria, including Al Quwatli, who at the time of the coup was in Switzerland for medical treatment.[20]
Whatever Al Nehlawi and his supporters had in mind for the post United Arab Republic period, nothing would come from it as fourteen months later, on the 8th of March 1963, Syria was again rocked by a military coup. This time, the coup mastermind was Ziad Al Hariri, a young man from Daraa who served as commander of Syrian troops on the Golan Heights. He was a committed Nasserist and friend of Egyptian intelligence. Al Hariri was supported by a group of Alawite officers, all members of the Syrian Ba’ath Party. The objective of the coup was to preserve the United Arab Republic. The new regime put all members of Syria’s traditional political elite in prison, thereby ending the ability of Britain to influence Syrian affairs.[21]
Among the group of Alawite Ba’athists was a thirty-three year old officer from the Syrian Air Force named Hafez Al Assad. After years of infighting in the Syrian military-political elite established by the 1963 coup, during November 1970, Hafez Al Assad executed a coup against his former partners to take control of Syria for himself.
The Third Era: Hafez Al-Assad Embraces America
Official American documents from the time indicate it was supportive of Al Assad’s coup. Al Assad had ambitions to reduce the influence of the Soviet Union in Syria, which aligned with what America had asked from Al Za’im, Al Shishakli and Abdul Nasser. Furthermore, Al Assad was assessed by the Americans as the “less fanatical” within the Ba’ath elite, more willing to collaborate with neighbouring countries, and more willing to join the peace talks between Egypt and Israel which the Americans were sponsoring. Al Assad’s visit to Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s new president following the death of Abdul Nasser and an equally close ally for America as Abdul Nasser had been, supported this assessment. The 1973 war between Egypt and Syria on one side, and Israel on the other, indicates that Al Assad was in fact doing more than just moderate Syrian policies. He coordinated with Sadat of Egypt to attack Israel in a way that supported the American plans for the Middle East. The war ended after both sides achieved some tactical wins and defeats, while the strategic wins were purely American. Henry Kissinger, America’s national security advisor and secretary of state at the time, explained this in a conversation with executives from America’s oil industry. “We are in a better position for negotiations than at any time since 1948…”, Kissinger said. “Although the Israelis have won militarily, they have paid a tremendous price. They have suffered some 7,000 casualties, which would have been equivalent to some 300 to 400,000 casualties for us. They have found out that rapid spectacular victories are no longer possible and that in any war, they face a war of attrition which they cannot win over time. Our influence with Israel is greater than ever. They cannot go to war again without an open supply line from the U.S.” Kissinger also spoke of an opportunity to end the soft power influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East once and for all. Israel’s American weapons had stopped the Arab armies which were equipped by the Soviet Union, namely, something which had not gone unnoticed by the Arab street.[22]
After the 1973 War, the rule of Al Assad saw a return of active diplomatic relations between Syria and America. After John Foster Dulles had visited Damascus in 1953 to meet with Al Shishakli, Henry Kissinger travelled to Damascus in 1973 to meet Al Assad. This would be the first of a number of in person meetings between the two. Kissinger made twenty-eight trips to Damascus over the following year, discussing with Al Assad potential pathways to a peace agreement between Syria and Israel. In 1974 the two achieved an agreement to disengage Syrian and Israeli troops along the Golan Heights, which left Israel in control of over half of the strategically important Syrian territory. Less than a month later, Richard Nixon became the first President to visit Damascus.[23]
The closeness of the relationship between Al Assad and Kissinger was indicated by Al Assad’s treatment of the Soviet Union’s foreign minister Andrei Gromyko. Concerned about Al Assad’s diplomatic engagements with America, Gromyko tried to speak to Al Assad as frequently as Kissinger. On the 27th of May 1974 he therefore travelled to Syria to meet Al Assad after a scheduled meeting between Al Assad and Kissinger. When Kissinger learned about this, he decided to travel to Syria again, this time unscheduled, which left Al Assad in the strange situation of being visited by the foreign ministers of both America and the Soviet Union at the same time. Al Assad then decided to cancel his meeting with Gromyko, as well as the dinner scheduled between the two. To Kissinger Al Assad then said, “…let us eat Gromyko’s food”.[24]
Despite this very close relation with Al Assad, Kissinger failed to achieve his ultimate objective of a comprehensive peace agreement between Syria and Israel. The main reason for this was not unwillingness on the part of Al Assad. Rather, as Al Assad explained to Kissinger, it was an inability for Al Assad to do this, as the Syrian people were voraciously against it. In essence, Al Assad feared for his position in Syria if he went along with Kissinger, arguing that the people under his rule would not accept it and rise up against him if he followed the American plan too quickly and too openly.[25] Kissinger’s response to this situation was to sideline Syria, and instead focus America’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East on getting the other Arab countries to agree peace with Israel first.
