[caption id="attachment_40499" align="alignright" width="210"] Syrian troopers are seen on a tank in the town of Qusayr, June 5, 2013.[/caption]
TEHRAN (FNA)- The US and its western allies are seeking to start an all-out war on Syria under the pretext of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, a senior Iranian lawmaker said.


Member of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mehdi Davatgari said that the US and its allies are the main cause of such threats against other countries, exactly similar to something that happened in Iraq in 2003 when the US decided to attack that country during the term of former president George W. Bush.

The world has realized now that using chemical weapons is the option of western states, said the lawmaker.

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel suggested Saturday the Pentagon is moving forces into place ahead of possible military action against Syria, even as President Barack Obama voiced caution, AFP reported.

Officials continue hyping Wednesday’s allegations of a chemical weapons strike, saying that they believe such an attack probably happened even though they don’t have any actual proof to back that up.

The Pentagon was apparently hard at work coming up with these new plans and new targets, even though Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey had only two days prior warned against military involvement, and now has the cruise missiles ready to go, just waiting for presidential approval to launch the attack, Antiwar.com reported Friday.

Now officials seem closer than ever to starting a war, and though President Obama did insist there would be "no rush" to attack Syria, there seems to be a renewed Congressional push to get the jump on Syria by not waiting for any pesky evidence to support their claims and just attacking outright.

With NATO allies France and Turkey already on the bandwagon and the Pentagon now having cruise missiles ready to go at a moment notice, it will be awfully easy for the administration to start attacking and argue that it was a "compromise" compared to some other, even bigger attack.

The case for that already seems to be getting laid out by the White House, which insists that they don’t envision "boots on the ground" during any potential military intervention.

What sort of attack that would mean remains to be seen, but officials have often discussed setting up "buffer zones," nominally for humanitarian reasons but primarily to give Syrian rebel factions a place from which to launch attacks with impunity.

At the same time, any military intervention that seriously changes the situation on the ground will run into the same problem that has repeatedly been pointed to, that of the rebels’ dominance by Al-Qaeda allies. This means that any attack that harms the Assad government too much risks bringing a jihadist faction into power that will be even more hostile toward the US.

By Fars News Agency

 

The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.