Attack on Syria could lead to nuke war: Lawrence Freeman

Select Bitrate200 Kbps300 Kbps500 Kbps700 Kbps800 Kbps Press TV has conducted an interview with Lawrence Freeman, with Executive Intelligence Review from Baltimore, about the US aggression against Syria. The following is an approximate transcript of the interview. Press TV: Your response to what our guest in Beirut is saying, that there is no reason to wait, that the United States should attack, and I believe what he is saying is to attack immediately. Freeman: There is actually no military objective to be accomplished by a US strike at 75 or 100 selective targets in Syria. There actually has been no proof presented to the American people, no proof presented to the Congress.   This is a violation of US Constitution law, to go to war without the approval of the Congress, and that was updated in the 1973 War Powers Act. The United Nations has refused to sanction this. NATO has refused to sanction this. The Arab League has refused to sanction this, etcetera. The Russians are very correctly aware, as we are here in the United States, this is an attack on a sovereign country that could escalate very quickly to a general war and, therefore, to nuclear war. Mr. Laourouche, the head of our magazine, has made very clear that any attempt for the US military involvement in Syria is a step moving us closer to nuclear war, which is an annihilation war if it takes place. Obama is behaving completely out of control. He’s not functioning as the president of the United States. In fact, he may be setting himself up for early impeachment if he continues this policy because it would violate the US law. [In response to previous guest speaker Mr. Jihad Mouracadeh’s comments regarding Obama’s right to use military force on Syria without the approval of Congress] No, he does not.  There is no stipulation in US Constitutional law for this president to launch a military campaign. He was in violation of the law when he overthrew the government of Libya.  However, he has been so isolated in the world and by very aggressive, vigorous Congressional action. Over 150 Congressman, bipartisan, have opposed this war without a discussion and debate. Yes, out of weakness, President Obama has been forced to now have a discussion from Congress, which is good. But he’s still committed to the policy, a policy that has no defense in it and, therefore, there will be increased measures taken by the US and the US institutions to rope Obama in, to pull him back. If he continues in this direction, then we’ll see we’re getting closer to the question of impeachment, which is what is necessary if we’re going to prevent ourselves from going into a larger war in the Middle East.

Latest From Viewpoints Obama edging closer to Syria strike »Read more Obama postpones WWIII till next week »Read more US isolated because of Syria war rhetoric »Read more Kerry on Syria: The absurdity of certainty »Read more Israel wants nobody to rule Syria »Read more US revealed as enemy of world »Read more »See more articles

Press TV: Who do you think benefits the most if the United States gets more involved in the Syrian situation? Freeman: We have to look to the author of the policy. What we’ve been told from sources here, which I know to be true, is you have people like Samantha Powers, who’s the new UN Ambassador, and Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor - these individuals and others are followers of what is called ‘responsibility to protect’, otherwise known as regime change policy. This was first put forward by Tony Blair in the late 1990’s.

This is a policy not of the British people but it is a policy of the elites of the Brits including the royal family, that we have the right to move in and take out current governments, destabilize countries and reduce their population - actually, kill off a number of people and cause chaos and destruction - so that this financial system, which is run out of the city of London and Wall Street, can try to maintain its power. Powers and Rice are very much behind these attacks in Syria. They benefit no one with this policy of war, destruction, chaos and population reduction. That is unfortunate.

Obama is behaving as a tool, as a puppet of this policy. He’s not behaving as an American with an American policy. He’s not protecting the interest of America. There’s no national security of the United States at stake in Syria.

There’s still no proof yet of chemical weapons being used by the Syrian government. So, we would be making one of the greatest mistakes following what we did in the Iraq war, where we destroyed that country as well, if we went ahead with this policy.

It would be involvement in Syria. Any military analyst knows that once you enter this kind of attack, you do not know the outcome. You do not know the consequences. Wars take on their own behavior.

The Russians have made very clear that an attack on Syria is an attack on their sovereignty which they will defend with nuclear weapons if it comes to that. So, this is a very dangerous situation.

Patriotic people in this country and around the world have appropriately taken action to force Obama to step back. We don’t know if we’ve changed his policy but at least we’ve forced him to listen to the Congress.

Press TV: Mr. Freeman, go ahead your take [on Mr. Mouracadeh’s comment regarding US rejecting regime change in Syria]

Freeman: I think that we should be a little bit more frank and honest about what’s going on. The opposition, a large portion of it, is made up of al-Qaeda. You may have heard of them - al-Qaeda - who have been supported by Saudi Arabia.

And you see that Prince Bandar, who was an active role in supporting the bombing the United States in 9/11, in 2001, with the Bush and Cheney administration, Prince Bandar now is playing another active role in funding operations in support of the Syrian opposition against the government, as well as trying to wine and dine and influence congressman and senators in the United States.

There’s not a legitimate opposition. The policy is regime change, which is doing it in a different way because the policy in Libya was so catastrophic when we overthrew a government and killed the president, and unleashed the al-Qaeda network all across North Africa, which led to the toppling of Mali and incident in Algeria.

So, the policy is regime change made by different means, made by a slower method. The fact of the matter is, there’s no military objective in firing and taking out installations in Syria except to further weaken the government and destabilize the country.

Obama is being held back by the fact that there is an opposition, globally and in the United States, against going to nuclear war and against violating international law and US Constitutional law.

We still have a country and we still have law, and we still have organizations like mine that are stopping Obama. But his policy is the one that I’ve advocated, which is war and escalation of war in the Middle East.

[In response to comments made by previous guest speaker Mr. Mouracadeh regarding regime change in Syria] No, it’s not accurate. Obama has said from the beginning, from the very beginning, and he’s made it a point of his policy - which is why you can’t solve the problem with Obama - he has said that any future government in Syria must not include Assad as the leader.

[In response to comments made by previous guest speaker Mr. Mouracadeh regarding the idea that Russians said they are seeking regime change in Syria] No, the Russians did not. In their agreement and even the last agreement with Kerry, the “Haver” conference which was scuttled, they have always said you cannot have as a precondition the removal of Assad. And the United States...

Press TV: I want to look at what the Russians are saying right now. We know that President Vladimir Putin, what he is saying, Mr. Freeman, to the United States, is that they should not get involved in Syria any more than they already are; and they must, if they want to try to attack Syria, that they should prove that the Assad regime used chemical weapons; and if they cannot prove it, then it is an insult to their partners. Your take on what President Putin is saying.

Freeman: That’s a fair comment. I mean, where is the proof? Where is the proof! You can’t keep asserting ‘I’ve said it, therefore it’s true’. That’s like the Roman Nero and other dictators. We can’t accept what Obama says or Vice President Biden says. We have to see the proof.

Everybody knows, without being an academic, that the real policy underlying this is that there is an alliance between the Obama administration, as there was with the Bush administration, and the Saudis through Prince Bandar and the British to overthrow these countries in the Middle East and the [Persian] Gulf. They’ve done it to a number of countries and they want to continue their policy in Syria, which will spread to Lebanon and will spread to other countries as well.

Rather than a policy of development, rather than a policy of developing energy for these countries - food, water - we don’t do that. We overthrow countries and that’s Obama’s policy. That’s what’s got to be stopped before the world gets dangerously close to nuclear war.