Ahmad Al-Qasas interview with Al-Watan:

America does not want the downfall of Assad and is seeking cover for its agenda behind Russia

Noorumaa Abu Zaid Khund

22/07/2012

Ahmad Al-Qasas the head of the media office of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the Wilaayah of Lebanon, views that the Damascus operation which targeted the close circle of the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security leadership will be followed soon by the collapse of the Syrian regime, indicating that by this operation the regime had lost its most important individual elements.

Al-Qasas in his dialogue with Al-Watan raised that whoever believes that as a result of what happened that the regime will increase its strength and backbone is: “Drowning in his dreams” and he sees that the fall of the regime is an inevitable matter: “And the point now is in regards to who will take the future in Syria, will it be to the Syrians or will it belong to America”.

Al-Qasas distinguished between the two sides of opposition, the military (fighting) side and the peaceful side. He views that the former is striving to establish an Islamic State in Syria that is ruled by the Shar’iyah whilst the civil side: “The leaders of the opposition who are speaking from Turkey, France and Britain are not true leaders and they have been brought to the forefront for the sake of there being representatives extracted from the West. Whilst the revolutionists are the basis and they are those who take it upon themselves to define the path and destination of the revolution”.

Continuing Al-Qasas accused Washington of collusion with the Syrian regime since the time of Al-Assad senior and said: The talk of a Russian American clash in regards to Syria is exaggerated explaining that: “America since the beginning of the Syrian revolution has been taking great benefit from the Russian position which it uses to cover its own agenda so that it does not seem that they are supporting the Syrian regime”. And he emphasised that: “There is no clash between Russia and America in relation to Syria and the only faction that is seeking the quick downfall of the Syrian regime is the European one”.

Dr Ahmad Al-Qasas drew attention to that the United States of America: “Has not been serious once about the downfall of the Syrian regime…and it has realised that there will be a day in which it will fall but it is attempting (in the mean time) to give itself enough time to prepare an alternative”.

Al-Qasas accused Washington of attempting to steal the Arab revolutions. He said: It has accomplished in keeping the political situations the same in the lands of the Arab Spring and this is: “In terms of maintaining its interests and in terms of the continuation of the relationship with Israel”. Except that he views that in response to this: “The battle has not ended whether in Tunisia, Egypt of Libya but rather the battle is still in its early stages”. He hopes that: “The leadership of the revolution in Syria does not open its doors to the American men or to the secularists because that will mean a destruction of all of the revolutions achievements.”

In the discussion Al-Qasas criticised the general secretary of ‘Hizbullah’ Hasan Nasrullah at the back of his position in regards to what is happening in Syria. He said: “He has lost the compass and has placed a barrier between himself and the Islamic Ummah in a way that has no precedence”.

Linked to this, Al-Qasas views that it: “Was obligatory upon Hasan Nasrullah to grasp hold of the opportunity provided by the Syrian revolution to confirm his belonging to the Islamic Ummah. But (rather) he has now confirmed that he is with the minority which seeks to exclude the great majority from this region. And this is a matter that we would not accept in any form whatsoever.”

The following is the text of the discussion:

What are the consequences of the assassination of the security leadership from the close circle of the Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad? And what are the implications that this event can leave upon the general picture of what is happening?

There is no doubt that this event is a turning point in the course of the Syrian revolution because those who have been killed were the pillars of the regime and we expect that there will be an addition of names that have not yet been announced because the hall in which the explosion happened was narrow and it is unlikely that anyone could have escaped from it safely or even alive. This was the cell that managed the crisis and they are not restricted to the faces that have been announced and it is natural that there will be addition of names of those who are no less significant than those already mentioned. And in addition I see that this turning point will be followed shortly by the collapse of the regime.

So you consider that the regime lost its most important players in the explosion that occurred last Wednesday?

Exactly.

Do you not believe that the regime in Syria shall increase its strength and backbone as a result of what happened?

The regime could now proceed with criminal acts but this does not mean at all that it will be more powerful or have a stronger backbone. So where will the regime come up with an increase in strength and backbone whilst it has been incapable since over a year and a half to put down the revolution? Those who say that the regime will gain strength are from the supporters of the regime and are drowning in their dreams. This regime is in a state of collapse and disintegration. And what is to be considered now is whether the result will be in favour of the people of Syria or America? We are aware that America has striven to steal the Arab revolutions already and in relation to Syria it has left the regime to kill the people because it has not found figures that can take hold of Syria by strength and to preserve its interests there. As such it has left the regime to murder its people for over a year and a half so that they can find a replacement and to weaken the revolutionaries. Therefore the issue now is not whether the regime will continue or not? Rather now it is about what will follow in Syria? And we hope that consequences will be in the hands of the Syrians themselves and the people of Syria will not accept anything other than the Islamic system which goes back to their true real identity.

What is the source for what you are saying in regards to an Islamic State in Syria especially in light of what we have heard from those responsible in the opposition that the coming state will be a civil state?

