Rapid fall of Assad ‘not unexpected’: FM
Iran been in direct contact with Syrian opposition since Astana
In less than a month, the West Asia region has seen major developments. First, there was the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah after the former started massacring the Lebanese civilians and destroying their homes and infrastructure. Then, an Al-Qaeda affiliate led the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) militant group in capturing city after city in Syria. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad soon left Damascus for Moscow, hanging a huge question mark over the future of his country. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sat with the Lebanese newspaper Al-Nahar to discuss these events and more in an interview, parts of which are translated from Arabic below.
AL-NAHAR: The Middle East has witnessed rapid and highly complex transformations since October 7, 2023, with the recent collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria being a significant turning point. How did this rapid collapse of one of Iran’s most important regional allies happen?
ARAGHCHI: Contrary to popular belief in the media, the rapid collapse of the Syrian regime was not unexpected for me. Understanding why the collapse happened so quickly, however, requires a study of three elements: the ground, the timing, and the context. These transformations, which appeared to be very rapid and surprising on the surface, had real underlying causes with a long history of at least 10–12 years.
The continuous attacks by the Zionist regime on Syria’s defensive infrastructure over the past 14 months were carried out with the aim of weakening the Syrian government. The presence of multiple external actors with overlapping and sometimes opposing objectives, all of whom shared the common goal of toppling the regime, ultimately led to the rapid events we witnessed.
We had been assessing the regional dynamics, especially after October 7, and concluded that conditions for the Syrian government would become difficult and that governing Syria would become a fundamental challenge. We frankly conveyed these views to the Syrian prime minister in September this year.
The issue was that plans were drawn outside the region. We had substantial and numerous intelligence about the movements and outgoing calls in the capitals of neighboring countries aimed at seeking support from Syria’s neighbors. The US policy of threatening and enticing regional countries to get involved in a major conflict to save Israel is no secret, even to the media.
It was expected that the decision-making authorities in the Syrian government would show flexibility in adopting diplomatic initiatives and proposals to bring the opposition into power, but this was not the case. The Islamic Republic of Iran, from the start of the Astana process, had direct communications with the Syrian opposition, conducting hours of talks with them, in addition to engaging in trilateral negotiations with Turkey and Russia as part of the process. We also presented the opposition’s proposals alongside our consultations at the highest levels during the Astana process in Damascus.
Iran’s support was a key factor in the Syrian regime’s survival in the face of the uprising against it in 2011. Why did Tehran not support the regime in repelling the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)?
Our support for Syria was support for a country at the formal request of its established government and to prevent the spread of the brutal and horrific terrorism of ISIS. This intervention was also to preserve an important regional country from crimes, genocide, and ultimately falling into the chaos of a failed state, as well as to maintain regional security, which we consider integral to our national security. Remember that at the time, Syria was facing a threat to its existence and territorial integrity from the surge of the terrorist group ISIS.
Iran’s red line, as I stated before my last trip to Syria, has always been the preservation of the political borders and national sovereignty of regional countries. We followed the same policy in the difficult conditions that our neighbor Turkey faced on July 15, 2016, when we stood against the coup that could have threatened Turkey’s national sovereignty. I was the deputy foreign minister at the time and witnessed the lengthy phone calls between the officials of the two nations and numerous coordinative efforts between their military counterparts in the crisis room that was set up.
Therefore, while we do not have the obligation to fight another country’s war, we will stand by our neighbors in the face of national security threats from terrorist and separatist movements, upon our neighbors’ request. This is a recognized principle under international law. Unlike the US, which has occupied a significant part of Syria without any authorization or legal basis, we have never gone there without the request and permission of the Syrian government.
Our view of Syria is the same, although I must admit that there has been a significant misrepresentation of Iran’s regional policy in the media, which is partly due to our own shortcomings and partly due to the wave of misinformation by global media that began with Iran’s Islamic Revolution. The construction of an incorrect image of Iran has become a business that now affects the entire Islamic world, and many are exploited daily from a place of Islamophobia.
A lot has been written about what happened during your last meeting with the Syrian president in Damascus a few days before the collapse. Can you tell us specifically what happened? Did you advise the Syrian President not to resist?
