TEHRAN – Political analyst Yuram Abdullah Weiler says “the U.S. wants to topple the Syrian government and install a pro-Western puppet regime in its place.”

Weiler is also of the opinion that Washington is using the Syrian conflict as a pretext to put NATO against Russia.
“We can infer that Washington’s end game probably would be to find an excuse to invoke the NATO collective defense clause and compel other nations in the alliance to engage Russia on its behalf,” Weiler tells the Tehran Times.
This is the text of the interview:
Q: What is your assessment of the situation in Syria?
A: In order to understand what is going on in Syria, we have to examine the core motivations of the United States and Russia. Following World War II, the main concern of the corporate elite was perpetuating the war economy in order to maintain stable employment and thus ensure an uninterrupted flow of earnings.  To this end, the cold war with the former Soviet Union provided the necessary climate of fear for Washington to maintain its ever-expanding “defense” budgets until 1991 when the USSR disbanded, causing a crisis among U.S. policy makers.
Afterwards, the U.S. attempted to use “Islamism” or “Islamic terrorism” as a replacement for the “communist threat” of the former USSR to justify continuing cold war level war budgets, but, unfortunately, the terrorism pretext suffered from a number of shortcomings. First and foremost, the U.S. has used terrorists in the furtherance of its geopolitical goals.  For example, in the 1980s, the U.S. employed “Islamists” in Afghanistan as a proxy force against the USSR while simultaneously waging a proxy war against “radical Islamists” in Iran, who had successfully ousted the U.S.-imposed shah.  Another severe shortcoming of “Islamic terrorism” as a substitute for the “Red Scare” is the lack of potency and endurance compared to the threat of nuclear annihilation by a bona fide nation-state, as was pointed out by Professor Deepa Kumar of Rutgers University. 

“First and foremost, the U.S. has used terrorists in the furtherance of its geopolitical goals.  For example, in the 1980s, the U.S. employed “Islamists” in Afghanistan as a proxy force against the USSR.Desperately searching for a nation-state actor to be the “enemy” to fill the gap created by the departure of the USSR, Washington has been trying to recast the Russian Federation in its place.  As a result, any action by Russia, even those that could be construed as defense of its core interests by any rational actor, when viewed through the U.S. lens are seen as “aggression.”  This is what has occurred in Syria when Russia intervened upon the request of President Bashar al-Assad to fight the terrorist forces trying to topple his government. Likewise in the case of Crimea, when the people there overwhelmingly voted in favor of re-annexation with Russia, the U.S. could not view the 96.7 percent vote in favor as anything but Russian “aggression.” 
The U.S. wants to topple the Syrian government and install a pro-Western puppet regime in its place for a number of reasons: First, by breaking the logistical link between Iran and the Lebanese resistance movement, Hezbollah, the Israeli entity would enjoy heightened security.  Second, Qatar and Turkey could build the pipeline envisioned in 2009 to supply North Dome gas to Europe.  Third, the U.S. would see regime change in Syria as a step toward its goal of eventually isolating Iran.  Fourth, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia would see this as a fracture in the “Shi’a Crescent.”  And finally, Syria presents the U.S. with a long-awaited opportunity for a direct confrontation with Russia. 

Q: What was the purpose behind the U.S. attack on the Syrian army which resulted in the death of at least sixty-two Syrian troops?
A: Since Russia has successfully engaged Daesh, and the terrorist organization is being covertly supported by the U.S. with the goal of toppling the Assad government, then certainly the Washington elite are not pleased with Moscow and also want to strengthen the so-called “Vetted Syrian Opposition” while simultaneously acting to degrade Assad’s forces.  Hence, the “accidental” air strike on the Syrian Army’s positions near Deir ez-Zor killing at least 62 and wounding hundreds can be best understood from this perspective. 
Of course, the U.S. has accused Russia of strikes on a mobile emergency unit near Aleppo and a Red Crescent convoy killing at least 26, initiating calls by secretary of state John Kerry for a no-fly zone.   We should be able to recognize this as the same approach used by the Washington regime to topple governments in Iraq and Libya.  Clearly, the Washington warmongers are partnering with Ankara in a frantic illegitimate push to overthrow the sovereign Syrian government in Damascus.  There is no intention of a real cessation of hostilities here.  
Q: Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said that the U.S. apologized to Damascus for the attack. Did the message carry any meaning at all?
A: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov passed a message of apology from the U.S. to Syria for the attack on the Syrian Army near Deir ez-Zor.  While the U.S. claimed the air strike was a mistake, Foreign Minister Lavrov indicated that he did not believe this to be the case.  For his part, Lavrov did not directly blame the U.S., but he did state that it was very difficult to believe that the U.S.-led “coalition” could forget who is where.   
Q: The dispute between Russia and the U.S. in Syria in intensifying. What are the possible ramifications of the dispute?
A: We must realize that Russia is already encircled by U.S.-aligned NATO forces, which are present in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.  There are U.S. military commanders that insist that Obama has not been sufficiently “engaged” with Russia, that is, has not taken a sufficiently aggressive posture.   And while Washington insists that it is deploying troops to Eastern Europe to provide assurances of U.S. support against “Russian aggression,” the Rand Corporation warns that a U.S.-NATO coalition cannot defeat Russia.   From this we can infer that Washington’s end game probably would be to find an excuse to invoke the NATO collective defense clause and compel other nations in the alliance to engage Russia on its behalf.