They would turn up the television when they wanted to lower their voices. In Syrian homes, criticism had its own ritual. First, the sound of a newsreader or television drama would rise. Then the speaker would lean in, his lips almost touching his guest's ear. Even those who wielded power were wary of what the walls might conceal. Some knew how listening devices were planted. Others had planted them themselves. Still others feared that their colleagues might have got there first.
Nearly two years after the fall of the Syrian regime, the stories keep coming. The television spoke so that people could speak. It might be blaring praise for 'Mr President' while those seated before it tried to slip in a remark or a weary sigh. The telephone, however, offered no such protection. It had plans of its own. There are millions of stories. One of them, according to those who tell it, concerns Jamil Hassan and Ali Mamlouk. Hassan had already lost his position as head of Air Force Intelligence, while Mamlouk remained director of the National Security Bureau.
Then it was Mamlouk's turn. On the very day Bashar al-Assad dismissed him, Hassan called to ask about the decision. Perhaps he imagined that, once stripped of their positions, the two officers could at last speak with a candour previously denied them. Mamlouk, himself a master at setting traps, was quick to reply: "Speak up. I cannot hear you... The line is crackling." Then he hung up. He was trying to keep his name out of a report being compiled by an operative whose job was to record telephone conversations.
Both men have since lost their positions and now languish in Moscow, awaiting a reckoning. Yet the habits of power have stayed with them, along with an acute awareness of the consequences of every word and gesture. Hassan was asking about the dismissal of a colleague who was also a rival. Mamlouk, for his part, feared that the same colleague and rival might implicate him simply by speaking to him, leaving him on record as having listened without objecting, or having said nothing at all. Losing power had not restored their freedom to speak. Mamlouk, who had spent years finding out what others were saying, now seemed desperate to escape what someone was saying to him.
There is more to this story than the telephone call itself. When Hassan fled on the night the regime collapsed in late 2024, he left behind in his office a 'golden register' overflowing with verses of extravagant praise for Bashar and Maher al-Assad. Such displays of servility merit a story of their own. The language went beyond even the excesses of flattery. Here was an officer of immense power, responsible for atrocities committed in the regime's service, pouring his energies into rituals of submission. The same hand that had inflicted suffering on Syrians was now writing words of abject submission.
He knew where his authority came from, and who could take it away. His position gave him sweeping power over ordinary Syrians and prisoners confined to their cells, yet left him dependent on the favour of those above him. Every extravagant tribute was another pledge of loyalty, another attempt to postpone the final telephone call and the day he would be sent home.
Another story involved the two officers, according to one account. On an anniversary of the founding of the Baath Party, Hassan sent Mamlouk a bouquet arranged in the colours of the party flag. Mamlouk was perplexed. He despised the ruling Baath Party, despite being one of the regime's pillars. A small bouquet revealed an immense gulf between the regime's public façade and its inner workings.