His security forces used live ammunition to mow down peaceful pro-democracy protesters, forcing them to take up arms to try to topple his brutal dictatorship. He has killed tens of thousands of his own people, using tanks, heavy artillery and even chemical weapons. HeÂs a blood-thirsty tyrant whose rule has lost its legitimacy and must step down to make way for a peaceful democratic transition.
ThatÂs the view of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, cultivated by Western politicians and their media stenographers. If thereÂs another side to the story, youÂre unlikely to hear it.
Western mass media are not keen on presenting the world from the point of view of governments that find themselves the target of Western regime change operations. On the contrary, their concern is to present the point of view of the big business interests that own them and the Western imperialism that defends and promotes big business interests.
They accept as beyond dispute all pronouncements by Western leaders on matters of foreign affairs, and accept without qualification that the official enemies of US imperialism are as nasty as the US president and secretary of state say they are.
What follows is the largely hidden story from the other side, based on two interviews with Assad, the first conducted by Clarin newspaper and Telam news agency on May 19, 2013, and the second carried out on June 17, 2013 by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Both were translated into English by the Syrian Arab News Agency.
BaÂathist Syria is no stranger to civil unrest, having experienced wave after wave of uprisings by Sunni religious fanatics embittered by their country being ruled by a secular state whose highest offices are occupied by Alawite ÂhereticsÂ.  The latest round of uprisings, the opening salvos in another chapter of what Glen E. Robinson calls ÂSyriaÂs Long Civil War,Â began in March, 2011.
The first press reports were of a few small protests, dwarfed by the far more numerous and substantial protests that erupt every day in the United States, Britain and France. A March 16, 2011 New York Times report noted that ÂIn Syria, demonstrations are few and brief.Â
These early demonstrationsÂa few quixotic young men declaring that Âthe revolution has started!Â, relatives of prisoners protesting outside the Interior MinistryÂseem disconnected from the radical Islamist rebellion that would soon develop.
Within days, larger demonstrations were underway in Dara, where citizens were said to have been Âoutraged by the arrest of more than a dozen schoolchildren.Â Contrary to a myth that has since taken hold, these demonstrations were hardly peaceful. Protesters set fire to the local BaÂath Party headquarters, as well as to the townÂs main courthouse and a branch of SyriaTel. Some protesters shot at the police, who returned fire. 
One can imagine the reaction of the New York City Police to protesters in Manhattan setting fire to the federal court building, firebombing the Verizon building and opening fire on police. A foreign broadcaster with an agenda to depict the United States in the worst possible light might describe the protest as peaceful, and the police response as brutal, but itÂs doubtful anyone in the United States would see it that way.
From Âthe first weeks of the protests we had policemen killed, so how could such protests have been peaceful?Â asks Assad. ÂHow could those who claim that the protests were peaceful explain the death of these policemen in the first week?Â Assad doesnÂt deny that most protesters demonstrated peacefully, but notes that Âthere were armed militants infiltrating protesters and shooting at the police.Â
Was the reaction of Syrian security forces to the unrest heavy-handed? Syria has a long history of Islamist uprisings against its secular state. With anti-government revolts erupting in surrounding countries, there was an acute danger that SyriaÂs Muslim BrothersÂlong at war with the Syrian stateÂwould be inspired to return to jihad. WhatÂs more, Syria is technically at war with Israel.
As other countries in similar circumstances, Syria had an emergency law in place, restricting certain civil liberties in the interest of defending national security. Among the restrictions was a ban on unauthorized public assembly. The demonstrations were a flagrant challenge to the law, at a time of growing instability and danger to the survival of the Syrian secular project. Moreover, to expect Syrian authorities to react with restraint to gunfire from protesters is to hold Syria to a higher standard than any other country.
Meanwhile, as protesters in Syria were shooting at police and setting fire to buildings, BahrainÂs royal dictatorship was crushing a popular uprising with the assistance of Saudi tanks and US equipment. New York TimesÂ columnist Nicholas D. Kristof lamented that ÂAmericaÂs ally, BahrainÂ was using ÂAmerican tanks, guns and tear gas as well as foreign mercenaries to crush a pro-democracy movementÂ as Washington remained Âmostly silent.Â 
Kristof said he had Âseen corpses of protesters who were shot at close range, seen a teenage girl writhing in pain after being clubbed, seen ambulance workers beaten for trying to rescue protesters.Â He didnÂt explain why the United States would have a dictator as an ally, much less one who crushed a pro-democracy movement. All he could offer was the weak excuse that the United States was Âin a viceÂcaught between its allies and its values,Â as if Washington didnÂt chose its allies, and that they were a force of nature, like an earthquake or a hurricane, that you had to live with and endure.
