Assad-era general asks Iran for funds to launch anti-Israel front in Syria
A top military figure under Syria's former president Bashar Al Assad has contacted Tehran for financial support to rebuild Iran's influence in the country and strengthen its position as it comes under attack by Israel, a Syrian security official and former regime operatives has told The National.
Iran is unlikely to divert resources from its current war effort but re-establishing a proxy presence in Syria could help it strategically in future, the sources said.
The proposal to Tehran came from Ghiath Dalla, a brigadier general in elite Fourth Division, the praetorian guard of the former Iran-backed regime and the military unit closest to Iran, within the past 10 days. He is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars to create a militia drawn from former members of Mr Al Assad's now disbanded army that would fight Syria's new government led by Hayat Tahrir Al Sham and launch attacks on Israeli targets, the sources said.
Mr Dalla, like most of his peers and the deposed president, is from the minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, that dominated Sunni-majority Syria after a coup in 1963.
He is among thousands of Alawite security personnel who have been on the run after the Assad regime fell to HTS-led rebel forces on December 8. Hundreds of Alawite officers, including Mr Dalla, are believed to have fled to Lebanon, where the Iran-backed Hezbollah group still wields significant influence, despite heavy losses in its war with Israel last year.
'He thinks that the [Israel-Iran] war is a golden chance to unite the Alawites and form a resistance force supported by Iran,' said the security official, who requested anonymity.
Mr Dalla commanded the 42nd Armoured Brigade, regarded as among the best-equipped and best-trained formations in the former military. During the 2011-2024 civil war it operated in southern Syria, from where proxy groups backed by Iran launched rocket attacks on Israel in the final year of the Assad regime.
'The south has remnants of Iranian proxies whom Dalla can re-activate to resume the attacks,' the security official said. The official said the seizure by authorities of Grad rockets at a warehouse in the southern Deraa province this week, and a rocket attack on June 3 on an Israeli-occupied area of the Golan Heights by a splinter Hezbollah group, were signs of the potential for destabilisation that could be boosted by Iranian money.
The official, who was a rebel fighting the regime in the northern province of Idlib, said the threat from Mr Dalla and his followers could not be underestimated.
'We were like him, hiding in the woods of Idlib, bereft of support. Once support [from Arab countries and Turkey] started coming, the game changed quickly,' he said, referring to the early years of the civil war.
The official would not be drawn on whom Mr Dalla has been in contact with in Iran, citing ongoing intelligence gathering. The contact was made directly, not through Hezbollah, he said.
A prominent figure in the Alawite community said Mr Dalla's obvious recruiting pool comprises at least 100,000 former Alawite security personnel. Many of them, associated with atrocities under the former regime, have sought refuge in the Alawite Mountains in Syria's coastal region, the ancestral homeland of the minority sect.
However, widespread killings of Alawites in the area by pro-government forces have raised fears that the community might not survive under the new government led by HTS, a group once affiliated with Al Qaeda.
An estimated 1,300 Alawite civilians were killed over two days in March after gunmen from the sect resisted, mainly through ambushes, an HTS-led incursion into the Alawite Mountains. The security operation was aimed at cleansing the coastal provinces of regime remnants, according to the government.
Mr Dalla's loyalists, called the Military Council for the Liberation of Syria, led the ultimately failed resistance.
The Alawite figure said Mr Dalla and his men, who are believed to number several thousand, still have an underground arsenal consisting mainly of light weapons but also significant amounts of medium weaponry, such anti-aircraft guns mounted on pickup trucks.
'He has been depleted cash-wise. But he is counting on the spreading fears that the Alawites have no home and the only path is resistance to create an Alawite province.'
He said many Alawites still see a future in acquiescing to the new order and do not want to be associated with Iran, and added that he himself had declined requests for money by insurgents associated with Mr Dalla.
A former Syrian intelligence operative, who is also Alawite, said Mr Dalla was trying to fill the leadership vacuum in the community created by the fall of Mr Al Assad, who fled to Moscow.
Unlike the former regime, Mr Dalla is, in the main, not viewed as corrupt. He is also religious, unlike the secular Assads, which would make him more trustworthy to Iran.
In contrast to the Assads, who have 'sacrificed the Alawites' for their own survival, Mr Dalla is a more ideological figure who believes that the only way for the community to survive is a long-term fight supported by Iran to a break away from Syria, the former intelligence operative said.
Observers are split on how much advantage a Iran would have had in the war with Israel had the Assad regime survived the civil war.
After Israeli attacks on Syrian security personnel and military infrastructure in 2023-2024, signs emerged that Mr Al Assad viewed his alliance with Iran as too costly for the regime.
It remains an open question whether the former president was willing, or able, to stop Iran from using Syria as a conduit for weapons and supplies to Hezbollah, once considered Tehran's first line of defence against Israel. The Israeli military had already largely destroyed Syrian air defences by the time Mr Al Assad was ousted, giving its air force freedom to operate over Syria.