Diplomatic decorum does not allow one country to advise another, but the level of our consultations with Syria had risen to a high level over the past years of economic, industrial, cultural, and political cooperation, so we spoke sincerely and compassionately but frankly as in all our consultations.
In that last meeting, my conversation had both public and private parts. In both parts, I was very clear and precise, explaining the situation and emphasizing that for Iran, the territorial integrity of Syria, the well-being of its people, and the stability of its government are a set of principles in regulating bilateral relations, and we will strongly support these three principles. We have always highlighted for the Syrian government, in all our consultations since 2011, the necessity of initiating political talks with those groups of the opposition that do not have terrorist affiliations.
For talks with the ruling faction that holds power in Syria, which path do you prefer?
We prefer the official and diplomatic channels, and this is contingent upon the necessary coordination and guarantees according to the Vienna Convention for the presence of a technical delegation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, along with accredited diplomats. The assessment of damages to our embassy and reporting to Syrian authorities, the preparation of the embassy in Damascus and the consulate in Aleppo by the technical team, and simultaneously, the initiation of political talks and evaluations by diplomats with officials in charge according to their usual duties will be carried out.
What do you expect the new government in Syria to be like?
Like any country, a government that is in line with the will of its people and encompasses all virtuous individuals and groups, capable of representing Syrian society. It should pave the way for national dialogue and provide a path for building a united and cohesive Syria within its political borders. I believe a government that can protect borders and enforce sovereignty with social consent over Syrian territory has two essential internal components, and a government that creates good neighborliness while maintaining independence in managing international relations has two necessary external indicators that can save Syria.
What is your recommendation for a successful path out of the crisis, the return of peace and stability to Syria, and the establishment of a national government?
Several steps should be considered. First, at the domestic level, a national Syrian-Syrian dialogue should be initiated so that all diverse and different segments of the Syrian people feel involved. Alongside this, efforts to help refugees return should be prioritized.
Second, at the international level, a conference should be held with the presence of all contributing countries to reconstruct Syria and repay its debt so that all countries that have claims on this country also contribute to its future. In this conference, installments for repaying debts should be determined, and aid should be committed and pledged. It is very important that the economic stabilization of Syria is given special and immediate attention.
Another step necessary for the success of these two measures is to have the active participation of the United Nations and the Security Council in creating an obligation for the liberation of the occupied Syrian territories and their return to the people of this country. The integrity of Syria must be respected.
The Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei blamed an unnamed country for the change in the Assad regime. Was he referring to Turkey, and have there been any contacts between Tehran and Ankara regarding Syria’s future?
Consultations between the two neighboring countries, Iran and Turkey, on regional issues have been ongoing throughout the long history of relations. My trip from Damascus to Ankara also showed a clear approach, indicating a high level of continuous cooperation and consultation, even in times of differing views and interests. These consultations have been ongoing in recent years, especially as the Syrian crisis escalated, through the Astana process in trilateral or bilateral contacts between the two countries’ officials.
We have shared our concerns about the impact of the Syrian transformations with our Turkish counterparts in numerous meetings, and we believe that no country in the region is independent of its neighbors; The security of the two neighbors is interdependent. Regarding the statement of the Leader, I draw your attention, not to a paraphrase of his words, but rather to his words, which emphasized that what is happening in Syria is an American-Israeli plan in which another country also has a clear role. The crucial point he explicitly stated was that “the main conspirator, the main planner, and the main command center are in America and the Zionist regime.”
In my view, considering the context, your reference should be to the entire statement to understand its meaning. Otherwise, you risk misinterpreting the strategic view of Iran. It is important to note that the leader emphasized the word “main” three times. Therefore, from my perspective, the implication of your question is not based on the explicit content of his statement.
I want to ask you a question about Lebanon that was repeatedly asked during the past war. Does Iran really see Hezbollah as something to negotiate over?
I was a bit surprised by your question because you know Hezbollah better than I do. Hezbollah has always been an integral part of Lebanese society and has played a role in shaping the historical transformations of Lebanon over the past three decades. Our view of Hezbollah has always been based on the principles that its martyred leader and his brothers-in-arms held. Today, with the new leadership at its helm, we maintain the same perspective. Hezbollah has always been, for us, an influential social force, a defensive military power, and a political movement that maintains national cohesion, stabilizes security, and is a defensive and supportive element. This is the fundamental basis of our view of Hezbollah.
