Questions and Answers: Iraqi Opposition Leader Seyyed Hakim

Dec. 26 - Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Baqer Hakim is the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the largest Shiite political party in the country. The Iraqi government has accused SCIRI of acting as Iran’s fifth column and have jailed and executed many of its members since the start of Iran-Iraq war in 1980.

AYATOLLAH HAKIM, WHO has been living in Iran for the past 22 years, claims that his followers are the most active opposition to Saddam Hussein’s government working inside Iraq. Although Iran has repeatedly expressed its opposition to a military attack against Iraq as the next step in war against terrorism, Ayatollah Hakim welcomes international intervention to topple Saddam. But he says that “any unilateral action will remain futile.” Ayatollah Hakim is both highly regarded and heavily guarded in his host country. He takes part in most official gatherings of the Iranian clergy; interview requests go through an approval process very similar to what a high-ranking Iranian official would command. NEWSWEEK’s Maziar Bahari met the ayatollah at SCIRI’s compound in central Tehran.

NEWSWEEK: You’ve said that your ultimate goal is “to change the internal situation in Iraq and liberate it from the grip of Saddam Hussein.” How do you want to achieve that?

Seyyed Hakim: I believe we can achieve this through carrying out United Nation’s Security Council resolution No. 688. This resolution was proposed to the Security Council by France, Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran after the gulf war in 1991. The resolution obliges the Security Council to interfere in case of violent suppression of civilians. But unfortunately this resolution has not been put in force. If the international community had made a firm decision in carrying out its obligations the Iraqi people would have been able to change the internal situation in Iraq. I believe the American secretary of State, Colin Powell—with all due respect—was wrong in saying, “the Iraqi opposition forces are weaker than [Afghan] Northern Alliance” and that “Saddam Hussein is stronger than the Taliban.” I believe the Iraqi opposition forces are much more organized and stronger than the Northern Alliance. Furthermore, Saddam’s regime is even more unpopular than the Taliban was.

Why then have the opposition forces been unable to topple Saddam Hussein’s government?

Because of violent suppression of people.

Where does Saddam’s real strength lie?

“I believe the Iraqi opposition forces are much more organized and stronger than the Northern Alliance. Furthermore, Saddam’s regime is even more unpopular than the Taliban was.” — AYATOLLAH SEYYED MOHAMMAD BAQER HAKIM

[Iraq’s] intelligence and information forces. The intelligence strata in Iraq are very complicated. There are many security and information organizations including Mokhaberat (the central information organization), Military Information, the Baath Party’s Information Organization, etc. And each of these organizations has a military arm of its own. There are also different armies like the People’s Army and the Quds Army, which Saddam has created as a gesture, as if he’s going to defend the Palestinian struggle.

So you need foreign interference to stop the suppression?

Foreign interference led by the Security Council, not a unilateral decision by a single country. The international community has a responsibility to act against suppression. It already interferes in Iraq’s internal affairs: it controls its wealth, it controls its trades, etc. So it has to act upon its obligation to stop the violent suppression of Iraqi people, as well.

Whenever we talk about international pressure it requires American involvement to make it a success. How do you feel about an American-led coalition to change the government in Iraq?

The main factor here is that it is the people of Iraq who should play the main role. The people of Iraq are very strong and they are ready to topple the regime. We witnessed that when the people of Iraq rose up against Saddam Hussein after the gulf war. But the uprising was violently smashed by Saddam’s regime. If the allied forces didn’t support the regime the people would have definitely changed Saddam’s government. We expect the world community to pressure Saddam Hussein politically and militarily to comply with U.N. resolutions the same way they did in Kosovo. Putting political pressure first, and when it proves unsuccessful, exert military pressure.

What if the international community doesn’t want to get involved and the Americans do it on their own? Would you support that?

That depends on the political situation and timing of the attack. We cannot prejudge future events before they happen. But a unilateral decision will not take us very far.

There was an article in New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh about London-based Iraq National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi’s claim that the government of Iran “has agreed to permit INC forces and their military equipment to cross the Iranian border into southern Iraq.” And that “the United States would then begin an intense bombing campaign, as it did in Afghanistan, and airlift thousands of Special Forces troops into southern Iraq.”

I haven’t read the article and I don’t know anything about it. Who are the sources in the article?

I guess Chalabi, the INC as well as State Department and CIA officials. Do you know of any deals between the INC and the Iranian government?

There seems to be no agreement. You’re a journalist. You know that sometimes people tell the press certain things in order to find out how others react to a certain hypothesis. But you have to ask where are those men who would carry out the operation. We would have known of them if they existed. Where have they hidden them so far? You need a real organization to lead an army prepared for such military operation.

How united are different opposition groups in Iraq at the moment?

There is a great unity among different opposition forces inside and outside Iraq.

What do you think about the INC and Ahmad Chalabi in particular?

