North AmericaSyria

US, Israel frustrated by Assad success: Analsyst

102654245_obamaisrael_blog_main_horizontalAn interview with Brian Becker, representative of Answer Coalition from Washington, has conducted by Press TV, about American Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent remarks over Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: I am sure you heard the speech there by John Kerry and his presser, who continue to make this case for military intervention despite the doubts and questions that exist even at US Congress and Parliament, not to mention some of the generals, which are in the army there and of course, this closest ally, Britain.

How convincing was this evidence, given the evidence that his predecessor Collin Powell presented to the UN in 2003, prior to US war on Iraq? Were you convinced?

Becker: Let me say first of all, I am a representative of the Answer Coalition which stands for Act Now to Stop War and Racism, where the organizations that has been organizing the main protests around the country and scores of cities, opposing any new military strike against Syria.

Kerry’s case was laughable; I mean you just had to listen to his words a little bit carefully to see how ridiculous they are. He said at one point angrily that he called the Syrian foreign minister and demanded the immediate access to the country for UN weapons inspectors and then a second later said the UN weapons inspectors’ report was actually irrelevant; it was meaningless that the US would judge the jury and the executioner.

There is an effort underway by the US government, I can see the effort to overthrow the Assad government, not because of terrorism, not because of chemical weapons, not because of human rights, but the US wants to destroy any independent nationalist government in this resource-rich part of the world.

Chemical weapons are being used again as a pretext just as they were during the Bush era to invade Iraq, again a country that was at peace with the United States and not threatening the United States.

Press TV: let’s break this down a little bit further, in terms of the intelligence that John Kerry cited so many examples of, Israel was behind this intelligence which implicate the Syrian government in this suspected chemical attack which is the same intelligence that the US is using to make their case. What is Israel’s role in all of this?

Becker: Israel has bombed Syria twice; the Israelis and the CIA have been working together, coordinating this massive weapon shipments from Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Turkey through Jordan that have fueled the civil war.

The United States and Israel both thought that the agency of civil war would be sufficient to topple the Assad government. The US and Israeli regime are frustrated that the Assad government has the upper hand militarily. They are frustrated that the popular support has made the Assad government actually more stable. They know that only a western intervention could actually help the so-called rebels, the armed groups that they have been funneling weapons to.

So, what would be the trigger for an armed intervention? It would be the so-called redline, the use of chemical weapons. The Assad government knew this full well; so, why would they, under the circumstances of winning the war, use the one weapon that would be used as a pretext, the trigger for the NATO or US intervention, the one thing that could decisively turn the tide for the so-called rebels?

So, the Israelis want all the regimes in the region to be weak, to be unstable or to be puppets of the Western powers, because that allows Israel to pursue its own expansionist aims throughout the region.

Press TV: If we have Frederick Peterson [ the other guest of the program],he also cited that some of the generals there in Obama’s army are trying to dissuade him from going ahead with this, it just leaves the question that what is it that is making way for this? What is Obama counting on?

Of course, we talked about this report supposedly citing evidence that the Syrian government used the chemical weapons, but overall, we just referred to Peterson there; why is Obama pursuing this path of a possible military strike on Syria?

Becker: The Obama administration is in fact trying to degrade the Syrian military; they may not have the decisive strategic blow against the Assad government. They are promising the American people two things: 1. it will be limited, meaning they will not go on forever and 2. all the bleeding will be done on the Syrian side.

It is kind of a promise that they are making the Americans, it will not be like Iraq; there will no “boots on the ground,” meaning and telling the American people who as you other guest said by a margin of 90 percent oppose any operation that all the bleeding will be done by the Syrians and they hope that the American people will certainly stand on the sidelines as a consequence of this promise.

But what I think they hope to do and what they will be doing by launching military strikes, even if they are limited is that they will unalterably commit the United States military to securing the outcome that the Obama administration has desired from the beginning, since it began fueling the civil war two and a half years ago and that is the overthrow of the Assad government.

Assad is strong right now, Syrian state is strong, the rebels’ initiative has vain, their popular support has dissipated; the people who live under the control of the rebels, the rebel-controlled areas do not like the rebels.

