U.S. Attack On Syria May Cause World War III: Interview
Voice of Russia
August 28, 2013
US attack on Syria may cause WWIII – Rick Rozoff
If the West is allowed to launch military aggression in Syria, using any pretext, Iran, Russia and China and the few remaining countries in the world who possess independent foreign policies will be left with no remaining buffer between themselves and the US–NATO war machine. Voice of Russia contributor Rick Rozoff spoke about this an more in the second part of an interview covering the current crisis involving US aggression against Syria.
This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager and owner of the stop NATO website and mailing list.
Robles: There was a statement from China that there is a threat that this could culminate into the beginning of World War III. Can you comment on that?
Rozoff: People are using this language and I think not without justification. If the parallel we established a few minutes ago about events in Asia and Europe from 1931 to 1941, and we should mention, by the way, that at the end of that decade there was Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union with the largest invasion force in human history and, in the end, the deadliest war in human history. But if at that time world war was grounded in a series of unprovoked and, unfortunately, unopposed acts of military aggression, then the parallel certainly could be extended to include that.
A comment today by a leading prelate, a leading church official in Syria, Antoine Audo, who is the head of what is called the Chaldean Catholic Church in Syria, made precisely that statement.
He said that: If there is outside – which is to say Western and allied – military intervention inside his country, it could lead to a world war. Those are exactly his terms. And this is what he said in an interview with Vatican Radio.
Robles: What can you tell us about the region? I mean, in your opinion, for example Israel. I keep thinking that if they are going to destabilize the entire Middle East, right in the middle of it you’ve got Israel. You’ve got all these Islamic fundamentalists, extremists and terrorists and none of them are much in love with the Jewish state. How is Israel going to deal with this? Or is this part of the plan?
Rozoff: It appears to be counterintuitive but we have to recollect that the US’s second closest ally in the entire Middle Eastern region is of course Saudi Arabia, which is theocratic, it is Wahabist at root, a severe form of theocratic government, it is medieval in many respects and particularly brutal.
But the US has no problem and Israel has no problem reconciling support for the Jewish secular state of Israel on the one hand and for the medieval hereditary despotism in Saudi Arabia on the other. And the Obama administration, which now is once again invoking humanitarianism as an excuse for a war, has no problem at all having just completed the largest bilateral arms deal in history with Saudi Arabia.
So, I suppose the average citizen of the US and of the world is not supposed to make comparisons and see just how egregiously contradictory those policies are. And then you claim to be fighting religious extremism and on the other hand you are arming to the teeth the bastion of religious extremism in the Islamic world.
Robles: You mentioned Obama, you mentioned Egypt and the hypocrisy, and the double dealing that is going on. Have you heard anything about the fact that Obama was connected with Morsi, with the Egyptians, to the attack on the CIA installation in Benghazi where the CIA long-term agent Christopher Stevens was killed? Apparently, he was working on transferring Stinger missiles to Al Qaeda elements in Syria and Libya.
Rozoff: Yes, that’s the interpretation I’m familiar with too without being able to substantiate it of course. But nevertheless, the US was simply going from strength to strength, it slipped from one massive bombing campaign on behalf of foreign mercenaries and domestic religious extremists in Libya to spreading the Washington- as well as the Saudi-backed jihad, if you will, from Libya to Syria. And in the course of that Stevens, who incidentally was ensconced in Benghazi in the opening days of the attack against Libya in March 2011, basically, running weapons and jihadi fighters into Libya for the war against the established government of Muammar Gaddafi.
So, if the line in the Gospels about “he, who lives by the sword will perish by the sword” has any meaning, I think in the case of Mr. Stevens it is pretty obvious that what he put out in the world is what came back to get him.
Robles: What about Obama now? Some people are saying that the fact that he was actively funding Al Qaeda and they ended up killing four Americans, is it possible that even with all these illegal aggressive wars and millions of people that have been killed by Bush and Obama – is it possible that these four Americans, including Stevens, might lead to the downfall of this regime, and Obama in particular? Is that realistic?
Rozoff: I don’t think it is realistic, I think it is possible. But I believe that nobody looks too closely into matters like that. And the so-called other side, the Republican Party, which on foreign policy issues the political differences end at the shoreline, as has been remarked, and they are not going to look too closely at anything like that.
