While tumult and uncertainty characterize most of the nations embroiled in the Arab Spring, an all-consuming cesspool of violence most accurately describes the situation in Syria. The Syrian uprising carries such a stigma because the regime has been largely successful. The military has remained loyal, the regime has managed to keep protestors divided and unarmed, and the nation is shrouded in a near media blackout. Moreover, world powers like China and Russia continue to sustain the regime economically despite harsh Western sanctions.

While scores are murdered daily, the international community treats the uprising like a pawn in a political chess match; Syria demonstrates a collision of regional geopolitical and international economic interests. Unfortunately, change may only come at the barrel of a gun. Before one can envisage Syria’s future, one must first recognize the events that have led to the present situation.

The persistent theme of political repression, in addition to national diversity, adds to the understanding of the recent uprising. For forty years, Syria has lived under an Assad regime. Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, came to power in 1971 where he served as president for nearly three decades until his death in June of 2000. Hafez brought unprecedented stability to the Syrian presidency. Previously, frequent military and political coups had crippled Syria and had restricted legitimate development in the nation.

 When al-Assad came to power, he ushered in not only political stability with his iron fist rule – backed largely with support from the Soviet Union – but also a thorough propaganda campaign. The word “Assad” in Arabic means lion, and during Hafez’ rule, this word was deemed so important that it was sacrilegious to describe an actual lion by using this term. Akin to future portrayals of his son, Hafez was depicted as the savior of Syria. Lauded for his public works projects and his relative religious tolerance, Assad’s fame was unprecedented for a post-independence Syrian president.

 While absurdly exaggerating propaganda dominated the media in Syria, a ruthless mind was behind the curtain. Thousands of dissidents faced the wrath of a president who was unafraid to use the full strength of his security force and extrajudicial means to eliminate opponents. The most infamous of these events was the Hama Massacre of 1982.

The protests and unrest awakened by the Arab Spring certainly are not new in Syria. The massive bloodshed in Homs coincidentally marks the 30th anniversary of the Hama Massacre. In February of 1982, under orders of President Hafez Al-Assad government soldiers mercilessly leveled the city of Hama, killing an estimated 25,000 Syrians in its wake according to Amnesty International. This operation silenced the Sunni Muslim revolt against Hafez. The Hama Massacre has also been labeled "the single deadliest act by any Arab government against people in the modern Middle East."

Prior to the Massacre, two major groups were at odds, both socially and politically: the governing secular, socialist Ba’athists and the conservative, religiously motivated Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood had adopted a series of guerilla-like strategies in order to combat the Alawite regime. Spreading across cities around the country, these periodic clashes plagued Syria for several years before the catastrophic moment in 1982. Finally in February of this year, Hafez al-Assad decided that he would have no more of the Muslim Brotherhood’s dissident ways. By targeting a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold in Hama, Assad leveled the city utterly quashed the Muslim Brotherhood and in so doing brought a catastrophic loss of life to the country. It is difficult to convey the sheer magnitude of the obliteration that Hafez al-Assad brought upon his own citizens in the city of Hama.

In 1982, Assad was largely successful in his operation. Though the price was great – including over 1,000 deaths from Syrian security forces alone – Assad was able to effectively cripple the Muslim Brotherhood. Following this Massacre, Hafez reaffirmed his dedication to iron fist, political repression policies. Thirty years later, echoes of Hama are hauntingly in the air. While that incident of brutality may have silenced a revolution, such success will not be as obtainable for the Syrian government in 2012 even given the recent Russian and Chinese actions due to the nature of the dispersed nature of the current uprising. In large part, Assad’s success in 1982 was based on the concentrated nature of the Muslim Brotherhood. The dynamics and face of the revolution in 2012 is far different than it was in 1982. Today, the uprising is multifaceted in terms of protestor and, perhaps more important to the vitality of the revolution, in terms of geography. The uprising is incredibly dispersed across the country thereby making it rather challenging for a single scorched earth operation to silence the uprising. Even if Homs were to go the same way as Hama, it is doubtful that the destruction of that single city alone could stop the movement.