Of course, Hezbollah has also played an essential role alongside other Muslim and Arab nations in defending Palestine and resisting the aggressive and boundless expansion of Israel, which is a shared cause with us. I believe that all regional nations are indebted to the resistance of Hezbollah and the Lebanese people. Iran stands alongside the collective forces of the anti-Zionist Resistance Front and certainly supports all Islamic and Arab forces that are part of this axis. Again, I emphasize that resistance against occupation and continuous expansion by Israel is not just a matter of belief but a reality; This resistance is also the most important tool for maintaining the security and stability of the entire region.
The cease-fire agreement between Lebanon and Israel gives Israel the room to move and act. How do you evaluate this agreement?
First, I believe Israel accepted this agreement because it lacked the resilience and ability to sustain direct conflict. For over a year, the Israeli army has been targeting defenseless and innocent men, women, children, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled in Gaza, making them the primary targets of the most severe attacks and perpetrating a real genocide, which has been a tragedy for the contemporary world. What has been the outcome of such barbarism? Dragging the war to Lebanon and now attacking Syria? What benefits have these attacks brought to Israel? Has it left behind anything other than widespread global hatred and the exposure of the true face of the Zionist entity as a genocidal and war-criminal regime? Its leaders are now wanted by the International Criminal Court and admonished by the International Court of Justice. This is a harsh and unabating price that the Jewish people have been paying as prisoners of Zionist ideology. Zionism, yesterday in the form of Golda Meir and Sharon and today in the guise of Netanyahu, has violated both the faith of Prophet Moses and the Jewish identity.
My assessment is that when Netanyahu violates the May 31, 1974 agreement and UN Security Council Resolution to halt the conflict with Syria and shows no commitment to any principles, he will not be loyal to the cease-fire. From this perspective, we believe countries should stand united and strong based on their national capabilities and the strength of their youth against this destructive and demonic force.
Will Iran help in the reconstruction of Lebanon?
Iran has shown its support for Lebanon’s survival in the most difficult conditions. Iran demonstrated its resolve on the day of the fuel crisis in Lebanon, which placed the country’s economy on the brink of collapse and disintegration. There is no doubt that in that specific case, secretary-general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah played an effective role, but aside from that, the historical ties and cultural interactions between the people of Iran and Lebanon, despite geographical distance, have established an essential historical empathy. For eight centuries, the poet Saadi, who wrote in both Persian and Arabic, has vividly described the behavior of our people: “If you have no sympathy for human pain. The name of human you cannot retain.”
Iran has taken significant steps towards reconciliation with the Arab countries of the peninsula. There have also been efforts to normalize relations with Egypt. Will the new developments affect this?
The impact of regional developments on the normalization of relations between countries in the region is obvious, especially since all countries in the region have had bitter experiences from transformations resulting from interventions by extra-regional powers. The collective security and destiny of the region’s nations require governments to take essential steps in organizing sustainable relations.
For decades, we have witnessed the destructive effects of the “divide and rule” policy pursued by colonial powers in the 19th century and global powers in the 20th century on regional convergence. After that, in specific periods, the shared realization was that enhancing the level of constructive cooperation has led to an improvement in formal interactions, which has had a constructive impact on the social exchanges of the region’s nations.
From this perspective, it is important to note that there are internal regional threats that, if ignored, can cause significant damage to the stability and development of our neighbors, who have made some important economic programs the focus of their actions. Activities of terrorist and separatist groups, drug trafficking, illegal migration, and environmental problems are clear examples of issues that no country can solve alone without elevating the level of political interactions.
A destructive element in the region, the Zionist regime, has been openly and continuously, for over a year, pursuing a colonial eradication project and destroying all basic living infrastructure in Gaza. Now, with the start of recent developments in Syria, this regime has violated agreements and UN Security Council resolutions, extending its aggression towards Syria. Attacks on defensive structures, scientific resources, development resources, cities, ports, transportation lines, and the massacre of defenseless civilians over the past few days have become a pattern for the regime to shift the overflow of Syria’s problems to neighboring and regional countries. The destructive impact of such actions on the collective destiny of the major and minor countries of West Asia and North Africa is undeniable. So, prudence dictates that regional countries enhance the level of cooperation and the depth of relations between governments and peoples.