The leadership of the opposition who are talking from Turkey, France or Britain amongst others are not the real leadership. And they do not have a real part in this revolution and they have only been brought to the limelight for the purpose of there being representatives that have been taken from and for the West. They do not have a presence inside Syria and those who are inside Syria are the basis of this matter and they are the ones upon whom the defining of the future of this revolution rests.

Should we understand from your words that the revolutionaries are striving towards an Islamic State in Syria?

Yes and it is not hidden from anyone that most of the revolutionaries in Syria have agreed in more than one document upon the establishment of an Islamic State that rules by the Islamic Sharee’ah in Syria.

By what are you are saying does this not confirm that what is occurring in Syria is actually a sectarian war?

There is absolutely no connection between the Islamic thought and sectarianism. Sectarianism is a Western production and it has no relationship with Islam and it is coined in an attempt to show that any Islamic objective is actually sectarian. Sectarianism is tribal and partisan and Islam is something altogether different. Islam is a system of life and the Islamic System directs towards an Islamic state which takes care of the affairs of the people regardless of their religious affiliation or sect. The Islamic State is for the purpose of taking care of the affairs of all of the people according to the Islamic Sharee’ah without any differentiation between Muslims and non-Muslims in regards to looking after their affairs.

What will happen to the minorities if a state based on the Islamic Sharee’ah will be established in Syria?

The state which the revolutionaries are working to establish according to the Islamic system is not one that is aimed against the factions. The Islamic System is not a system designed for taking care of the affairs of the Muslims alone. It is a system that takes care of all the people’s affairs from amongst the Muslims and non-Muslims without differentiating between them. This can be seen in the Islamic history and that the Islamic State included within it subjects from all of the factions and religious beliefs and they were not wiped out, their places of worship closed down and their religious affairs were not interfered with.

For sure the Syrian regime is a sectarian one whilst the revolution is not. However it is only natural that there will be some factional reactions amongst the general masses. As for the simple facts in regards to the Islamic thought carried by the revolutionaries, then it can be seen that they are free from the sectarian way of thinking.

How do you interpret what the reaction of the Syrian regime will be to the earthquake that struck them last Wednesday?

This regime is capable of anything and it is wrong to even describe it as a regime because there is a gang that are trying to cling on to control over Syria. They treat Syria like a ranch and the people of Syria are the slaves to this gang which does whatever it wants because it is a gang. The issue is not in regards to what this gang will do but rather it is about how the people of Syria will face and deal with this gang in terms of doing all that they possibly can do.

It is clear that the people of Syria have determined their matter and cut the connection to the past. Pulling back and living with this gang has become an issue that is outside what the Syrian people can accept. The Syrian people are ready to be martyred in their tens and hundreds of thousands so that they don’t have to live with this gang ever again.

In your opinion what is the direction that is behind this type of operation (the assassination)?

In it clear for sure from the statements and information that has reached us from here and ther that the operation was carried out by the revolutionaries and that they have adopted it according to what we have heard Colonel Al-Islaam…

Interviewer interrupts: However there are also leaks that talk about international intelligence agencies being behind it. Did this operation not extend beyond the military capabilities of the armed opposition?

The state of confusion that was apparent amongst the major powers and in particular America negates the possibility that this operation was carried out by the international intelligence apparatuses. America announced that the situation in Syria had virtually escaped and got out of the control which means that they always felt (before) that the situation was under their control by way of Assad’s gang in Syria. This means that they used to keep hold of the situation in Syria through Assad’s gang and after the explosion the Secretary of Defence stated that the affairs in Syria have become dangerous and have nearly escaped from our hands. The statements from the Russians amongst others were similar in this regards and these statements indicate that the scenario of the involvement of international intelligence agencies should be put aside.

It is understood from your words that America is in collusion with the Syrian regime….

Interruption by Al-Qasas: The Syrian regime since the time of Al-Assad senior has been a servant to the American policy in the region…

Interruption: However where have you gone in regards to the Russian-American clash in relation to Syria?

This talk is exaggerated. America since the beginning of the Syrian revolution has been benefitting as much as it can exploiting the Russian position and covering its own agenda behind it, so that it does not seem that they are supporting the Syrian regime. America has not once seriously been serious about the downfall of the Syrian regime and Russia has a price it wants to grasp hold of in return for its agreement in the Security Council. America has not given her its desired price because in truth it does not want the downfall of the Syrian regime.

America knows for sure that the Syrian regime is falling however it is attempting to buy more time so that it can prepare an alternative to this defunct regime. There is no clash between Russia and America in relation to Syria and the only party or side that is eager to hasten the collapse of the Syrian regime is the European side because of a clash of interests in terms of the Syrian regimes policy. However it could be that the time has come to offer Russia a concession that the Americans want and to begin negotiations around this issue because it has become apparently clear that the regime is no longer capable of continuing.

So according to the view that you are saying, the United States of America has opened up the paths and passages in the region for the Al-Qaa’idah organisation to head towards Syria so that Assad can do that which they were unable to do either in Iraq or Afghanistan.