Within twelve hours of the highpoint of violence in Homs, the Security Council came to a vote on a resolution aimed at ending violence in Syria. While thirteen votes were in favor of the solution, two vetoes from Russia and China effectively paralyzed the international community. Meanwhile, government tank shells screamed into buildings, snipers shot at will and mortars rained down onto rooftops in Homs.

The vetoes from the Russian and Chinese delegations were not unexpected. In October, Russia and China vetoed a Security Council resolution that could have significantly curbed violence in Syria. In the four months since the death of that draft resolution, the rhetoric surrounding the Assad regime in the Security Council has not changed drastically. Since then a strongly worded report by the Arab League outlined a transfer of power, the writing of a new constitution and presidential elections and the death toll today estimated to be 3,000 higher than the 2,700 it was in October. If anything, the language is far more urgent now than it was four months ago.

In the words of British UN representative Lyall Grant, “Those who blocked the council action must ask themselves how many more deaths they will be prepared to tolerate.”

Building on the comprehensive report presented by the Arab League – the same body that has suspended Syria’s membership – the United Nations Security presented a resolution in early February. The following are a few highlights from the proposed resolution in the Security Council that was shot down by the Russian and Chinese double veto:

1.      Condemns the continued widespread and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities

2.      Demands that the Syrian government immediately put an end to all human rights violations

7. Fully supports in this regard the League of Arab States' 22 January 2012 decision to facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their

affiliations or ethnicities or beliefs, including through commencing a serious political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition under the League of Arab States' auspices, in accordance with the timetable set out by the League of Arab States;

12. Calls upon the Syrian authorities to allow safe and unhindered access for humanitarian assistance in order to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid to persons in need of assistance

On February 4, after two days of indiscriminate violence, over 300 lay dead in the Syrian city of Homs. “At least 337 people were killed in the Homs assault,” a Syrian National Council spokesman said, “and of those identified, 72 were children and 45 were women.” Violence is certainly not a new phenomenon in Homs. Dubbed “the Capital of the Revolution,” Homs has seen some of the largest demonstrations from over the past twelve months, and so too has it witnessed arguably the most concentrated violence. The Center for Documenting Violations in Syria has reported that nearly 1,800 Syrians have been killed since the start of anti-government demonstrations one year ago.

 Homs has played a central role since the start of the Syrian uprising. In a revolution that spans a great diversity of peoples and regions, Homs is as close to a vignette of the revolt as one may get. Homs has been under siege by security forces and the Syrian army since May of 2011 and protests and demonstrations began as early as April. The Assad regime has justified their military presence in the city by claiming that such actions are for the protection of the country against the terrorist activities of Western inspired radicals. Since the beginning of the siege by the regime, a gradual series of escalation has been carried out by the regime. Beginning with a blockade of humanitarian aid and basic human necessities, the siege has become a military operation. Thug squads replaced increased security forces. Snipers and on the rooftops came shortly thereafter. Finally, in late January and early February, government tanks rolled into the streets and mortars indiscriminately pounded civilian rooftops.

 Homs is also ground zero for the Free Syrian Army, Syria’s armed opposition group. As things currently stand, Homs is at its tipping point. While the government has proven its willingness to use heavy artillery, it has not yet demonstrated that it is willing to burn Homs to the ground as it did with Hama in ’82. Moreover, the Free Syrian Army, though vastly outmatched militarily by the government’s army and security forces, has shown that it is capable of providing resistance. Unless Assad’s regime is willing to commit to a full-scale military siege of Homs, it is quite possible that the Free Syrian Army’s opposition may prove enough to stave off a full government takeover of this dissident city.

2

 The regime has the power, but the question is whether a repeat performance of ’82 in Homs today would trigger more disastrous repercussions than the benefits of leveling the city would yield. Syria is not in a complete media blackout. While the media may be state run, thanks to twenty-first century technologies like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, the international community has been able to view the atrocities in cities like Homs. Moreover, while the Security Council may be shut off from military intervention, a massive military crackdown in Homs may be enough to catalyze intervention on behalf of an entity such as NATO. Homs is at its tipping point and is indicative of the state of Syria. While its status alone will not determine the future of the country, the actions taken by the government, the rebels and the international community surely will be indicative of the future of the nation.

March 2011 – Day of Rage in Southern City of Daraa. Several civilians are killed by security forces in this day of protest.