Lebanon
Towards the end of Kissinger’s official role in the American government, he worked with the Syrians to organize a managed entry of the Syrian army into Lebanon. Kissinger’s objective was to use Syria to bring the Palestinian resistance movements in Lebanon under control. Syria could do this better than America itself, Kissinger argued, since a direct American entry into Lebanon would only arouse the British and the French, who not only felt they had important interests in the country but also loyal agents who could create unrest and problems. Through organizing a series of secret meetings between Syria and Israel, Kissinger arranged the Red Line Agreement which defined what Syria would do in Lebanon and how, based on the American plan for the Middle East and with Israeli agreement. As part of this plan, Kissinger also asked America’s agents in Saudi Arabia and Iran to organize support for Syria, to enable it to be effective in Lebanon. Syrian success in Lebanon was important for Kissinger. Anything other than Syrian success would “…probably mean the overthrow of Assad”, Kissinger said. And that, he repeated again and again, was a prospect he feared.[26]
The close collaboration between Kissinger and Al Assad during the first few years of Hafez Al Assad’s rule created the situation that later on the Americans would, publicly at least, criticize the Al Assad regime for, specifically Syria’s relations with Iran. The reality behind the scenes is a far cry from the public statements, however. Kissinger saw in Hafez Al Assad an important American ally who supported American interests in the Middle East in a variety of crucial ways. This Syrian support for America continued even after Kissinger left the stage of geopolitics. For example, during the Iran–Iraq War, which started in 1980, Syria supported Iran by maintaining an aggressive posture towards Iraq, which forced Iraq to keep troops on the Syrian–Iraqi border.[27] Considering that this war was in reality a war between Britain via Saddam Hussein and America via the regime of Khomeini[28], this Syrian position was very much aligned with American interests.
In 1990 Al Assad supported America more openly. He was the first Arab leader who echoed America’s position regarding Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, calling upon Iraq to unconditionally withdraw immediately. When America organized its military operation against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Syria made fifteen to twenty thousand Syrian soldiers available to support the American Operation Desert Storm. During the war, Al Assad criticized Saddam Hussein for attacking Israel with scud-rockets, which Saddam did hoping that this move would cause Arab public opinion to side with him and limit the ability of Arab countries to support America.[29]
In 1990 Al Assad supported America more openly. He was the first Arab leader who echoed America’s position regarding Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait,
Following America’s First War on Iraq, Syrian support for America’s peace proposal regarding Israel also returned. On the 6th of March 1991 America’s president George H. W. Bush (senior) launched a new initiative to achieve a permanent peace deal between Israel and the Arab countries via multilateral negotiations.[30] Hafez Al Assad joined the American initiative despite recognizing that the Syrian public was very much against it – as it had been also when Kissinger first worked with Al Assad to start negotiations with Israel. Al Assad then coordinated with America through numerous meetings with America’s secretary of state James A. Baker, who travelled to Damascus almost monthly. The American objective was to pressure the Palestinian resistance to agree to peace with Israel, by threatening the resistance with the possibility of peace between Israel and the Arab countries which would end any kind of support for the Palestinians.
