Tim Anderson, a senior lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney, believes that the war on Syria was intended to weaken and divide independent countries in the region.

“The war has aimed at weakening and dividing the region's independent countries,” Tim, writer of the book titled “The Dirty War on Syria”, tells the Tehran Times in an exclusive interview.

Below is a full transcript of the interview:

Q: Mr. Anderson could you please tell us what your book “The Dirty War on Syria” reveals about the war in Syria?  And what was your motive behind writing the book?

A: My book exposes the western myths about this war and offers a more realistic history of the conflict. 
The war on Syria is seen as a key part of the 'New Middle East' plan by Washington and its allies, to subjugate and control all independent nations of the region.
The aim was to strategically and economically dominate the region, determining the terms on which other powers, such as Russia, China and Europe, could access Middle Eastern resources, infrastructure and markets. My motive for writing the book was dissatisfaction with the shallow and misleading portrayal of the conflict in the English speaking world. I wanted to correct that misinformation.

Syria and its regional allies (mainly Hezbollah, Russia, Iran) have been defending their nations and their key interests.

Q: You talk about “untold story” behind Syria’s conflict. What’s the main purpose of Western media outlets in covering up the ground reality of the war in Syria?

A: Western media outlets have shown themselves deeply embedded in the neo-colonial projects of their governments.
There is no 'freedom' of the western corporate media, in this respect. At times of war they show themselves to be completely 'embedded' with their states. As the successive wars have proceeded (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, and Yemen), new pretexts have been rolled out and any dissent is attacked and intimidated.

Q: You refer to “lies” in your book about the Syrian war. Could you go into detail on it?

A: The lies have to do with the character of war on Syria, the agents involved and critical incidents, or war crimes, during the war. Because the aggression is clearly in breach of international law, extreme pretexts have been invented to cover up this fact. For example, it has been argued that the armed aggression against Syria is necessary because the government is 'killing its own people'. As each new pretext fails, another has been invented.

Q: What is the objective of different power players in the Syria war?

A: The U.S. has an imperial plan, which I outlined above, into which it has drawn a number of its western allies. The regional allies of the U.S.: the Saudis, Turkey, Qatar, Israel, have had overlapping interests. Overall, the war has aimed at weakening and dividing (if not destroying) the region's independent countries.
Syria and its regional allies (mainly Hezbollah, Russia, Iran) have been defending their nations and their key interests.

The Islamic Republic of Iran wants stable and constructive relationships with its neighbors, and understands that the U.S. has been trying to undermine these.

Q: What’s your take on Iran’s role in protecting Assad’s government and Syrian people?

A: Since 1979 Iran has enjoyed a stable and constructive strategic relationship with Syria. The Islamic Republic of Iran wants stable and constructive relationships with its neighbors, and understands that the U.S. has been trying to undermine these.
In particular, Iran and Syria share interests as part of a regional axis against the ethnic cleansing and apartheid of Israel. I believe the government of Iran understands very well that it has the will and capacity to lead a regional alliance in defense of common interests.

Q: In your book you refer to “proxy armies” being supported by United States’ regional allies. Could you shed light on that?

A: From Feb-March 2011, Qatar and the Saudis supported the armed groups in Syria, under the control of Syria's Muslim Brotherhood, along with their internationalist salafist supporters called, at that time, Jabhat al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria).
Soon after there was a proliferation of similar sectarian Islamist groups, backed by various U.S. allies, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, the UAE, etc.
Western powers joined in with, for example, the British Government creating the al Qaeda public relations auxiliary 'The White Helmets'.
Although there has been direct military intervention by foreign powers (occasional missile and air strikes by Israel and the USA) most of the war on Syria has been fought by proxy armies of mercenaries and religious fanatics, bonded (though at time squabbling over money) through their Saudi-style wahhabi-sectarian ideology.

I believe the government of Iran understands very well that it has the will and capacity to lead a regional alliance in defense of common interests.

Q: Despite a battery of the Syria peace talks, a political solution has not been reached yet. Why?

A: The main reason for that is that Washington has not yet found a way to accept defeat. Clearly its proxy terrorist armies have been defeated by Syria and its allies,
but the terrorism persists because its sponsors have not yet adapted to this reality.
Nevertheless, the peace talks have resulted in some welcome ceasefires, and a 'reconciliation' process with some large scale surrenders.

Q: What does the future hold for Syria as ISIS is losing ground in Syria?

A: The destruction of Daesh and the al Nusra coalition, by the Syrian and Iraqi forces and their allies, is a welcome development in the region.
It signals the beginning of the end of the U.S. plan to dominate the entire region. That includes unravelling the U.S. domination of Iraq.

In my view, despite tremendous loss of life and destruction, the patriotic regional coalition - led by Iran - has emerged stronger.
That is a hopeful sign for the region, as U.S.-domination is the main factor that has kept nations apart, assisting the ethnic cleansing by the Zionist regime.
I believe it is only a strong, new regional alliance that can prevent future interventions by outside powers, and hold the Zionist regime to account.

In my view, despite tremendous loss of life and destruction, the patriotic regional coalition - led by Iran - has emerged stronger.

Q: It seems that regional actors constantly violate the UN Security Council resolutions on Syria, including Resolution 2139 approved in 2014. Why doesn’t the UN take a firm stance against those who do not comply with the resolutions?

A: The UN, at least at the Security Council level, is dominated by the big powers. Only in recent years have Russia and China begun to take a stronger role. Even then those two, which remain important partners and have shown far greater respect for international law, have their own wider interests.
A strong regional alliance is essential if the sponsors of terrorism and Zionist apartheid are to be restrained. Of course, Israel and Washington understand and fear this. That lies behind their obsession with the Islamic Republic of Iran.