No I do not agree with this view because the regime at present is unable to deal with the present groupings. The affair of the regime has ended and its ability to deal with the groupings (opposition) has ended. Currently these groupings are the ones who are dealing with the regime and some of the officers in the Free Army have stated that America has prevented help and equipment from reaching the revolutionaries and have blocked weapons from reaching and have even prevented funding. They have put pressure on the Gulf States to prevent financial and military help reaching them and even here in Lebanon America has commanded the security apparatus which listen to her commands to purse those who are trying to extend their help to the revolutionaries…

Interruption: Do you mean the Lebanese security apparatus or the Arab apparatus?

I mean some of the Lebanese apparatuses and particularly one of those in charge of the apparatuses made a clear statement to the press that some of the arrests have resulted from the American signalling.

You mean the General Security apparatus?

Certainly.

However what about the ‘Information Branch’ which reports indicate that it is submerged in the movement to cause the downfall of the Syrian regime and it also listens to America. So how can you interpret this contradiction?

The ‘Information Branch’ does listen to America however its connection to Saudi is greater. It is true that I do not have specific information in this regard but from that which is known, the ‘Information Branch’ has had a very firm communication with Saudi and we are aware of the Saudi position which is similar to the European position which wants to get rid of the regime by attempting to absorb the affairs in Syria.

How have you read the position of the general secretary of Hizbullah, Hasan Nasrullah in the sixth annual memorial of the Tamooz war in which he sent his greetings to the Syrian Army commanders who had been targeted and he called them the comrades in arms?

Emotions have led Hasan Nasrullah to not being able to see matters according to their true reality. He has lost the compass and has placed a barrier between himself and the Islamic Ummah in a way that has no precedence. It was necessary for Hasan Nasrullah to grasp hold of the opportunity provided by the Syrian revolution to confirm his belonging to the Islamic Ummah. But (rather) he has now confirmed that he is with the minority which seeks to exclude the great majority from this region. And this is a matter that we would not accept in any form whatsoever.

However is it not true that Syria supported the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine like Hasan Nasrullah mentioned in his speech?

For as long as the Syrian regime accommodated arming the resistance it did not do so as a support for the resistance but it rather did this to serve the American policy in the region as America is incapable of putting direct and open pressure upon Israel due to the Zionist lobby and as such it delegated the Syrian regime with the task of applying pressure upon Israel. So the Syrian regime played this role of accommodating the supply of rifles whether this involved the Palestinians or at present Hizbullah.

And was it for this reason that Hamas turned upon the Syrian regime?

Hamas turned its back on the Syrian regime because its status had changed and not due to any other consideration.

Do you see that the general secretary of Hizbullah, Hasan Nasrullah is fearful of Fitnah between the Sunni and Shi’ah?

We view that it is his position that is instigating this fear. His devotion to making an alliance with the ugly sectarian regime in Syria is what has helped to increase the sectarian clash in the region and it is obligatory upon him to be amongst the vast majority of the Muslims in opposing the ruling gangs in this region and not to be alongside these gangs in opposition to the majority. As such it is his position which has fuelled the factors of sectarian Fitnah (strife).

Based on his insistence upon the same stance towards the events in Syria, do you see that hope has gone in regards to freeing the kidnapped Shi’ah?

Again his position as stated in the sixth annual memorial of the Tamooz war has complicated the problem of those who are kidnapped because those who are behind the kidnapping want to apply pressure upon him so that he lightens from his stated direction however this direction has increased. Certainly we do not support this kidnapping that has happened and had they (the hostages) been making common cause with the regime by helping it then we would not have taken heed of them however there is nothing at all that indicates that they have a relationship with the Syrian regime. As such it is not acceptable for them to be taken as hostage however what makes the problem more complicated are the statements of As-Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah.

Is there anything that you want to add?

What I say is that the Syrian revolution has provided a different scene compared to that which has happened in the other revolutions whether in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya. The Syrian revolution has a great deal of purity in it which has made it difficult for America to find powerful people to take hold of the affairs and preserve its interests like what happened in the previous revolutions. Following from this we hope that the leaders of the revolution in Syria do not open the door to the American people or the secularists as this will mean a destruction of all of the revolutions achievements.

Is it understood from what you have said that you are not content with the regimes that have come about in the lands of the Arab spring?

Fundamentally no real change has occurred in the lands of the revolutions. Certainly there has occurred an important change in the reality of the Arab street where the situation remains difficult and the battle has not yet ended either in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya. Rather these struggles are currently still in their beginning stages because the West still holds on to the crux of affairs.

So those who are in authority whether in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya are American men, from your perspective?

Those who have come through the elections to the ruling are not the real rulers. So the ruler of Egypt right now is Hussain Tantawi and he is an American man with honours. In addition the Nahdah movement in Tunisia is a partner in ruling and is not ruling itself. They have also provided agreements not to implement the Islamic System and that the system will remain as it was. Meaning they have provided assurances that nothing will change in Tunisia from the political aspects whether internal of foreign. Whether they are American people or not, Washington has made sure that the political situations remain upon what they were in these lands in terms of preserving its interests, in terms of continuing the relationship with Israel and in relation to its economic interests. This still remains present and entirely intact. As for Syria then it has presented a major problem to the Americans.