Some analysts believe that the current Iranian government has a reformist orientation. It is striving to improve its relations with the West and is also interested in reviving the nuclear agreement. What is your view on this perspective?
The current government of Iran has based its domestic policy on one principle: national unity. It has shown that, despite political diversity, religious distinctions, and ethnic differences, a united and cohesive government can be formed, and diverse and different segments of the population can be invited to collaborate and cooperate in steering the country’s destiny. This model of comprehensive governance is being implemented in Iran and is the same model we have applied in our compassionate consultations with our neighbors, from Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, and all the countries of West Asia. This unity in domestic politics has extended to our diplomacy and the implementation of our foreign policy.
Therefore, in our peaceful and civilian nuclear program, we have acted in accordance with accepted laws, and if there is no improper behavior, we have no intention to change our policy. Even when the JCPOA was agreed upon as a joint plan between us and the 5+1 countries, we took significant steps based on the same spirit of unity and agreement. Now, there is little doubt about our intention. This global model of unity suffered a blow when the US decided to withdraw from the agreement, and despite all the difficulties, we and some other members have worked to preserve it. From the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran, reviving the nuclear agreement and maintaining the spirit of trust and unity among the 5+1 members is the appropriate approach to initiating a new phase and achieving a fruitful outcome.
Do you have any thoughts on the future of relations between Tehran and Washington with the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump to the White House next month?
I’m not in the habit of judging based on imagination and speculation, but for evaluation and prediction purposes, I pay attention to plausible signs and their analysis. Generally, regarding the 47th presidency of the United States under Trump, we need to wait for more signs. The fundamental change and transformation in the power structure of the US, which occurs with four-year elections, always allows the country’s governments to review sometimes successful and sometimes ineffective policies. It is generally a good thing that the ruling body of a country can escape the steep and dizzying slope of chosen policies or the overwhelming approach of imposed policies.
From my perspective, the direction of US relations with Iran throughout the modern era has been guided by drivers that have consistently trapped passengers in this kind of steep and dizzying slope. Paradoxically, sometimes an incomplete game or experience creates more awareness, leading to a brave decision to exit this road and, like a precise strike, put the ball in the hole. I see the leadership of the US during the 45th presidency of the country as a continuation of the traditional system of American politics, but for this upcoming period, some words and decisions are being discussed that need attention in the evaluation of our prediction.
For example, when an observer hears that an efficiency measure is planned in the implementation of government programs, they ask: What is the necessity of efficiency? Will the benefits and costs of the programs be considered? If this is truly the case, it means that the harm to the US from confrontation with Iran will be calculated, and the benefit of correcting the policy will be carefully examined, like a driver considering a change of road and choosing a new route. This route, even if it is longer than the steep and dizzying mountain road, allows for accelerating progress and bringing tired and anxious passengers to their destination in peace. Nevertheless, I believe we should remain cautious and wait for practical actions and the answer to the question of whether the 47th presidency of the United States will mark a distinct era in the country’s history.
Is there a final message you want to send, in the midst of the changes we are witnessing, to the Middle East and the world? Who is the audience, and what is the content?
The fate of the West Asia region is shaped by the actions and behaviors of each country in the region. We are all responsible for not choosing a bitter fate in the difficult conditions that Syria faces. A destructive and highly brutal force has been targeting the people of this region for over a year, dismantling the defensive capabilities of countries, destroying scientific, educational, transit, industrial, and capital infrastructure, and violating the territorial integrity of countries as part of its strategy. These actions, which began in Gaza and extended to Lebanon, have targeted Iran and now, in an unfair manner, are pursuing a demonic and destructive plan on Syrian soil while the Syrian people need peace to make crucial choices. Israel stands against all of us and all the people of the region.
Regardless of whether we are in Tehran, Cairo, Beirut, Riyadh, Ankara, Abu Dhabi, Doha, or Baghdad, we are a diverse historical community with diverse languages — Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Kurdish, Coptic, and Aramaic — that needs to engage in dialogue. The language of this dialogue is no longer important; rather, we need to find the foundations of this dialogue. Our peoples want peace and cooperation and hope that major countries understand this message and act responsibly towards their past. Therefore, looking at the world as you requested, I would like to say: “Recompensing for the past is an opportunity that the near future is giving to the world.”