The United States was indeed in a viceÂthough not of the sort Kristof described. It was caught between WashingtonÂs empty rhetoric on democracy and the profit-making interests of the countryÂs weighty citizens, the true engine of US foreign policy. The dilemma was readily resolved. Profits prevailed, as they always do.
BahrainÂs accommodating attitude to US imperialismÂit is home to the US Fifth FleetÂand its emphasis on indulging owners and investors at the expense of wage- and salary-earners, are unimpeachably friendly to US corporate and financial interests.
Practically the entire stable of US allies in the Middle East is comprised of royal dictators whose attitude to democracy is unremittingly hostile, but whose attitude to helping US oil companies and titans of finance rake in fabulous profits is tremendously accommodating.
And so the United States is on good terms with them, despite their violent allergic reaction to democracy. Aware of whose interests really matter in US foreign policy, Kristof wrote of Bahrain, ÂWeÂre not going to pull out our naval base.Â Democracy is one thing, but a military base half way around the world (i.e., imperialism) is quite another.
That BahrainÂs version of the Arab Spring failed to grow into a civil war has much to do with US tanks, guns and tear gas, foreign mercenaries, and the silence of the US government. The Bahraini authorities used the repressive apparatus of the state more vigorously than Syrian authorities did, and yet virtually escaped the negative attention of responsibility-to-protect advocates, the US State Department, ÂseriousÂ political commentators, and anarchists and many (though not all) Trots who, in line with their savaging of Gadhafi, preferred to vent their spleen on another official enemy of Western imperialism, rather than waste their bile execrating a US ally.
WhatÂs more, the Âinternational communityÂ did much to fan the flames of the Syrian rebellion, linking up once again with their old friends Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brothers to destabilize yet another left nationalist secular regime, whose devotion to sovereignty and self-management was an affront to Wall Street.  Without naming him specifically, Assad says Khalifa is among the leaders who stand in relation to the United States, France and Britain as Âpuppets and dummies [who] do their bidding and serve their interests without question.Â
If Khalifa is the model of the Arab dictator Washington embraces, Assad fits the matrix of the Arab leader whose insistence on independence rubs the US State Department the wrong way. ÂThe primary aim of the West,Â Assad says, Âis to ensure that they have ÂloyalÂ governments at their disposalÂ which facilitate the exploitation and consumption of a countryÂs national resources.Â Khalifa comes to mind.
In contrast, Assad insists that a Âcountry like Syria is not by any means a satellite state to the West.Â It hasnÂt turned over its territory to US military bases, nor made over its economy to accommodate Western investors, banks and corporations. ÂSyria,Â he says, Âis an independent state working for the interests of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West.Â
ItÂs not his attitude to multi-party democracy or the actions of SyriaÂs security forces that have aroused Western enmity, asserts Assad, but his insistence on steering an independent course for Syria. ÂIt is only normal that they would not want us to play a role (in managing our own affairs), preferring instead a puppet government serving their interests and creating projects that would benefit their peoples and economies.Â
Normal or not, the Syrian president says, ÂWe have consistently rejected this. We will always be independent and free,Â adding that the United States and its satellites are using the conflict in Syria Âto get rid of SyriaÂthis insubordinate state, and replace the president with a ÂyesÂ man.Â
Assad challenges the characterization of the conflict as a civil war. The rebel side, he points out, is overwhelmingly dominated by foreign jihadists and foreign-based opposition elements (heavily dominated by the Muslim Brothers) backed by hostile imperialist powers. Some of AssadÂs opponents, he observes, Âare far from autonomous independent decision makers,Â receiving money, weapons, logistical support and intelligence from foreign powers. ÂTheir decisions,Â he says, Âare not self-governing.Â
The conflict is more aptly characterized as a predatory war on Syrian sovereignty carried out by Western powers and their reactionary Arab satellite states using radical Islamists to topple AssadÂs government (but who will not be allowed to take power) Âto impose a puppet government loyal to them which (will) ardently implement their policies.Â
These policies would almost certainly involve Damascus endorsing the Zionist conquest of Palestine as legitimate (i.e., recognizing Israel), as well as opening the country to the US military and turning over Syrian markets, labor and resources to exploitation by Western investors, banks and corporations on terms favourable to Western capital and unfavourable to Syrians.