May 2011 – Government tanks roll into the cities of Daraa, Banyas, Homs and Damascus.

July 2011 – A more defined opposition begins to form – primarily across the border in Istanbul – which forms the early workings of what is soon to become the Syrian

National Council

August 2011 – Western leaders, including president Barack Obama, call on Assad to step down.

October 2011 – Syrian National Council has been organized and claims to have formed a unified front for the uprising.

October 2011 – Russia and China double veto the resolution proposed in the Security Council, which strongly condemned and called to end “the continued grave and systematic human rights violations and the

use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities.”

December 2011 – Death toll surpasses 5,000. The Syrian National Council refers to this number as the 5,000 martyrs.  

December 2011 – Arab League observers arrive in Syria. 2 bombs detonate outside government buildings in Damascus, killing 44. The regime accuses terrorists – the same who they claim are responsible for the unrest around the nation – while the rebels assert that the regime was responsible for these attacks.

January 2012 – Arab League suspends its monitoring mission as a result of the violence.

February 2012 – Double veto in the UN Security Council. Homs is under intense government siege.

  

topics   

With mandatory conscription for all Syrian males aged 18 and older, the Syrian Army consists of a total of 220,000 active personnel and 280,000 reserve personnel. It is currently lead by the Army Chief of Staff General Fahd Jasem Al-Farij, who recently replaced General Shawkat, President al-Assad’s brother-in-law. The current regime has used the army as a critical pawn in its fight against prodemocracy protestors. The army crackdown has been most prominent in the towns of Deraa and Hama, where they have used tanks to fight against the growing number of dissidents. There have been several reports of brutal, wide spread crackdowns by troops

throughout Syria. Onslaughts such as these have resulted in the injury and death of thousands of civilians. Following a UN commission of inquiry, it has reported crimes against humanity including murder and rape. The BBC has reported growing strife within various ranks of the army, which may have contributed to the growing number of defections by several officers who have now sided with the rebels.

Making up 9% of the populations they are the largest minority group in Syria. Nonetheless, they have a long history of oppression by          President               al-Assad’s government.      The         Syrian authorities                have               curtailed efforts to protest the ill treatment of Kurds and have arrested   leading Kurdish political activists. However, in       more       recent     times

President Assad has become aware of the need to win their support in order to

avoid their decision to join the opposition. Thus, in order to win over their support, he has promised to grant thousands of them citizenship. Nonetheless, the Kurds had little intention of joining the rebels. The current opposition groups consist of entities, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Arab nationalists, that are not sympathetic to the plight of the Kurds. In deciding which group to side with their primary concern will depend on the long-term impact on how their decision will shape what their hope to eventually create a nation for themselves. 

The Russian government has been at the vanguard of international support for the Assad regime. Economically and politically, Russia almost singlehandedly has proven that they alone can fend off international intervention in Syria. When asked to justify his veto in the Security Council, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin commented that the proposed resolution “did not adequately represent the real state of affairs in

Syria.” 

In terms of economic and geopolitical interests, Russia may have the greatest stake in the maintenance of the Assad regime. Russia currently has $4 billion in defense contracts with the Syrian government with $162 million in annual arms sales and $550 million for combat training jets. Moreover, Russia’s sole access to the Mediterranean comes via their naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartus.

The Human Rights Watch criticized Russia for their support of the Syrian government back in January of 2012, claiming that “Russia is repeating the mistakes of Western governments during the Arab Spring by continuing to support a longstanding authoritarian ally whose people have clearly expressed the desire for democratic change. Western governments were slow to recognize the popular will in places like Egypt and Bahrain. Russia is failing to recognize it in Syria today, and continues to equate popular protesters with government snipers and torturers, as though they were

two equivalent sides of a civil war.”

Russian support has shown that the West can no longer single-handedly bring about the fall of governments through the use of sanctions. While the United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions and bans on imports of Syrian oil, Russia, China and Venezuela have continuously thwarted efforts to impose sanctions through the UN and the Security Council. China and Russia have also continued to sustain the regime through energy and military deals. Russia has shown that they are capable of holding the international community hostage, regarding intervention in Syria.