I don’t find it right to talk about specific groups and personalities. We have good relations with all opposition groups inside and outside Iraq. There are two kinds of Iraqi opposition groups. There are those groups who are active inside Iraq and have political and military organizations inside the country, namely the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Kurdish groups in northern Iraq and some other groups inside Iraq. There are also other opposition groups who are very active politically in other parts of the world. All these groups have very good relations with each other. Even if there are some minor problems they would be solved when there is a real change inside Iraq like what we witnessed during the gulf war.

Do all these different groups agree about the shape of the future government in Iraq?

We have been negotiating with all different groups from different parts of the country.

How strong is SCIRI inside and outside of Iraq?

The most active groups inside Iraq are SCIRI forces. SCIRI doesn’t have its own military forces, but there are many military opposition groups inside Iraq that take political guidance from SCIRI.

Do you receive military and financial help from Iran?

Iran has welcomed us as its guests and we are thankful for it.

How about military and financial support?

Iran has political relations with Iraq, it doesn’t interfere in Iraq’s internal affairs and respects international laws in its relations with Iraq.

But there have been attacks against People’s Mujahedin [an Iraqi-based Iranian military opposition group] inside Iraq’s territory. Last summer there was an attack against their offices in Baghdad. There were reports that Iran financed these attacks and they were carried out by SCIRI forces.

The munafeqqin [hypocrites, a Quranic term used by the Iranian government to describe the mujahedin] helped Saddam suppress Shiite and Kurdish uprisings in 1991. For the opposition forces inside Iraq the munafeqqin is a legitimate target. People of Iraq hate them and according to recent reports Saddam is planning to use the munafeqqin in case of a future uprising. But those forces that attack the munafeqqin inside Iraq are not supported by Iran. The government of Iran doesn’t even allow our forces to cross the border. The fact of the matter is that Saddam is trying to use the munafeqqin as a bargaining chip in the relations with Iran. He doesn’t want us in Iran. He wants us to leave for Europe or somewhere else in world and cut our close ties with the people inside Iraq.

Has the fight between the United States and Iraq been reduced to a personal animosity with Saddam? Is it possible that if Saddam is toppled one of his sons, Qusai, Udai or another person close to him, might come to power?

Unfortunately it is possible. But the people of Iraq will not support changing Saddam while the structure of the regime remains intact. Furthermore that will not solve anything. But you can expect anything from the American government. The American government has been trying to get rid of Saddam Hussein for the past 10 years but it has not been successful.

What do you think were the United States’ shortcomings in the past and what should it do now?

America should have an honest approach to the problems of the region. Especially regarding its total support of the Zionist regime [Israel], which has shattered America’s image in the region. Also the U.S. has followed a wrong policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran since the [1979] revolution. Regarding Iraq, America should have allowed the people of Iraq to decide their own future. The people of Iraq were close to creating their own government three times in the past 10 years, and each time America’s interference blocked their efforts. After the gulf war in 1991, the U.S. allowed Saddam’s forces to suppress the uprising of the people of Iraq. There was also a plan to assassinate Saddam and stag[e] a coup d’etat, the so called “silver bullet” plan, in 1995. The Americans revealed this plan to the regime, and it was defeated. Another time different groups within the Iraqi Army made an agreement to stage a coup and change the government. This plan was also exposed by the Americans. And Saddam’s government managed to assassinate Talib Al Soheil, the brain behind the plan, in Beirut.

Some American politicians were afraid that another Islamic Republic, like Iran, would come to power in Iraq if Saddam was defeated.

But that was not the main reason that the gulf war coalition allowed Saddam to suppress the uprising. Many Americans confessed that it was a collective decision of some countries in the region.

Which ones?

Some of them. I know that [Egyptian president] Mr. Hosni Mubarak said that we didn’t want a change of government. What you just mentioned is a wrong assumption by some American politicians. Before the gulf war, SCIRI and 26 other Iraqi opposition groups took part in a conference in Damascus in January 1990. In that conference after months of negotiations we reached an agreement that after Saddam’s regime, there will be a multiparty parliamentarian interim government for one year. After that there would be a referendum about the future government of Iraq. We decided that Iraq should rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, should have friendly relations with neighboring countries, and should respect international laws. The U.S. and the rest of the world knew about the outcome of the conference and our agreement.

Do all 27 groups still respect this agreement?

Yes we do. There have been subsequent meetings in other places and we have insisted on the validity of the agreement reached in Damascus in 1990. One of the most important issues in the agreement is the unity of Iraq. Saddam is trying to imply that after him there will be a break-up. But it is just a ploy to scare the world community regarding the consequences of his fall. The truth is that there are Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis all over Iraq so the idea of a break-up is just an illusionary threat created by Saddam’s government. Furthermore I don’t think the world community nor the countries of the region would agree with the break-up of Iraq into three parts.

© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.