The US’s decision to arm Syrian rebels may be due to Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict, with Washington and Jerusalem seeing it as a chance to counter anti-Israeli actions, author and historian Gerald Horne has told RT.
US President Barack Obama has given the green light to military
support for the Syrian opposition after his administration
concluded that Assad’s regime had used chemical weapons against
rebels numerous times over the last year.
However, Horne, from the University of Houston, does not believe
that the US will be able to produce evidence of the use of
chemical agent sarin by regime troops, saying that
he doubts such evidence exists.
RT: These claims of the use of poison gas by Assad's
forces seem to mean that Obama's “red line” has been crossed and
that [Obama] has just pledged to arm the rebels. How far is the
White House likely to go?
Gerald Horne: I am afraid that they are re willing to go
quite far. They are under enormous pressure. Former US President
Bill Clinton has released a statement criticizing the Obama
administration for not intervening more deeply into the Syrian
morass. Obama’s former election rival, Senator John McCain of
Arizona, just took to the floor of the US Senate saying that
arming the rebels is not enough. Presumably, he has called for
airstrikes to create a so-called no-fly zone. It seems to me that
this is a very dangerous and ominous moment. Particularly since
the Sunni clerics have just met in Cairo, Egypt and called for a
Holy War against the Assad regime and Damascus. Instead of trying
to calm things down, it seems to me that the Obama administration
is about to throw fuel on the fire.
RT: What will this do to the US-Russia-sponsored peace
conference in Geneva?
GH: You may have heard that the UN has suggested that
everyone is on board for this Geneva conference, except the
Syrians. It seems to me that the opposition, the rebels have made
clear that they have no interest in negotiating with Assad. As
they see it, they will win this conflict on the battlefield, and
the Europeans – particularly the British and French – will be
sending them more weapons sooner rather than later. And, as they
see it, they can win. Though I think that they are mistaken.
RT: Two months ago, Carla del Ponte, the chief UN
investigator in Syria, said that she was “stupefied” by the
testimony of victims of the Syrian conflict claiming that rebels
used the nerve agent sarin. She also said that there was no
evidence that the government resorted to this measure. How does
this sit with Washington's allegations?
GH: It is in contradiction with Washington's allegations,
bearing in mind also that, just a few weeks ago, Turkish
authorities found that some rebels residing in Turkey had sarin
weapons. It is difficult to say whether these weapons were used,
and if so, who used them? For example, what was the chain
of custody that allowed the Obama administration to conclude that
it was Damascus and not the rebels? How did those samples get
from the battlefield to Washington? How do we know that a
renegade soldier in the Syrian military used these weapons
precisely to invite an intervention to Washington? There are so
many questions. I look forward to seeing the evidence, though I
doubt that the administration will be able to provide any.
RT: Why would Assad resort to chemical weapons when
recent reports suggest that he's gaining the upper hand in the
war?
GH: I think that one reason the Obama administration is
edging towards more direct intervention in Syria is that Assad’s
forces are triumphing on the battlefield, not least because of
the assistance they are receiving from Hezbollah forces in
neighboring Lebanon. This assistance has outraged the Israelis
and the Israeli lobby in Washington. As they see it, they would
like to see Hezbollah degraded on the battlefield of Syria and,
therefore, you see this new call from Washington for military
intervention in Syria.
RT: John McCain recently visited Syria, and, while the
administration has shown reluctance to intervene, it has been
under domestic pressure to do so. What is pushing the White House
to intervene?
GH: You mentioned McCain, who is a de facto leader of the
opposition conservative Republican Party. I have already
mentioned that Clinton has called for intervention. Last year,
his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and then CIA
Director David Petraeus, called for stalwart intervention.
Interestingly enough, polls show that the US public is against
intervention. They see no advantage in arming Al-Qaeda forces,
who are the tip of the spear of the rebels. It thus seems that US
politicians do not have the best of this argument.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.