The relations between Al Assad and America remained close during the years of American president Bill Clinton. Between 1993 and 1996, Clinton’s secretary of state Warren Christopher made almost thirty trips to Damascus.[31] In December 1999, towards the end of the Clinton era, Al Assad told America’s secretary of state Madeleine Albright that he wanted to seriously negotiate with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak. This led to the Barak-Shara meeting in Washington in December 1999.[32] One of the main reasons these negotiations did not result in an agreement was that the Israelis spied on Clinton’s conversations with Al Assad.[33]
When in 2000 Hafiz Al Assad died, he was lauded by America as an exemplary leader, exactly the kind of figure Syria had needed. A man who had “…transformed a Middle East backwater into an introverted regional power”[34], a “…towering figure…” and “…respected”.[35] Bill Clinton remembered him not as an enemy or adversary, but as a close partner to the Americans. “Over the last seven years, I have met him many times and gotten to know him very well. We had our differences, but I always respected him…” President Clinton said. “Since the Madrid conference, he made a strategic choice for peace, and we worked together to achieve that goal.” Clinton further said that Al Assad had “…made clear Syria’s continued commitment to the path of peace”[36] Clinton’s secretary of state Madeleine Albright said that Al Assad “…ruled Syria for over 30 years and stood out as a major figure in the region… He made a strategic choice for peace at Madrid in 1991. In all of our talks, he remained committed to that choice. We strongly believe that was the right choice and expect that Syria will continue on the path of peace. We look forward to working with Syria to bring about the goal of a comprehensive Middle East peace.”[37]
The Fourth Era: Bashar Al Assad the Frenemy in Damascus
Following the death of Hafez Al Assad, his son Bashar was appointed as president. America’s support for this decision was evidenced by the fact that secretary of state Madeleine Albright was one of just two western officials who travelled to the funeral of Hafez Al Assad, to meet with the new president Bashar.[38] After the meeting, Albright said that for as far as domestic policy was concerned Bashar was the “reformer” the country needed.[39] With regards to international policy, the secretary of state said she was very encouraged by Al Assad’s promise to pursue a policy of continuity.[40]
However, Bashar Al Assad’s rise to power largely coincided with the rise of the neocon movement in America. President George W. Bush (junior) brought many of the leaders of the neocon movement into the centers of American power, which enabled them to work on the execution of their plan for the Middle East. This plan had originally been developed in 1996 and published under the name “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. It proposed that America leave the Middle East policy that had formed the basis of its actions in the region. In the words of American president Carter’s secretary of state Cyrus Vance, this traditional American policy was about establishing stable, moderate, pro-Western regimes in the Middle East, to ensure unhindered American access to Arab oil, which required peace between Israel and the Arab countries.[41] The Middle East policy proposed by the neocons, however, called for military intervention in the Middle East by America. Instead of leading negotiations, the neocons essentially said that America should just send in its military and force the creation of the Middle East that it wanted to see. First on the list of countries that would need to undergo this treatment was Iraq. Second Syria. Third Iran.[42]
Bashar Al Assad’s Syria tried to prevent the neocon agenda from reaching Syria through active engagement with America. It stepped up intelligence-sharing on Al Qaeda with the CIA in an attempt to appease the neoconservatives in the Bush administration.[43] But Syria didn’t get the response it hoped for. While Syria’s support for America’s War on Terror prevented the neocons from executing their plan for Syria, it did not fully undo the damage to the American–Syrian relations caused by the neocons. Syria was largely ignored by America under president George W. Bush as it focused on its second invasion and occupation of Iraq. Syria therefore began to offer “support with conditions” to America in Iraq.
