Syria war in­tended to di­vide, weaken in­de­pen­dent na­tions: Syd­ney pro­fes­sor

Tim An­der­son says ‘Wash­ing­ton has not yet found a way to ac­cept de­feat’ in Syria

Tehran Times - - FRONT PAGE - By Zahra Khezri

Tim An­der­son, a se­nior lec­turer in po­lit­i­cal econ­omy at the Univer­sity of Syd­ney, be­lieves that the war on Syria was in­tended to weaken and di­vide in­de­pen­dent coun­tries in the re­gion.

“The war has aimed at weak­en­ing and di­vid­ing the re­gion’s in­de­pen­dent coun­tries,” Tim, writer of the book ti­tled “The Dirty War on Syria”, tells the Tehran Times in an ex­clu­sive in­ter­view.

Be­low is a full tran­script of the in­ter­view:

Mr. An­der­son could you please tell us what your book “The Dirty War on Syria” re­veals about the war in Syria? And what was your mo­tive be­hind writ­ing the book?

A: My book ex­poses the west­ern myths about this war and of­fers a more re­al­is­tic his­tory of the con­flict.

The war on Syria is seen as a key part of the ‘New Mid­dle East’ plan by Wash­ing­ton and its al­lies, to sub­ju­gate and con­trol all in­de­pen­dent na­tions of the re­gion.

The aim was to strate­gi­cally and eco­nom­i­cally dom­i­nate the re­gion, de­ter­min­ing the terms on which other pow­ers, such as Rus­sia, China and Europe, could ac­cess Mid­dle East­ern re­sources, in­fra­struc­ture and mar­kets. My mo­tive for writ­ing the book was dis­sat­is­fac­tion with the shal­low and mis­lead­ing por­trayal of the con­flict in the English speak­ing world. I wanted to cor­rect that mis­in­for­ma­tion.

You talk about “un­told story” be­hind Syria’s con­flict. What’s the main pur­pose of West­ern me­dia out­lets in cov­er­ing up the ground re­al­ity of the war in Syria?

A: West­ern me­dia out­lets have shown them­selves deeply em­bed­ded in the neo-colo­nial projects of their gov­ern­ments.

There is no ‘free­dom’ of the west­ern cor­po­rate me­dia, in this re­spect. At times of war they show them­selves to be com­pletely ‘em­bed­ded’ with their states. As the suc­ces­sive wars have pro­ceeded (Afghanistan, Iraq, Le­banon, Libya, Syria, and Ye­men), new pre­texts have been rolled out and any dis­sent is at­tacked and in­tim­i­dated.

You re­fer to “lies” in your book about the Syr­ian war. Could you go into de­tail on it?

A: The lies have to do with the char­ac­ter of war on Syria, the agents in­volved and crit­i­cal in­ci­dents, or war crimes, dur­ing the war. Be­cause the ag­gres­sion is clearly in breach of in­ter­na­tional law, ex­treme pre­texts have been in­vented to cover up this fact. For ex­am­ple, it has been ar­gued that the armed ag­gres­sion against Syria is nec­es­sary be­cause the govern­ment is ‘killing its own peo­ple’. As each new pre­text fails, an­other has been in­vented.

What is the ob­jec­tive of dif­fer­ent power play­ers in the Syria war?

A: The U.S. has an im­pe­rial plan, which I out­lined above, into which it has drawn a num­ber of its west­ern al­lies. The re­gional al­lies of the U.S.: the Saudis, Turkey, Qatar, Is­rael, have had over­lap­ping in­ter­ests. Over­all, the war has aimed at weak­en­ing and di­vid­ing (if not de­stroy­ing) the re­gion’s in­de­pen­dent coun­tries.

Syria and its re­gional al­lies (mainly Hezbol­lah, Rus­sia, Iran) have been de­fend­ing their na­tions and their key in­ter­ests.

What’s your take on Iran’s role in pro­tect­ing As­sad’s govern­ment and Syr­ian peo­ple?

A: Since 1979 Iran has en­joyed a sta­ble and con­struc­tive strate­gic re­la­tion­ship with Syria. The Is­lamic Repub­lic of Iran wants sta­ble and con­struc­tive re­la­tion­ships with its neigh­bors, and un­der­stands that the U.S. has been try­ing to un­der­mine these.