Russia and Iran
Criticism of the intervention of a number of reactionary Arab states in the conflict, and the participation of Western imperialist powers, is often countered by pointing to RussiaÂs and IranÂs role in furnishing Syria with weapons. Assad argues that intervention of the side of the jihadists (ÂterroristsÂ in his vocabulary) is unlawful and illegitimate. By furnishing rebels with arms, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the United States Âmeddle in SyriaÂs internal affairsÂ Assad says, Âwhich is a flagrant violation of international law and our national sovereignty.Â On the other hand, Russia and Iran, which have supplied Syria with arms, have engaged in lawful trade with Syria, and have not infringed its independence.
According to Assad, Hezbollah has been active in towns on the border with Lebanon, but its involvement in the Syrian conflict has, otherwise, been limited. ÂThere are no brigades (of Hezbollah fighters in Syria.) They have sent fighters who have aided the Syrian army in cleaning areas on the Lebanese borders that were infiltrated with terrorists.Â
Assad points out that if HezbollahÂs assistance was needed, he would have asked for deployment of the resistance organizationÂs fighters to Damascus and Aleppo which are Âmore important than al-Quseir,Â the border town that was cleared of rebel fighters with HezbollahÂs help.
Stories about Hezbollah fighters pouring over the border to prop up the Syrian government are a ÂfrenzyÂ to reflect an image of Hezbollah as the main fighting forceÂ in order Âto provoke Western and international public opinion,Â Assad says. The aim, he continues, is to create Âthis notion that Hezbollah and Iran are also fighting in Syria as a counterweightÂ to the Âpresence of foreign jihadistsÂ in Syria.
The Assad government has implemented a number of reforms in response to the uprising.
First, it cancelled the long-standing abridgment of civil liberties that had been authorized by the emergency law. This law, invoked because Syria is in a technical state of war with Israel, gave Damascus powers it needed to safeguard the security of the state in wartime. Many Syrians, however, chaffed at the law, and regarded it as unduly restrictive. Bowing to popular pressure, the security measures were suspended.
Second, the government proposed a new constitution to accommodate protestersÂ demands to strip the BaÂath Party of its lead role in Syrian society. The constitution was put to a referendum and ratified. Additionally, the presidency would be open to anyone meeting basic residency, age and citizenship requirements. Presidential elections would be held by secret vote every seven years under a system of universal suffrage, with the next election scheduled for 2014.
ÂI donÂt know if (US secretary of state) Kerry or others like him have a mandate from the Syrian people to speak on their behalf as to who stays and who leaves,Â Assad observes, noting that Syrians themselves can decide whether he stays or leaves when they go to the polls next year.
Despite AssadÂs lifting the emergency law and amending the constitution to accommodate demands for a multi-party electoral democracy, the conflict continues. Instead of accepting these changes, the rebels summarily rejected them. Washington, London and Paris also dismissed AssadÂs concessions, denigrating them as Âmeaningless,Â without explanation.  Given the immediate and total rejection of the reforms, Assad can hardly be blamed for concluding that Âdemocracy was not the driving force of the revolt.Â
Elaborating, he notes:
It was seemingly apparent at the beginning that demands were for reforms. It was utilized to appear as if the crisis was a matter of political reform. Indeed, we pursued a policy of wide scale reforms from changing the constitution to many of the legislations and laws, including lifting the state of emergency law, and embarking on a national dialogue with all political opposition groups. It was striking that with every step we took in the reform process, the level of terrorism escalated.
The reality that the armed rebellion is dominated by Islamists  also militates against the conclusion that thirst for democracy lies at its core. Many radical Islamists reject democracy because they see it as a system for creating man-made laws and, as a corollary, for rejecting GodÂs law.
Reportedly hundreds of jihadists Âmembers of a sort of Islamist InternationalÂhave travelled from abroad to fight for a Levantine society in which GodÂs law, and not that of men and women, rules. Assad asks, ÂWhat interest does an internationally listed terrorist from Chechnya or Afghanistan have with the internal political reform process in Syria?Â Or in democracy?