Syria began to organize the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, who wished to support the Iraqi resistance, even going so far as organizing their training at the Syrian border town of Al Bukamal. The Syrian objective behind this apparent support for the anti-American fighters was to penetrate and influence their networks. This left the Syrian government, in particular Assad’s brother-in-law Assef Shawkat, with detailed knowledge of Iraqi resistance activities. During a meeting with officials from the American State Department, Ali Mamlouk, then director of General Intelligence and National Security, told the Americans, “…we don’t attack or kill them immediately. Instead, we embed ourselves in them and only at the opportune moment do we move”. Mamlouk then offered Syria’s support to the Americans, but in exchange for reduced economic sanctions and an improved regional and international political status for the Syrian regime.[44]
What the Syrians were trying to get from America was aligned with what the Americans by that time were willing to offer. As the American military got into serious trouble in Iraq following the invasion of 2003, a special committee was established in 2006 to search for a solution. This committee was officially named the Iraq Study Group (ISG), but became known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission after its two chairmen, former secretary of state James A. Baker and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton. The ISG concluded that America’s situation in Iraq was “grave and deteriorating”, and recommended, among other things, close collaboration with Syria (and Iran) in order to defeat the Iraqi resistance. The ISG suggested that through offering economic incentives, as well as a promise of formally restoring diplomatic relations with Syria, the country could be persuaded to go along with the American requests.[45]
In addition to supporting America’s broader Middle East plans, Bashar Al Assad also continued to follow in his father’s footsteps when it came to the subject of Israel. He participated in two efforts to achieve a peace accord, one led by Turkey which involved Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and another led by America which involved Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One of the American mediators later revealed details of what Bashar Al Assad was willing to offer to reach an accord. This included breaking military ties with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, and neutralizing all threats to Israel arising in Syria, on the condition that Israel would agree to restore to Syria all land taken from it in June 1967, in other words, the Golan Heights.[46] These negotiations continued and progressed over the course of 2010 and 2011, and only stopped when the Syrian Revolution began in 2012.[47]
These Syrian positions on subjects considered critical for America explain why American officials continued to visit Syria during the reign of Bashar Al Assad. The prominent Democratic congressperson Nancy Pelosi led a delegation that visited Damascus for talks with Bashar Al Assad in 2007.[48] In 2009, shortly after Barack Obama took over from George W. Bush as president of America, congressman John Kerry and his wife Teresa travelled to Damascus to have dinner with Bashar Al Assad and his wife. In 2010, Kerry travelled to Damascus again. At a press conference following his trip he said that the American administration considered Syria “…an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region”. In all, Kerry would make six visits to Syria until the outbreak of the revolution against the Al Assad regime in 2011.[49] As to that revolution, just days before it started, on the 27th of March 2011 America’s secretary of state Hillary Clinton still defended Bashar Al Assad, saying about him, “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”[50]
Arab Spring Rocks al-Assad Regime
When the Arabic Spring reached Syria in early 2012, America responded in order to protect its influence in the country. Under the flag of the United Nations, America organized a conference in Geneva, Switzerland, to get all the world’s great powers – America, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, Germany – to agree that the solution for the “Syrian problem” was preserving the state institutions established by the Al Assad’s, specifically the police, secret services and military.[51] Leon Panetta, America’s secretary of defense, said at the time, “I think it’s important when Assad leaves, and he will leave, to try to preserve stability in that country… The best way to preserve that kind of stability is to maintain as much of the military and police as you can, along with security forces, and hope that they will transition to a democratic form of government. That’s the key.”[52] America wanted Bashar Al Assad to be replaced by someone more palatable for the people of Syria, such that the Syrian masses would accept the continuation of the state built by the Al Assad family. The Russians disagreed with America that the solution to the “Syrian problem” needed to include a departure of Al Assad. Their position was that not only the Al Assad regime’s government institutions should remain intact, but that Bashar Al Assad himself should also remain president of Syria. The Russians wanted to avoid the region getting the idea that violent revolutions could change a political reality, because a significant parts of Russian territory has a Muslim-majority population.
In 2013 America then started to provide weapons and training to some of the resistance groups in Syria. While this was presented as an effort to “topple Al Assad”, the details of the program reveal that it was designed to protect the Syrian regime built by the Al Assads. The program backed forces affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that the American government considered politically moderate, that is, non “Islamist”. The goal of the program was to empower the FSA against Islamist factions, particularly Jabhat Al Nusra, the Syrian branch of al Qaeda that is now known as Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS). America provided these approved rebel groups with light weapons, military training, salaries, and sometimes anti-tank missiles. Washington, however, always refused to provide them with heavier weapons such as surface-to-air missiles.[53] America also made certain that it gave enough resources to the groups allied with it such that they could hold back the resistance groups it did not like, but never so many resources that they would achieve battlefield dominance. In other words, they were drip-feeding opposition groups just enough to survive but never enough to become dominant actors.[54]
In 2014 a coalition led by America then launched military operations inside the country, but these too turned out to be primarily directed not against the Syrian regime, but against the “Islamist” rebel groups resisting the rule of Bashar Al Assad, including the Islamic State group[55], exactly as the Syrian regime had hoped.[56]
In 2015 America and Russia put their longstanding differences aside and agreed to collaborate in Syria. This American–Russian partnership for Syria came about through a series of meetings over the first months of 2015 between the ministers of foreign affairs of both countries, America’s John Kerry and Russia’s Sergey Lavrov.[57] The American president Obama and Russian prime-minister Putin then met to discuss Syria on the 28th of September 2015.[58] Shortly after, on the 30th of September, Russia intervened militarily in Syria.[59] A press conference by Kerry and Lavrov just hours after Russia’s first attacks confirmed that these Russian actions were undertaken based on the American–Russian partnership for Syria. During this press conference both parties said, namely, that they shared a desire to keep Syria “democratic, united, secular”. And that the militaries of the two countries would collaborate closely in Syria to achieve this.[60]
A press conference by Kerry and Lavrov just hours after Russia’s first attacks confirmed that these Russian actions were undertaken based on the American–Russian partnership for Syria.
