Advertisement

Q & A: What did Syria’s Assad achieve in his U.S. interview?

ABOVE: In an exclusive interview with Charlie Rose, Syrian President Bashar Assad warned to “expect everything” in terms of retaliation if the U.S. should strike Syria

VANCOUVER – Syrian leader Bashar Assad has given his only interview with a U.S. news outlet to veteran American journalist Charlie Rose. The interview aired in part on CBS This Morning Monday morning and in full on PBS’ The Charlie Rose Show the same evening.

During the interview, conducted on Sunday in Damascus, Assad said he was against weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. should “expect everything” if an American military strike is launched against his regime.

READ MORE: Assad warns of retaliation for U.S. strike on Syria

John Measor is a Middle East expert at the Centre for Contemporary Middle East Studies. He spoke with Global News in a phone interview about his take on Bashar Assad’s TV interview.

Story continues below advertisement

Global News: What were your first impressions of the Assad-Charlie Rose interview?

John Measor (JM): This is one of those points where the individual stood out, in the sense that since he has took over from his father clearly the styles are very different. The first thing probably, as a caveat that needs to be said, is that the Syrian regime is not big on PR [public relations]. They don’t do a lot of bolstering their position around the world, not a lot of media appearances, they don’t tend to deal with Western academics [and] reporters, etc. This has been a long-standing, for decades, position.

When Bashar took over from his father, he started that kind of outreach, in a sense of modernizing the country — bringing the Internet and more liberal economic policies into the country. There are huge debates about the success or failure of those.

He is very soft-spoken when he speaks and that can often come across as duplicitous or as non-decisive. You know, that he’s not really sure what he’s saying. In this interview it came off very calm and measured and probably, even though I oppose his regime, that’s something that made him come across better in this instance.

Global News: The line that sticks out from the interview is “You should expect everything.” That was in response to the question, “Will there be attacks against American bases in the Middle East if there is an airstrike.” Do you think he has the capabilities to launch a full-on counter attack or does he have the support in the region any more to live up to that?

JM: I don’t think there is any chance the Syrian regime has the willingness to act.

There is an implied threat there… He wants people to read that into it.

Story continues below advertisement
[But] there is no capacity for them to strike out at regional opponents in a war. They can’t stand toe-to-toe with Israel or American forces in Jordan or Turkish forces to their north. So, there’s no such direct threat in that sense, but they can play a spoiler role if they feel they’re going to lose. In other words, “We’ll go down in flames. We’ll launch missiles into air bases in Turkey or at refugee camps in Jordan or at Israel.” Just to expand the conflict.
The really new thing here, which could be quite scary… Most of the terrorism carried out against Western targets in the last five to six years has been done by freelancers [eg. Boston bombing], have been done by people that weren’t even beholden necessarily in an organizational sense to Al-Qaida let alone an Arab or Muslim state. It’s those kind of actions that that threat implies. If somebody sitting somewhere believes [Assad] is speaking directly to them because he’s given this Charlie Rose interview… they could take action on their own. That’s something that I think will scare Western intelligence agencies more than any action the Syrian state is going to take.
So, we have to decide sort of within the range of retaliations what we expect. I don’t think anybody there [in the Syrian regime] is going to directly do anything, so the threat is a huge bluff.
Story continues below advertisement

Did you watch the Charlie Rose interview with Bashar Assad? If so, tell us what you thought in the comments section below. 

Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won't miss a trending story.

Get breaking National news

Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won't miss a trending story.
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Global News: He is kind of painted as… being this ruthless leader who gassed his people. So, by coming across calm and measured, is he making himself seem human?

JM: When someone is answering a reporter’s question they often are going to have multiple audiences that they’re speaking to and this is one of those incidences where he’s not speaking to the same audience that, for instance, that Barack Obama [spoke to] tonight. He really doesn’t care too much about the American public.

There are two debates going on. The American discussion is “should we go or should we not,” which has an implicit assumption within it that is “what America does is good for the world.”

What the rest of the world is debating is the opposite of that. The implicit assumption is that this hasn’t worked out very well — very often, if ever — where the United States has gotten involved… The rest of the world doesn’t accept without question that the United States is necessarily a force for good.

Story continues below advertisement
So, [Assad] doesn’t have to somehow paint his opponents as being bad. All he has to do is create doubt in the minds of everybody and he was successful at getting that across in the interview. He even opened up the opportunity that this could have even been someone within his side, within the civil war, but not someone following his orders… All he is trying to do is muddy the waters. Now, that has no impact on Obama’s audience, in the United States… But, it does on the international community.

They’re leaning towards, “We don’t want the United States to do this, even if the regime used chemical weapons.” So, if he can raise even the smallest amounts of doubt, in the American argument in favour, then he has done as much as he can.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the regime is more than capable of doing this [the chemical weapons attack]. So, people aren’t really debating too much about the goodness of Bashar al-Assad or the regime.

No one is questioning that they’re the bad guys. The debate is a matter over “we have to be 100 per cent sure before we go.”

Story continues below advertisement
This is how [PM David] Cameron lost the vote in the British parliament.

No one there is defending the Syrian regime. They’re just saying: “You don’t have enough evidence.”

Global News: [Assad] was asked if he was against chemical warfare. He basically said he was against W.M.Ds [weapons of mass destruction]. Today, Russia has come out and said Syria should allow its chemical weapons stocks to be put under international control. Does that catch him in a trap?

JM: I think the Russian suggestion today is just throwing it out there, without any actual belief that the Syrians are going to hand over their weapons.

They’re trying to get across to the Europeans, to the Chinese, to other people around the world that “Look, the Syrians are even willing to do this and it won’t be enough for the Americans.” It again just muddies the waters and makes things unclear. The debate in the world is whether the United States should be allowed to do this or not. And, no one can stop them. But, if no one supports them they’re doing it all alone.

Story continues below advertisement
What [Assad] is trying to get to is make sure the solidarity he’s seeing in the international community remains on his side.

*Portions of this interview have been condensed.

Sponsored content

AdChoices