Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
There's so much to cover on this crisis in Syria and a potential US military strike there.
And I'm joined now by Tony batter and research fellow at the foundation for defense of democracy also a columnist for now -- on dot com.
I really looked forward to this discussion because there's a lot of opinion out there today.
That limited strikes.
Would not be effective is that what the US is looking at.
Should they do more.
Basically from the messaging that's coming out of the White House right now all the signals point to like what you said some sort of a narrowly defined limited strike.
Sort of more of a response against the issue of chemical weapons specifically.
In fact some of the language that has been used by -- by the British as well as by secretary John Kerry has been that.
This is not even about Syria itself -- beyond the conflict in Syria.
So they're trying to insulated from this tactical operation from any strategic.
Objective and coherent plan for Syria itself.
You say -- outside is strategic in where he is carrying out these chemical weapon attacks as well -- what's his.
Thinking what does he accomplish and also if they have these chemical weapons are they capable of creating more.
The the the reason why he has used him and he has used them in the past remember this is not the first time and and these same areas in north eastern Damascus were targets of chemical weapons attacks in the spring.
And these areas are very strategic the regime is trying to control the capital took to clear -- out of all pockets of rebel presence.
And to link it up to the coastal mountains where the regime stronghold is.
So to clear route these areas as a strategic is this part of the regime's territorial strategy and using chemical weapons there is has proven effective.
I -- wants the capital back what well I mean that's all it took control again these are neighborhoods in the northeast of the capital that close to the heart of the capital that he has not been able to clear Iraq for over a year using conventional weapons.
So the -- there is if there is a rationale for him to use these chemical weapons there.
An irrational rash well just -- police we will learn shortly what.
Our president decides to do what is reasonable for us to do then it's not just limited strikes and what is reasonable for our allies to do.
Well the whole thing has to be part of a coherent and integrated strategy it cannot be just the one off strike where we just come in say look we did what we had to do and now we're gonna go back.
We're not gonna topple the regime we're not gonna work -- toppling the regime we're not gonna -- its military capability we're just gonna answer this very specific issue and got I think if this is the thinking.
It's gonna be unhelpful it's gonna be a mistake to be part of an integrated strategy that also starts working closely with the with the Syrian opposition the moderate -- ones.
And start adding there intelligence capabilities command and control and certainly there weaponry and.
There's one more element that we talked about briefly before that -- North Korea and -- Who are they meddling in the background are they providing funding to our side.
Definitely the Iranians are.
All in in the battle for Syria Syria's strategic battle ground for them they have said that they would want to win and they wanna preserve an -- and access to.
Hezbollah in Lebanon as well and this is part of the territory or strategy that they're pursuing -- -- so they are definitely in there and this is the primary interest for the United States incidentally.
Which is to deal a severe strategic blow to Iran by toppling Assad regime in Syria.
And when all of them get together Israel becomes very concerned as well thank you so much what a great comprehensive look at the situation right now.
Filter by section