The essence of this American–Russian partnership was revealed two months later. Both America and Russia wanted the Syrian state built by the Al Assad family to be protected, but they had disagreed about the role of Bashar Al Assad himself in this government. To get Russia to send its military to Syria in order to support the Al Assad regime, eventually America accepted the Russian position regarding Bashar Al Assad. During a press conference in December 2015, John Kerry announced that America had changed its Syria policy, and that a stepping down of Bashar Al Assad in Syria had been dropped from its list of priorities.[61] Furthermore, in return for Russia’s military engagement in Syria, America turned a blind eye to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimea, although this breached the security assurances it had given the government of Ukraine in a 1994 treaty named the Budapest Memorandum.[62]
With Russia’s brutal air assaults, Iran and Hezbollah’s massacres on the ground alongside thousands of Shi’ah militia fighters recruited from across the region the tide turned against the Syrian people. Bashar al-Assad and his regime proceeded to destroy the country through grinding years of slaughter that saw hundreds of thousands murdered and millions dispossessed and displaced. The global powers proceeded to organise summits to discuss the future of Syria in Astana, Geneva and Riyadh, only inviting select Syrian groups. Whilst the regional powers from Jordan to Saudi to the UAE and Turkey armed the various rebel groups and then pushed them into truces and reconciliations with the regime in Damascus. Turkey, Russia and the Syrian regime agreed de-escalation zones amongst themselves, which saw rebel groups with their families transported to these zones after agreeing to put down the arms. At the beginning of 2017 the regime recaptured Aleppo after destroying much of the city’s infrastructure. Bashar al-Assad, with help from the global and regional powers had, as far as he was concerned, survived and ended the Arab Spring uprising in Syria and he claimed he had recaptured most of Syria from rebel hands and therefore was the legitimate ruler of all of Syria.
In part two we look at the fifth era, the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the the post al-Assad era
[1] Sami Moubayed, “Royalism in Syria after Faysal I: The Struggle for the Crown of Damascus, 1920-1958”, Royal Studies Journal, 2022, https://rsj.winchester.ac.uk/articles/322/files/submission/proof/322-1-3047-1-10-20221209.pdf
[2] Sami Moubayed, “Syria and the USA: Washington’s Relations with Damascus from Wilson to Eisenhower”, I.B. Tauris, 2013
[3] Meir Zamir, “The Secret Anglo-French War in the Middle East: Intelligence and Decolonization, 1940-1948”, Routledge, 2015
[4] Meir Zamir, “Britain’s treachery, France’s revenge”, Ha’aretz Magazine, 2008
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant_Crisis
[6] The SCP was led by Khaled Bakdash, a Syrian who had been educated at the Communist University of the Toilers of the East in Moscow.