In fact, even during the two impeachment trials of Nixon in the early 1970s and Clinton at the end of the 1990s, and for that matter the Iran-Contra affair, you know, whenever one party can make some political capital out of embarrassing the other during congressional hearings, they’ll bring them right to the edge of the abyss and then pull them back out of the fear of really exposing what is going on.
I wouldn’t anticipate anything in that respect. I think, if I were a family member of one of those four killed in Benghazi that I would have strong feelings about it, I would be willing to dedicate the rest of my life to investigating what actually happened and who was ultimately responsible for that. But I wouldn’t expect anyone in our suborned and corrupt and arrogant and aloof political system to really care about the four people who were killed. And they’ll make points demagogically trying to blame somebody or other, but I don’t believe anyone has lost any sleep over the demise of Mr. Stevens and his three colleagues.
Robles: One more question. We’ve been going over this for years literally now and it looks like an invasion is just maybe hours away. Any other things you want to say about Bashar Assad and Syria?
Rozoff: I won’t characterize it as an invasion at this point any more than, say, the six-month air war against Libya two years ago was technically speaking an invasion. And it is a very common modality now. It is one that we saw I think in earnest, first of all, in 1999 with the 78-day air war against Yugoslavia, and then saw it with Libya two and a half years ago.
But what we are seeing is that on the ground a heterogeneous grouping of the so-called opposition figures, some domestic and extremists, some foreign and mercenaries are used to be the spotters on the ground and those who attack government installations, and, if possible, bring about retaliation that can then be construed as a massacre, a crime against humanity, which then provides the West – the US and its NATO allies – with the justification for a military intervention, such as the Račak events in early 1999 in Kosovo which were characterized as a massacre by the US and its allies and that led to the air war.
We saw something very similar in Libya and of course that scenario is being played out again in Syria currently. And what that permits the US and its allies to do with the overwhelming superiority and firepower, particularly in terms of missiles and aircraft, to just bombard an essentially defenseless nation which is much smaller than any of the major NATO members of course, and surely the US, with outdated and for the most part ineffectual air defenses, to bomb that country into submission on behalf of the rebel forces that have been trained and armed from outside by the US and its allies.
So, we are seeing that scenario played out to perfection. And the only thing missing up until now of course was the sort of Račak massacre pretext. And now we have it.
Robles: So, your final assessment on this supposed chemical attack?
Rozoff: Considering that a year ago the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces Barack Obama stated specifically, tipping his hand, tipping the hand of the West in terms of what they would use as the alleged reason for military aggression against Syria, that the use of chemical weapons was crossing a red line, and knowing that the government of Syria would commit political suicide by doing such a thing it is more than I think any sensible person would expect or could understand. And in fact, I think whatever the details are…and let’s be honest about it, it doesn’t matter what the details are. If Washington wants war, Washington is going to have war. And if it not this pretext, it is going to be another one.
Robles: I think for most sane and intelligent, and peace-loving civilized people in the world the details do matter. But when you have people and all they want is bloodshed, I guess you are right, the details don’t matter.
Rozoff: I mean they do not matter in that we could spend the few remaining hours we may have left before Damascus is in flames arguing about whether the US lies can be disproven or not, or we can try at the 11th hour to try to marshal international outrage to get this stopped before it begins. That’s my plea.
Robles: What would you tell the international community?
Rozoff: Stop it here, or it is coming to your home. After Syria, Lebanon, after Lebanon, Iran, after Iran, who knows who.
Robles: Last year it was what? Venezuela, China and Russia.
Rozoff: And two years ago it was both Libya and Ivory Coast, let’s not forget. And at this point, honestly, as we’ve talked about before, I sincerely doubt there are a dozen nations in the world, out of 194 members of the United Nations currently, that dare pursue an independent foreign policy, including explicitly, in an expressly in military manner, are not tied to the Pentagon’s evolving and expanding international military nexus.
And to have one of those dozen picked off today or tomorrow, or any time in the near future, means there are fewer and fewer left. And it is only a matter of time, seriously, before Iran, Russia and China are going to find there are no buffers left, there is nothing between them and the US-NATO war machine.
Robles: Rick, thank you very much. I’ll be speaking to you as this develops, if possible.