On May 26, Charlie Rose taped an hour-long interview in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, view here, which is well worth viewing in its entirety. The interview offers a rich tour d’horizon of the region, including Arab-Israeli issues, Iraq, Lebanon, America’s regional role, and the challenges of maintaining a secular state in today’s Middle East. It is also something of a tour de force for President Assad. Of course, the interview dealt with Iran, as well. We highlight below some excerpts from the interview that focus on Iran, and are very much in line with our own conversation with President Assad in February.
When asked about the Middle East’s emerging “northern tier”—Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey—Assad responded:
“Normally you should have good relations with your neighbors, something we’ve learned from our experience during the last decades. We’ve been in conflict, Syria and Turkey, Iraq and Turkey, and other countries. What did we get? Nothing. We’ve been losing for decades. We have learned here in the last decade that we have to turn the tide, so everybody is going for good relations with the other, even if he doesn’t have the same vision or they—even if they disagree about most of the things, not some things. So, this relation, Syria/Iraq, we are neighbors. Syria/Turkey, we are neighbors. We’ll affect each other directly. Iran is not my neighbor, but at the end, Iran is one of the big countries in the Middle East, and it’s an important country, and it plays a role and affects different issues in the region. So, if you want to play a role and help yourself and save your interests, you should have good relations with all these influential countries. That’s why this relation, I think, is very normal.”
When Charlie Rose pressed the point that there are many in America who would like to “put some distance” between Syria and Iran, Assad pushed back:
“They contradict themselves. They talk about stability in the region. Stability starts with good relations. You cannot have stability and have bad relations.”
Assad then reiterated what he had said to us about Iran’s posture vis-à-vis the Middle East peace process:
“Sometimes they talk about the relation between Syrian and Iranian relations and the peace. That’s not true. That’s not realistic because Iran supported our efforts to achieve, to get back our land through the peace negotiations in 2008 when we had indirect negotiations in Turkey.”
Clearly struck by the significance of this statement, Rose drew President Assad into a remarkable exchange.
“Rose: Let me underline that. You believe that Iran, even though it says that it does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, when you, through Turkey, were trying to negotiate with the Israelis, the Iranians were supportive of that.
Assad: Exactly.
Rose: And so you’re saying actions speak louder than words.
Assad: Exactly. That’s what I mean. I feel that they said it in words, they say publicly we support you. They said it twice during negotiations, and formally. So you cannot see with one eye.”
This interview also provides powerful confirmation for Flynt’s asssesment of Bashar’s potential to emerge as a major regional leader, as presented in Flynt’s 2005 book, Inheriting Syria: Bashar’s Trial by Fire. At that time, Flynt was criticized in some quarters as being an “apologist” for the “Assad regime”–just as we are criticized in some quarters today for being “apologists” for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the “Iranian regime.” But, as with Syria, truly objective analysis of the Islamic Republic’s politics and foreign policy has been and will continue to be proven right.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Fiorangela,
A few years ago, Iran attempted to achieve normal relations with the US, in which the embassies would be reopened, but a sticking point was the US demand that Iran recognize Israel’s right to exist. My understanding is that the Iranians agreed to accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders, but Israel vetoed the deal. I wonder if Charlie Rose is aware of this.
Charlie Rose should distinguish between Israel’s being accepted within its pre-1967 borders, and Israel’s effort to be accepted with borders that remain undefined.
James,
“Does Charlie Rose believe Iran does not accept Israel’s right to exist?”
CR’s repeated demands of both al-Assad and, in even more agitated mien, of Meshaal, that Israel’s right to exist be affirmed, is one indication of the real psychological change that must take place. I believe Rose truly believes that granting Israel’s right to exist is deeply meaningful, is essential, is intimately twined with Israeli identity. It’s been drilled into Israelis for so many years that it has been accepted as dogma. The Israeli mind is incapable of seeing what it has not been conditioned to see. It’s an extraordinary phenomenon: I once had a conversation with an Israeli librarian; we were talking about the origins of the term ‘antisemitism.’ I had just heard a lecturer argue that the term originated in 15th century Spain and mentioned that to the librarian. His face took on a very confused look, as if there were no neural pathways capable of assessing the information. Fascinating.
Perhaps I place to much meaning in people’s voice and body language; I thought Rose grew increasingly frantic as he repeated his demand of Meshaal: “Will you recognize Israel’s right to exist?” Similarly, it is seemingly not possible for someone like Rose to process the reality of the suffering and humiliation that Palestinians endure.
Arnold,
I think you are mistaken, in arguing Syria would be better off with an open democracy.
Minority rights in Syria receive much better protection from the al-Assad government, than would otherwise obtain. And consider the US, supposedly a “democracy”, where the war machine openly controls the US Congress.
Does Charlie Rose believe Iran does not accept Israel’s right to exist? Iran gave a number of signals over the years it will accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders if the Palestinians accept that result. And Iran wants Israel to end the occupation of the Golan Heights – - a position the US should support.
@Arnold Evans:
“I also appreciate the need to ensure that democratic contests cannot be abused by billion or trillion dollar Western defense, security and intelligence apparatuses. I don’t have a great answer to that, which makes me less harsh on Assad than I would be otherwise.”
Arnold, I would like to congratulate you on this astute bservation! This is in fact one of the BIGGEST (if not “the biggest”) challenge facing the democracy movements in middle East and in fact all over the world from the Russian revolution of 1917 to Middle East to Cuban revolution!
The leaders of the various Christian communities in Syria say that the al-Assad regime is probably the best government for porotecting their interests, that they could expect to see. Is Obama aware of that fact? Or would it be kept out of any strategic summary given to him?
Where is the Palestinian Gandhi? no no no
Where is the American Erdogan?
Where is the American al-Assad?
Where is the American Khaled Maashal? We call him a terrorist; he courageously represents his people and their interests, even at risk of his life. American leaders make decisions based on fear of losing campaign donations.
“The US should not try to wean Syria away from Iran, but instead should use good relations with Syria as a way forward in improving relations with Iran.”
That sounds like a good idea. Eminently reasonable. One would have thought.
The US should not try to wean Syria away from Iran, but instead should use good relations with Syria and a way forward in improving relations with Iran.
When he discussed the Middle East, Bashar al-Assad always makes better sense than any American politicians, with the rarest of exceptions.
Syria would be much better off with an elected government and internal Syrian political constituencies that determine Syrian policies in contests where the best people and ideas would win.
Of the Middle East dictators, I like Assad the most by far, but that is saying nothing at all.
I also appreciate the need to ensure that democratic contests cannot be abused by billion or trillion dollar Western defense, security and intelligence apparatuses. I don’t have a great answer to that, which makes me less harsh on Assad than I would be otherwise.
But it can be done, and Syria will be better off when it is done, just as much as Egypt or Jordan. (Well maybe not quite as much as Egypt or Jordan, but significantly.)
“We’ve been in conflict, Syria and Turkey, Iraq and Turkey, and other countries. What did we get? Nothing”.
These are powerful words by Bashar al Asad. It is good to see that middle eastern countries have fully realized the DIVIDE AND RULE policy of west. It is better late than never. Middle eastern countries should unite and face the US and Israel’s oppressive policies. Most importantly US should be thrown out of middle east as it is the most dangerous DARK FORCE. If US leaves the region middle east will become a peaceful place.