[7] Ibidem note 2
[8] Miles Copeland, “The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics”, Simon & Schuster, 1970
[9] Olivia B. Waxman, “The U.S. Intervened in Syria in 1949. Here’s What Happened”, Time, 2017, https://time.com/4735438/america-syria-war-coup-history/
[10] Ibidem note 2
[11] Ibiden note 3
[12] Ibidem note 2
[13] Jorg Michael Dostal, “Syria and the Great Powers (1946-1958): How Western Power Politics Pushed the Country Toward the Soviet Union”, Syrian Studies, 2015, https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-57358-2
[14] Christopher Solomon, “Remember Syria’s Adib Shishakly”, Syria Comment, 2016, https://joshualandis.com/blog/24236-2/
[15] Ibidem note 12
[16] Ibidem note 3
[17] Owen Rust, “The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 & The Rise of the US”, The Collector, 2023, www.thecollector.com/the-suez-canal-crisis-1956-explained/
[18] Sami Moubayed, “The Makers of Modern Syria: The Rise and Fall of Syrian Democracy 1918 – 1958)”, I.B. Taurus, 2018
[19] Ibidem note 2
[20] Ibidem note 17
[21] Ibidem note 17
[22] Lars Hasvoll Bakke, “Facing Assad: American Diplomatic Relations with Syria, 1969-76”, University of Oslo, 2013, www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/38434/1/Facing_Assad_-_Masters_Thesis_by_Lars_Hasvoll_Bakke.pdf
[23] Robin Wright, “The Assad Family: Nemesis of Nine US Presidents”, The New Yorker Magazine, 2017, www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-assad-family-nemesis-of-nine-u-s-presidents
[24] Ibidem note 21
[25] Eyal Zisser, “Appearance And Reality: Syria’s Decision making Structure”, Middle East Review of International Affairs, 1998, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/meria/meria598_zisser.html
[26] Ibidem note 21
[27] Moshe Ma’oz and Avnr Yaniv, “Syria under Assad: Domestic Constraints and Regional Risks”, Routledge, 1986
[28] This explains why the Americans secretly supplied weapons to Khomeini, as was revealed by the “Iran Contra Affair”.
[29] Raymon Hinnebusch, “Syria’s Role in the Gulf War Coalition”, in “Friends in Need: Burden Sharing in the Persian Gulf War”, St Martins Press, 1997
[30] Israel was against this initiative, as it preferred bilateral negotiations, but America forced Israel to join its initiative by threatening to withhold $10 billion in loan guarantees that Israel had requested to help settle Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/madrid-conference
[31] Ibidem note 22
[32] Itamar Rabinovich, “Syria Policy, Before and After the Uprising”, New Lines Magazine, 2021, https://newlinesmag.com/first-person/how-israel-weighed-its-syria-policy-before-and-after-the-uprising/
[33] Toi Staff, “New book claims Israel spied on Bill Clinton”, The Times of Israel, 2014, www.timesofisrael.com/new-book-alleges-israel-spied-on-bill-clinton/
[34] Neil MacFarquhar, “Hafez al-Assad, Who Turned Syria Into a Power in the Middle East, Dies at 69”, New York Times, 11 June 2000, www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/world/hafez-al-assad-who-turned-syria-into-a-power-in-the-middle-east-dies-at-69.html
[35] Patrick Seale, “Hafez al-Assad”, The Guardian, 15 June 2000, www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/jun/15/guardianweekly.guardianweekly1
[36] John Daniszewski, “Death of Syria’s Assad Complicates Peace Prospects”, Los Angeles Times, 2000, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jun-11-mn-39965-story.html
[37] https://1997-2001.state.gov/travels/2000/000612trip_remarks.html
[38] The other western leader in attendance was France’s President Jacques Chirac, who tried to get the Syrians to restore France’s once-influential role in Lebanon, which had ended after Syria went into Lebanon based on the Red Line Agreement between Kissiner and Hafez Al Assad. Jamil Hamad, “Who’s In, Who’s Out at Assad’s Funeral”, Time, 2000, https://time.com/archive/6926172/whos-in-whos-out-at-assads-funeral/
[39] Jane Perlez, “Albright Finds Syria’s New Leader Willing to Pursue Talks”, The New York Times, 14 June 2000, www.nytimes.com/2000/06/14/world/albright-finds-syria-s-new-leader-willing-to-pursue-talks.html
[40] “SYRIA: ALBRIGHT ATTENDS PRESIDENT ASSADS FUNERAL”, Associated Press, 2000, https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=3cc3b628a1b8eb736355d028ff48546a&mediatype=video&source=youtube