Good terrorists and bad terrorists
SyriaÂs jihadists have resorted to terrorist tactics, and appear to have little fear that they will ever be held to account for these or other war crimes. They are not mistaken. Their summary executions of prisoners, indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas, terrorist car bombings, rapes, torture, hostage taking and pillageÂdocumented by the UN human rights commission Âwill very likely be swept into a dark, murky corner, to be forgotten and never acted upon, while imperialist powers use their sway over international courts to shine a bright line upon war crimes committed by Syrian forces.
While their ranks include the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra front, the jihadists have been depicted as heroes by Western governments and their media stenographers, a Âgood Al-Qaeda,Â says Assad. CatÂs paws of the West, radical Islamists are good terrorists when they fight to bring down independent governments, like the leftist pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan, and the anti-imperialist governments in Libya and Syria, but are bad terrorists when they attack the US homeland and threaten to take power in Mali.
Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security advisor, announced that Syrian forces have Âused chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last yearÂ killing Â100 to 150 people.Â 
Assad says the White HouseÂs claim doesnÂt add up. The point of using nerve gas, a weapon of mass destruction, is to kill Âthousands of people at one given time.Â The 150 people Washington says Syrian forces took 365 days to kill with chemical weapons could have been easily killed in one day using conventional weapons.
Why, then, wonders Assad, would the Syrian army use a weapon of mass destruction sub-optimally to kill a limited number of rebels when in a year it could kill hundreds of times more with rifles, tanks and artillery? ÂIt is counterintuitive,Â says the Syrian president, Âto use chemical weapons to create a death toll that you could potentially reach by using conventional weapons.Â
There is some evidence pointing to the use of chemical weapons by the rebels. Carla Del Ponte, a member of the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on SyriaÂa body created by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate alleged violations of human rights law in SyriaÂsays that the commission has Âconcrete suspicionsÂ of the use of sarin gas by the rebelsÂ but no evidence government forces have used them. 
Assad says he asked the United Nations to launch a formal investigation into suspected use of chemical weapons by rebel forces in Aleppo, but that the UN demanded unconditional access to the country. If Assad acceded to the demand, the inspection regime could be used as a cover to gather military intelligence for use against Syrian forces. ÂWe are a sovereign state; we have an army and all matters considered classified will never be accessible neither to the UN, nor Britain, nor France,Â says Assad. If he rejected the demand, it could be saidÂas it indeed it was by the White House Âthat the Âinternational communityÂ had been prevented by Damascus from undertaking a comprehensive investigation, thereby releasing the UN from any obligation to investigate the use of chemical weapons by the jihadists. At the same time, by rejecting the UNÂs demand, the Syrian government would create the impression it had something to hide. This could be countered by Damascus explaining its reasons for turning down the UN conditions, but the Western media give little time to the Syrian perspective, preferring saturation coverage of the pronouncements of Western officials. In terms of Western public opinion, whatever US officials say about Syria is decisive. Whatever Syrian officials say is drowned out, if presented at all.
It should be noted that no permanent member of the UN Security Council, including the United States and BritainÂindeed, no country of any standingÂwould willingly grant an outside organization or country unrestricted access to its military and government facilities. The reasons for denying UN inspectors untrammelled access to Syria are all the stronger in SyriaÂs case, given that major players on the Security Council are overtly backing the rebels, and could be expected to try to use UN inspectorsÂas indeed the US did in IraqÂto gather military intelligence to be used against the host country.
It would also do well to remember that the United States evinced no interest in investigating the use of chemical weapons by the rebels, immediately dismissing the allegations as unfounded. Following up on the allegations wasnÂt an option.
Finally, Assad points out that the chemical weapons charges call to mind the Âsexed upÂ WMD evidence used by the United States and Britain as a pretext to invade and conquer Iraq: ÂIt is common knowledgeÂ he says, Âthat Western administrations lie continuously and manufacture stories as a pretext for war.Â
The purpose of the foregoing is to offer a glimpse into the conflict in Syria from the other side, a side which the Western media are institutionally incapable of presenting, except in passing, and only if overwhelmed by the competing imperialist narrative.
AssadÂs analysis and values are very much in the anti-imperialist vein. He speaks of Western powers seeking ÂdummiesÂ and Âyes menÂ who will pursue policies that are favourable to the West. The United States does indeed maintain a collection of Âyes menÂ in the Middle East. Khalifa, the royal dictator of Bahrain, who used US tanks, guns, tear gas and Saudi mercenaries to crush a popular rebellion, is a model Arab Âyes manÂ and a dictator, as many of WashingtonÂs Âyes menÂ are, and have always been.