                 

China effectively made their intentions clear regarding the situation in Syria with their veto in the Security Council. When given the opportunity to explain his veto, Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong said that the resolution would only serve “to complicate the issue.” The Chinese government has called on all parties to stop all violence in Syria; however, so too have they refused to impose sanctions or even condemn the Assad regime, as they believe that such actions could be the tipping point in the path towards international intervention. The Jerusalem Post’s Middle East affairs correspondent,

Oren Kessler posits his thoughts on the Chinese Security Council veto in saying that “the Chinese veto in favor of Syria came about by proxy in the interests of preserving China’s relationship with Russia.”

China’s interest in the nation is not solely political. China is currently Syria’s second largest importer with over $2.2 billion in annual imports and has provided the regime with arms during this past year of unrest. With economic and geopolitical interests abound, China – along with Russia – have shown their capacity to economically sustain the Assad regime in the midst of significant sanctions. While the West may be able to economically attack the Assad regime, it is clear that with sustained political opposition from China and Russia, significant intervention on the international level will be impossible with Syria’s recalcitrant supporters. 

While fellow participant states of the Arab Spring have vocalized their support for the democratic uprising in Syria, such support is most certainly not shared by Iran. Iranian involvement, or rather lack thereof, is a multifaceted issue. Publicly denounced by the Iranian government, any support of the uprising has been silenced in Iran. A great deal of this anti-uprising rhetoric is predicated upon fear. Following controversial Iranian presidential elections in 2009, a groundswell of grassroots produced gripped the streets of Tehran and of Iranian populations around the world. Though the Iranian government was successful in immediately quashing any further escalation of protests to the scale of Egypt or Syria, the government fears today that the spread of the Arab Spring mentality to Iran could galvanize a repeat of 2009.

Turkey’s role will be particularly critical to Syria’s future considering their long, contentious history. According to Princeton professor of Near East Studies Michael Reynolds, “Decades of hostility between Turkey and Syria have revolved around three pivotal issues: territorial disputes over the Hatay Province, water rights, and Syrian support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the PKK. Such tension nearly escalated into war in 1998, when Turkey threatened to invade Syria for harboring the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Ocalan. However, according to Reynolds, “Relations  changed 180 degrees after the AKP [the Justice and Development Party – a centre-right political party in Turkey] came to power in 2002.” With Assad’s visit to Turkey in 2004 and Turkey’s implementation of the “Zero Problems with Neighbors” policy, cordial relations rached an unprecedently strong level. Unprecedented cooperation became a reality as Syria and Turkey initiated visa-free travel, cooperated on trade relations, and introduced the 2009 Strategic Cooperation Council. Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu even emphasized that the two nations shared a common culture, a common past and a common future. “From near war,” says Reynolds, “the two countries had come to emphasize a ‘common culture.’” Suddenly, a new power bloc appeared to be in the making with TurkishSyrian relations as the centerpiece.

 But declining relations were as precipitous as

their improvement. At the start of the protests, the Turkish government began to withdraw support from Assad to maintain its populist image. Now, Turkish leaders are only meeting with opposition representatives. Turkey is placed in a precarious position in that it must balance both internal stability and pan-Arab relations, which will constrain its support for the Syrian opposition. Of utmost importance for Turkey is preventing another PKK outpost. Yet taking swift action could threaten domestic stability by igniting a Sunni-Shia rift.

Turkey must also consider the Iranian reaction; the IranTurkey relationship has been historically fragile and experts have long speculated over the possibility of a falling out between Turkey and Iran over Syria.

However, the evidence points against a Syrian rift causing a break in their relations. Turkey needs Iranian cooperation in their fight against the PKK, particularly PJAK (The Party of Free Life of Kurdistan), the Iranian arm. Syria also serves as the gateway to Lebanon for Iran, and more importantly, for Hezbollah. 

Fear of a PKK launching pad for attacks from Syria are real, and intervention may be seen as necessary to establish a buffer zone inside Syria to stem the refugee crisis. Turkey has taken the lead in supporting the opposition, permitting them to organize in Turkey.

With the February double veto in the Security Council, significant unilateral action on the international level has effectively been shutoff. It has become increasingly clear that if a peaceful – or even military – resolution were to come to Syria, it would not come from the united consensus of the international community. Rather, with the Security Council held hostage by both Russia and China, the Council is left navigating its few available channels. Any resolution that may emerge from the Security must be sure to cater towards to the self-serving interests of the Russian and Chinese governments.