However, Iran would be striking at Israel from short range with missiles and drones launched from Syria, instead of relying solely on long-distance attacks, had the former regime remained, a former member of Mr Al Assad's military said.
'It would have made a difference had they not lost Syria,' the source said. 'But nowhere near enough to gain a decisive advantage'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
an hour ago
- Khaleej Times
What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
E[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast — home to Iran's only nuclear power station — only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. What has Israel hit so far? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. What fallout risks do these strikes pose? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
Khaleej Times
an hour ago
- Khaleej Times
Trump to decide whether to attack Iran 'within the next two weeks'
[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] US President Donald Trump said Thursday he will decide whether to attack Iran within the next two weeks due to a "substantial" chance of negotiations, as Israel and its regional rival traded fire for a seventh day. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt read out a message from Trump at a briefing, saying there had been "a lot of speculation" about whether the United States would be "directly involved." "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Trump said in the statement. Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels. Leavitt would not give details of what had led Trump to believe that negotiations with Iran were possible. Trump had said on Wednesday that Iran had asked to send officials to the White House to negotiate a deal on its nuclear programme and end the conflict with Israel. Iran denied it would do so. Leavitt said that "correspondence has continued" between the United States and Iran when asked about reports that Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff had been in touch with Iran's foreign minister. But she said she was "not tracking" that Witkoff would go to Geneva for talks with Iran. Trump held his third meeting in three days in the White House's highly secured Situation Room on Thursday as he continued to mull whether to join Israel's bombing campaign. The US President had said on Wednesday that "I may do it, I may not do it" when asked if he would take military action against Iran.
Khaleej Times
an hour ago
- Khaleej Times
Current oil spike does not match market fundamentals
The current spike in oil prices as a result of the Iran-Israeli conflict is to be viewed as a temporary phenomenon, as there is no change in oil market fundamentals, analysts say. 'Oil and gas are still flowing out from the Gulf. There are likely to be some consumers seeking to secure supplies in the short term to offset any potential interruption to supply and that is helping to push oil prices higher,' Edward Bell, Acting Chief Economist & Head of Research, Emirates NBD, told Khaleej Times. Oil prices have been the primary market expression of the dynamics of the current Israel-Iran conflict. Oil assets, whether production sites or export infrastructure or ships, have not been directly targeted in the exchange of fire between the two countries but markets are nevertheless pricing in security of supply concerns. In an immediate reaction to the news of the initial attacks on June 13 oil prices jumped sharply higher. Brent futures spiked to as high as USD 78.50/b and have since been responding to headlines, selling on market indications of a potential diplomatic solution and rising on anticipation that the conflict could deepen or spread. Volatility in oil prices has surged as markets price in a range of scenarios, all of which seemingly tilt toward the upside, such as attacks on oil infrastructure or the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Options markets are positioned to the upside by the strongest degree since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. Time spreads have also widened sharply into backwardation, reversing what had been an equivocal stance on the near-term outlook for oil market tightness over the rest of this year. 'At just shy of $5 per barrel in backwardation, the current 1-6 month time spread for Brent futures are above the 95th percentile of spreads dating back to 1990,' a research note from Emirates NBD said. Oil markets have also generally ignored downbeat economic data this week — a drop in US retail sales and a downgrade to growth from the Federal Reserve. Correlation with the US dollar has turned negative in the last several days after oil and the greenback had generally been moving in tandem for much of 2025. Oil and the dollar had been trading on a weak global growth narrative for the last few months thanks to the uncertainty caused by the tariffs introduced by the Trump administration. 'But now the geopolitical risk in the oil market is splitting the outlook for oil and the dollar, creating an even worse environment for central banks who will have to contend with slow growth and potentially even higher inflation,' Bell said. Geopolitical anxiety, if it does not result in actual supply disruption, tends to burn hot in oil markets but also burn fast, Bell said. 'Even the attacks on the Abqaiq oil processing facilities in 2019 saw a spike in oil from $60 per barrel to almost $70 per barrel in a single day but gains then faded over the subsequent weeks. Oil markets are accustomed to geopolitical risk and there is slack available in the market to absorb at least some of the anxiety over supply security,' he added. Spare capacity within OPEC+ is estimated at around five million barrels a day, though with the caveat that much of that capacity is reliant on access to the Strait of Hormuz to make it out to seaborne markets. For now there has been no material interruption to shipping in the Gulf region. 'Since June 13 there has been a steady stream of departures from UAE oil export terminals,' Bell noted. Higher volumes with lower oil prices was going to result in wider fiscal deficits or smaller surpluses for GCC governments. 'If oil prices hold to their current levels and OPEC+ sticks with its higher output targets that should mean a better picture for regional balances,' Bell said.