Assad, in contrast, has none of KhalifaÂs readiness to kowtow to an imperialist master. Instead, his governmentÂs insistence on working for the interests of Syrians, rather than making Syrians work for the interests of the West, has provoked the hostility of the United States, France and Britain, and their determination to overthrow his government. That AssadÂs commitment to local interests goes beyond rhetoric is clear in the character of SyriaÂs economic policy. It features the state-owned enterprises, tariffs, subsidies to domestic firms, and restrictions on foreign investment that Wall Street and its State Department handmaiden vehemently oppose for restricting the profit-making opportunities of wealthy US investors, bankers and corporations . On foreign policy, Syria has steered a course sensitive to local interests, refusing to abandon the Arab national project, whose success would threaten US domination of the Middle East, while allying with Iran and Hezbollah in a resistance (to US imperialism) front.
For his refusal to become their Âpuppet,Â the United States and its imperialist allies intend to topple Assad through accustomed means: an opportunistic alliance with radical Islamists who hate Assad as much as Washington does, though for reasons of religion rather than economics and imperialism.
1. SyriaÂs post-colonial history is punctuated by Islamist uprisings. The Muslim Brotherhood organized riots against the government in 1964, 1965, 1967 and 1969. It called for a Jihad against then president Hafiz al-Assad, the current presidentÂs father, denigrating him as Âthe enemy of Allah.Â By 1977, the Mujahedeen were engaged in a guerrilla struggle against the Syrian army and its Soviet advisers, culminating in the 1982 occupation of the city of Hama. The Syrian army quelled the occupation, killing 20,000 to 30,000. Islamists have since remained a perennial source of instability in Syria and the government has been on continual guard against Âa resurgence of Sunni Islamic fundamentalists,Â according to the US Library of Congress Country Study of Syria. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sytoc.html
2. ÂOfficers fire on crowd as Syria protests grow,Â The New York Times, March 20, 2011.
3. Nicholas D. Kristof, ÂBahrain pulls a QaddafiÂ, The New York Times, March 16, 2011.
4. For the WestÂs opportunistic alliances with political Islam see Mark Curtis, Secret Affairs: BritainÂs Collusion with Radical Islam, SerpentÂs Tail, 2011.
5. David M. Herszenhorn, ÂFor Syria, Reliant on Russia for weapons and food, old bonds run deepÂ, The New York Times, February 18, 2012.
6. Adam Entous, ÂWhite House readies new aid for Syrian rebelsÂ, The Wall Street Journal, April 10, 2013; Anne Barnard, ÂSyria campaigns to persuade U.S. to change sidesÂ, The New York Times, April 24, 2013; 3. Gerald F. Seib, ÂThe risks holding back Obama on SyriaÂ, The Wall Street journal, May 6, 2013.
7. According to Russian president Vladimir Putin Âat least 600 Russians and Europeans are fighting alongside the opposition.Â ÂPutin: President al-Assad confronts foreign gunmen, not Syrian people,Â Syrian Arab News Agency, June 22, 2013.
8. Damien Mcelroy, ÂSyrian rebels face war crime accusationÂ, The Ottawa Citizen, August 11, 2012; Sam Dagher and Nour Malas, ÂLebanon militia kidnaps SyriansÂ, The Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2012; Hwaida Saad and Nick Cumming-Bruce, ÂCivilian attacks rise in Syria, U.N. saysÂ, The New York Times, September 17, 2012; Stacy Meichtry, ÂSarin detected in samples from Syria, France saysÂ, The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2013; Sam Dagher, ÂViolence spirals as Assad gainsÂ, The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2013.
9. Statement by Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, on chemical weapons. The Guardian (UK), June 13, 2013.
10. ÂUN: ÂStrong suspicionsÂ that Syrian rebels have used sarin nerve gas,Â Euronews, May 6, 2013; ÂUNÂs Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels Âused sarinÂÂ, BBC News, May 6, 2013.
12. For SyriaÂs economic policies and the US ruling class reaction to them see the Syria sections of the Heritage FoundationÂs Index of Economic Freedom http://www.heritage.org/index/country/syria and the CIA Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html .
June 22, 2013