Despite unyielding Russian and Chinese support, their presence on the Security Council does not eliminate any hope for a meaningful resolution to emerge from this body. Both Russia and China have expressed their commitment to the restoration of peace within the country. While their desired ends – or rather the political leaders that they would like to be leading

such a peace – may be antithetical to the ends of the Western world, peace and stability is nonetheless desired across the board. Will the Security Council be willing to accept peace if an Assad regime is the one that ushers it in or has his government reached the point of no return in the eyes of the rest of the world?

structure of the committee

This committee shall be run in a Joint Crisis Committee format – the happenings in one committee shall directly impact the other committee. As noted, the two committees shall be the regime and the rebels. The regime shall be convening in Damascus and shall comprise a summit of the aforementioned top government officials and affiliated international leaders. The rebels shall be convening in Istanbul, Turkey and shall comprise a summit of leaders from the Syrian National Council in addition to a number of affiliated national, regional and international representatives.

 This committee will be run as a recent historical committee. When we convene, the date will be February 16, 2012 – shortly after the double veto in the United Nations Security Council. The international community has been effectively reduced to a standstill, Homs is burning and the country is on the brink of utter chaos. Events shall occur in real time in what is bound to be arguably the most critical and influential four days in Syrian history. What transpires in this committee during this conference shall determine the future of a people, a nation and a region. 

 If there is one thing that the past year of the Arab Spring has taught the world is that people cannot be silenced. However, cries are only effective so long as they are heard. This committee promises to engage every dimension of Syrian diversity and every corner of the globe in terms of world and regional powers. 

 Rather than proceeding with two specific topics, this committee shall commence upon the date of February 16, 2012. Both committees will assume their roles on this date and will begin by addressing the situation in Syria particularly regarding the status of Homs and the role of the international community. Live developments and crises shall occur rapidly akin to the ever-evolving real life situation. However, upon assuming your roles on this date, you have the power to control the future. February 16 is your nascence, but the future is undetermined.

 This committee cannot be contained in two topics; rather, the fate of an entire nation shall be the premise, the goal and the topic for this entire committee. Will Bashar step aside peacefully? Will we see intervention by the international community? Will the country be reduced to rubble? Save Syria – but for whom – this is your objective.

Positions

President (Aug. 2011 – Present)

Following the start of the Syrian Revolution, this France-based intellect has been vocal in expressing his views regarding the fruitlessness of negotiating with the regime. His basic tenant emphasizes the necessity to “unite and cooperate to bring about “a pluralist, civil, democratic order in which all Syrian citizens are equal”. No consensus has been reached among the Syrian people in regards to whether he should serve merely as a coordinator between various opposition groups, or whether he is more valuable as a leader of a unified opposition. 

Spokesperson  

As a woman serving in a highly respected role, Qamdani is symbolic of the progressive views of the Syrian National Council. She has called for Arab intervention in the Syrian crisis on numerous occasions. In her most recent comments she criticized President al-Assad for “breaking up with the Arab League” and having encouraged sectarian divisions.  

Executive Board Member

This former judge and prominent human rights activist currently resides in Germany. His candid criticism of the Assad regime landed him in prison in 2009 on charges of ‘spreading false and misleading information’. This was only a single instance of his many detentions by the Syrian government. 

Executive Board Member

As a businessman and opposition leader, Nashar has worked in various positions including President of the National Liberal Alliance. He has been arrested on a number of occasions for his activism and currently lives in Istanbul. 

Commander – Free Syrian Army (2011 – Present)

The Turkish-based commander continues to call for international intervention. He argues that only the international community is capable of stopping Assad’s bloody retaliation against his opposition, in light of the fact that the Arab peace monitors have failed to do so. 

Turkish Prime Minister (March 2003 – Present) Although he and President al-Assad once had a close relationship, since the Syrian uprising began Erdoğan has been one of the most fervent opponents of the current regime. He has spoken out against al-Assad on numerous occasions asserting that the future cannot be built on “the blood of the merciless”. Furthermore, he has promised to retaliate to recent attacks by Syrian troops on refugees inside Turkey. 