In par­tic­u­lar, Iran and Syria share in­ter­ests as part of a re­gional axis against the eth­nic cleans­ing and apartheid of Is­rael. I be­lieve the govern­ment of Iran un­der­stands very well that it has the will and ca­pac­ity to lead a re­gional al­liance in de­fense of com­mon in­ter­ests.

In your book you re­fer to “proxy armies” be­ing sup­ported by United States’ re­gional al­lies. Could you shed light on that?

A: From Feb-March 2011, Qatar and the Saudis sup­ported the armed groups in Syria, un­der the con­trol of Syria’s Mus­lim Brother­hood, along with their in­ter­na­tion­al­ist salafist sup­port­ers called, at that time, Jab­hat al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria).

Soon af­ter there was a pro­lif­er­a­tion of sim­i­lar sec­tar­ian Is­lamist groups, backed by var­i­ous U.S. al­lies, Kuwait, Is­rael, Turkey, the UAE, etc.

West­ern pow­ers joined in with, for ex­am­ple, the Bri­tish Govern­ment cre­at­ing the al Qaeda pub­lic re­la­tions aux­il­iary ‘The White Hel­mets’.

Al­though there has been di­rect mil­i­tary in­ter­ven­tion by for­eign pow­ers (oc­ca­sional mis­sile and air strikes by Is­rael and the USA) most of the war on Syria has been fought by proxy armies of mer­ce­nar­ies and re­li­gious fa­nat­ics, bonded (though at time squab­bling over money) through their Saudi-style wah­habi-sec­tar­ian ide­ol­ogy.

De­spite a bat­tery of the Syria peace talks, a po­lit­i­cal so­lu­tion has not been reached yet. Why?

A: The main rea­son for that is that Wash­ing­ton has not yet found a way to ac­cept de­feat. Clearly its proxy ter­ror­ist armies have been de­feated by Syria and its al­lies,

but the ter­ror­ism per­sists be­cause its spon­sors have not yet adapted to this re­al­ity.

Nev­er­the­less, the peace talks have re­sulted in some wel­come cease­fires, and a ‘rec­on­cil­i­a­tion’ process with some large scale sur­ren­ders.

What does the fu­ture hold for Syria as ISIS is los­ing ground in Syria?

A: The de­struc­tion of Daesh and the al Nusra coali­tion, by the Syr­ian and Iraqi forces and their al­lies, is a wel­come de­vel­op­ment in the re­gion.

It sig­nals the be­gin­ning of the end of the U.S. plan to dom­i­nate the en­tire re­gion. That in­cludes un­rav­el­ling the U.S. dom­i­na­tion of Iraq.

In my view, de­spite tremen­dous loss of life and de­struc­tion, the pa­tri­otic re­gional coali­tion - led by Iran - has emerged stronger.

That is a hope­ful sign for the re­gion, as U.S.-dom­i­na­tion is the main fac­tor that has kept na­tions apart, as­sist­ing the eth­nic cleans­ing by the Zion­ist regime.

I be­lieve it is only a strong, new re­gional al­liance that can pre­vent fu­ture in­ter­ven­tions by out­side pow­ers, and hold the Zion­ist regime to ac­count.

It seems that re­gional ac­tors con­stantly vi­o­late the UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil res­o­lu­tions on Syria, in­clud­ing Res­o­lu­tion 2139 ap­proved in 2014. Why doesn’t the UN take a firm stance against those who do not com­ply with the res­o­lu­tions?

A: The UN, at least at the Se­cu­rity Coun­cil level, is dom­i­nated by the big pow­ers. Only in re­cent years have Rus­sia and China be­gun to take a stronger role. Even then those two, which re­main im­por­tant part­ners and have shown far greater re­spect for in­ter­na­tional law, have their own wider in­ter­ests.

A strong re­gional al­liance is es­sen­tial if the spon­sors of ter­ror­ism and Zion­ist apartheid are to be re­strained. Of course, Is­rael and Wash­ing­ton un­der­stand and fear this. That lies be­hind their ob­ses­sion with the Is­lamic Repub­lic of Iran.

I be­lieve the govern­ment of Iran un­der­stands very well that it has the will and ca­pac­ity to lead a re­gional al­liance in de­fense of com­mon in­ter­ests.

Syria and its re­gional al­lies (mainly Hezbol­lah, Rus­sia, Iran) have been de­fend­ing their na­tions and their key in­ter­ests.

In my view, de­spite tremen­dous loss of life and de­struc­tion, the pa­tri­otic re­gional coali­tion - led by Iran - has emerged stronger.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Iran

© PressReader. All rights reserved.