[41] Alex Hobson, “The Unravelling of Jimmy Carter’s Middle East”, New Lines Magazine, 2023, https://newlinesmag.com/essays/the-unraveling-of-jimmy-carters-middle-east/
[42] William O. Beeman, “Syria and the Neoconservative Agenda”, Highbrow Magazine, 2013, www.highbrowmagazine.com/2788-syria-and-neoconservative-agenda
[43] James Harkin, “When Assad Dropped the Façade”, The American Prospect, 2012, https://prospect.org/world/assad-dropped-facade/
[44] Laila Alrefaai, “How the Assad Regime Helped Create, Support, and Perpetuate ‘ISIS’?”, Rowaq Arabi, 2021, https://cihrs-rowaq.org/views-how-the-assad-regime-helped-create-support-and-perpetuate-isis/?lang=en
[45] “The Iraq Study Group Report”, 2006, www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-IRAQSTUDYGROUP/pdf/GPO-IRAQSTUDYGROUP.pdf
[46] Itamar Rabinovich, “Syria Policy, Before and After the Uprising”, New Lines Magazine, 2021, https://newlinesmag.com/first-person/how-israel-weighed-its-syria-policy-before-and-after-the-uprising/
[47] Frederick C. Hof, “I almost negotiated Israel-Syria peace. Here’s how it happened.”, The Atlantic Council, 2022, www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/i-almost-negotiated-israel-syria-peace-heres-how-it-happened/
[48] “Pelosi shrugs off Bush’s criticism, meets Assad”, NBC News, 2007, www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17920536
[49] “Kerry comments on Assad may draw scrutiny”, The Times of Israel, 2013, www.timesofisrael.com/kerry-comments-on-assad-may-draw-scrutiny/
[50] “As Syria Conflict Rages On, Clinton’s Rhetoric Intensifies”, ABC News, 2012, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/syria-conflict-rages-clintons-rhetoric-intensifies/story?id=16561069
[51] “Final Communiqué of the Action Group for Syria (Geneva Communiqué)”, 30 June 2012, https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/default/files/document/files/2024/05/sy120630final20communique20of20the20action20group20for20syria.pdf
[52] Missy Ryan, “U.S. defence chief – Syria military must remain intact when Assad goes”, Reuters, 31 July 2012, www.reuters.com/article/uk-syria-crisis-usa/u-s-defence-chief-syria-military-must-remain-intact-when-assad-goes-idUKBRE86T1KF20120730
[53] Fabrice Balanche, “The End of the CIA Program in Syria – Washington Cedes the Field”, Foreign Affairs, 2017, https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03189328/document
[54] Mark Mazzetti, Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt, “Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret C.I.A. War in Syria”, The New York Times, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html
[55] Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt, “Airstrikes by U.S. and Allies Hit ISIS Targets in Syria”, New York Times, 22 September 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world/middleeast/us-and-allies-hit-isis-targets-in-syria.html
[56] Zachary Laub, “Syria’s Civil War: The Descent Into Horror”, Council on Foreign Relations, 2023, www.cfr.org/article/syrias-civil-war
[57] Shaun Walker, “Kerry set to meet Putin in first visit to Russia since start of Ukraine crisis”, The Guardian, 12 May 2015, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/11/john-kerry-meet-russian-foreign-minister-talks–ukraine-syria-yemen
[58] Jeff Mason and Denis Dyomkin, “Obama, Putin spar over Syria”, Reuters, 29 September 2015, www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-obama/obama-putin-spar-over-syria-idUSKCN0RS1TC20150929
[59] “Russia launches airstrikes in Syria amid U.S. concern about targets”, Los Angeles Times, 30 September 2019, https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-kremlin-oks-troops-20150930-story.html
[60] Max Fisher, “John Kerry just made a significant and consequential gaffe on Russia and Syria”, Vox, 30 September 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9429039/syria-russia-kerry-lavrov
[61] “Assad can stay, for now: Kerry accepts Russian stance”, Military Times, 16 December 2015, www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2015/12/16/assad-can-stay-for-now-kerry-accepts-russian-stance/
[62] Steven Pifer, “Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum”, The Brookings Institute, 5 December 2019, www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/12/05/why-care-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/