Secretary of the Arab League and Head of the Syrian Uprising Observer Mission

Since August 2011, when the League first condemned the Syrian government for its repressive acts, the organization has taken major steps in working to ameliorate the conditions in Syria. These diplomats have promised to, “open channels of communication with the Syrian opposition and offer full political and financial support, urging (the opposition) to unify its ranks. ” It has also called on the UN to form a joint peacekeeping mission. 

Syrian Muslim Brotherhood Spokesman

The Islamist group has described that the actions of the al-Assad regime as being comparable to the atrocious actions of Nazis and Fascists. It has urged the opposition to continue to be resilient until their demands are met and warned the regime, “The people demand that their nation be built on the basis of social justice, equality and brotherhood and their resolve will never again be circumvented. Their will shall never again be broken." 

Assyrian Democratic Organization Representative

(Needs BIO)

Originaly born in Hasaka, Abdulahad Astepho is the Official representative of the Eurpoean branch of the Assyrian Democratic Organization. He currently resides in Belgium and oftentimes asks as a spokesperson for the rebel group.

President of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change

The NCC is a Damascus-based umbrella opposition group that consists primarily of thirteen leftist opposition parties. It has agreed to dialogue with the alAssad regime on the condition that military troops are withdrawn from the streets and political prisoners are released. The group is in favor of economic sanctions and further diplomatic action in order to increase the pressure on the government. Despite calls for unification, the NCC and SNC continue to work separately and with different targets. 

NATO Secretary General

NATO has rejected the possibility of any form of intervention in the Syrian crisis, including providing technical humanitarian support, which is meant to provide support to protestors. When asked for the rational behind its decision, considering the active role it played in Libya, Secretary General Rasmusse had this to say, “"Syria is also a different society, it is much more complicated ethnically, politically, religiously. That's why I do believe that a regional solution should be found."

Al-Jazeera Correspondent in Syria  

As a roving Al-Jazeera journalist with several years experience covering the Middle East, Khodr was one of the only journalists who was able to report from Daraa.  

Syrian Minister of Defense

President al-Assad appointed General Rajha to the post subsequent to firing his predecessor General Ali Habib, who allegedly objected to the deployment of military forces to Hama. The United States has placed sanctions on General Rajha, along with two other senior Syrian officials. Prior to being promoted to this position, he was the army chief of staff. 

Head of Military Intelligence 

Prior to holding this post, General Qudsiya served as Head of Air Force Intelligence. The Syrian Military Intelligence office has played a significant role in the suppression and killing of protestors. As the primary security agency, it is well known for its “ruthless efficiency” and those that hold this post are said to have notable clout over the actions of the president. The United States has also placed sanctions on him for his brutal actions. 

Al-Assad has headed Syria as its President since 2000.  In recent years, he has faced strong opposition both from within and outside the country but continues to hold onto his position. 

Farouk Al-Shaara became Vice President in 2006. He also served as Foreign Minister from 1984 to 2006, making him one of the longest-serving government officers in Syria and an “old guard” to Al-Assad’s government.

Najah Al-Attar has served as Syria’s Vice President since 2006 and is the first female to hold the post in Syria. She is also one of the most influential women in Middle Eastern politics. 

Adel Safar served as Agriculture Minister from 2003 till 2011, when he resigned from the post, only to be appointed by Assad as Prime Minister a few days later. 

Daud Rajihah is the current Defence Minister of Syria. He was earlier the Chief of Staff of the Syrian Arab Army but replaced Ali Habib Mahmud as Defence Minister in 2011.

Maher Al-Assad is the Commander of the Republican Guard and Bashar Al-Assad’s brother. He is often thought of as the second-most powerful man in Syria and had a key role in the repressive tactics used by his troops during the uprising. 

Adnan Mahmoud is the current Minister of Information in Syria. He was appointed to this post in 2011. 

El-Freij is the Chief of Staff of the Syrian Arab Army since August 2011. He was one of the officials named by former soldiers as having ordered attacks on unarmed protesters. 

Jamil Hassan is Director of Air Force Intelligence, Syria’s foremost intelligence agency. The agency has worked actively against the uprising and Hassan has been blamed by foreign entities such as the EU for being involved “in the repression against the civilian population.”