So, the Obama administration realizes this and this is where the lobby for the war came from that minus direct US military intervention; two or three years from now the Assad government will have prevailed.

For the empire, for the United States which seeks and pursues a policy of empire in this oil-rich region, where two third of the world’s oil is, it would be a big black eye that one of the smaller countries could have successfully defied the United States when Obama said, “Assad, you must go,” when John Kerry said Assad must go or his predecessor Hillary Clinton. Assad has defied the empire; his success stands as a challenge to the empire and the empire functions as all empires do; they do not and cannot tolerate any sort of success against them.

So, what we are really seeing is the escalation of the United States’ participation as a direct military participant in the Syrian war, the domestic, you might call it the civil war, although it has been fueled by outside forces and I believe that once having taken this step, it leaves to the road of greater and greater escalation.

That is why we have to stop it now; the American people do not want it, the other guy is right it is illegal and unconstitutional, the British House of Commons voted no, but Obama will not even bring it to the Congress; he says he is consulting Congress and giving a redacted version of the evidence to the American people.

But only Congress can legally declare war in the United States; even George W. Bush [former US president] at least tried to get congressional approval before his war of aggression in Iraq. Obama is so isolated on this but nonetheless rating ahead to engage the American military and once engaged, I believe it will remain engaged and escalate in terms of its own involvement.

Press TV: If we were just to go with line of ego that Frederick Peterson talks about, is it the ego that Obama is so worried about that is going to be a loss if he does not prevail in Syria based on Russia, Iran and Hezbollah in some ways to have prevailed and that is what the US does not want, they want to make sure that they are appearing still to have a foothold military in the region and of course in a larger picture to be this military super power?

Becker: There is ego and opportunism in ego, the two are conflated in this case, just as Obama knew that they could not win the war in Afghanistan, he doubled and tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan so that he would not personally held responsible for the apparent setback, the military defeat causing the Americans to withdraw from Afghanistan.

So, in order to pave the way for the eventual withdrawal, he first had the show that he was tough and not have to take responsibility. He sent many people to their death so that the US, political leaders could avoid taking responsibility for a military defeat; the defeat that they knew they could not overcome.

I think in the case of Syria, Obama glibly used the term redline, because he was still part of the camp inside the US government that was actually hoping not to be engaged in Syria directly. There have been cheerleaders for direct military intervention; Kerry, before him Hillary Clinton; there is of course a military industrial complex that always profits from every new military adventure; there is the right-wing militarist wing.

Obama seemed to have some restraint, but he said well, if there is a redline, the redline will be chemical weapons; well, of course that just meant that it would be an easy way to cross that redline, because you can have staged provocation and I believe we learn that this chemical weapon attack, if it happened on August 21st was in fact the staged provocation either by the rebels or Mossad or some other covert operation. It certainly would not be in the Assad government’s interest.

And then the Obama administration has confronted with the reality; OK, Syria crossed the redline, what does it do if Obama does nothing, he appears to be weak? His critics who are always accusing him of being weak, I have another card to play with; he has no allies? What does he do?

So, I believe that Obama has a personal motivation, yes, to be able to show that he is tough and he sticks into his words, he has been sort of prompted in to this position, but I do not think that is what really was driving US policy.

If you look at Iraq, if you look at Libya and now Syria and also the threats against Hezbollah and Lebanon and the Iranian regime, the enduring policy of the United states is to take down and destroy either by sanctions or war or combination of the two, independent nationalist governments who owe their existence to the anti-colonial projects of the past decades who broke free from the West.

The US wants to basically make the new Middle East very much like the old Middle East; in another words colonial types fear of influence and to that US policy makers, including the CIA, including the Pentagon, using a variety of tactics, not just military but a variety of tactics, are seeking to create a Middle East where all of the governments are either too weak, the countries are too weak or too fractured or they are run by puppet governments or proxy government.

I think that is the underlying objective of US policy and so whether his ego, whether his opportunism, there is this fundamental strategic trust of US policy in this very resource-rich, geostrategically important region of the world.

Back to top button