Lawrence Wilkerson on the Neocons Plan: War in Syria, Then Iran

Interviewed Tuesday by host Sharmini Peries at The Real News, Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor and former chief of staff for United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, warned that “the neoconservative agenda” for an escalated United States war on Syria followed by war on Iran has had a “resurrection” in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Regarding talk about the US taking military action in Syria in response to potential allegations of the use of chemical weapons – false flag or otherwise – in the country, Wilkerson comments that the war advocates are “looking for every excuse, any excuse, all excuses, to reopen US operations, major U.S. operations, against [President Bashar al-Assad] in Syria, always realizing that the ultimate target is Tehran.” Tehran is the capital of Iran.

Addressing previous allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syria government that were used to justify US military actions in the country, Wilkerson, who is an Academic Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, states that he has seen “no proof” that Assad “ever used chemical weapons” and disparages the reputability of the White Helmets organization whose claims have been used to build support for US military actions in Syria.

Wilkerson further warns that the neoconservative agenda regarding war on Syria and Iran also threatens both conflict between the US and Russia and the long-term bogging down of US military forces in major conflict. Wilkerson states: “My serious concern is about the way [US National Security Advisor John Bolton] and others in their positions of power now are orchestrating a scenario whereby Donald Trump, for political reasons or whatever, can use force in a significant way against Assad and ultimately Iran, because Iran’s forces are there, and ultimately against Russia, because their forces are there in Syria, and this is most disquieting.” The neoconservatives’ military plan, argues Wilkerson, is “a recipe for” the US military being in the region for “the next generation” with significant force “mired even deeper in this morass” and with the “day after day” attrition of dollars and lives.

Watch Wilkerson’s complete interview here:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

13 thoughts on “Lawrence Wilkerson on the Neocons Plan: War in Syria, Then Iran”

  1. While it is good to hear a voice in opposition to the warmongering among U.S. profiteers, it is unfortunate Wilkerson is “unaware” of any documented uses of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. The U.N. documentation can be found here.

    But a just solution for the use of chemical weapons by one regime can’t be implemented by another regime which itself has so recently used them.

    It is inconceivable that Wilkerson would be unaware of the use of such weapons and the war crimes committed by U.S. forces, especially on the tail end of Bolton’s cowardly retreat from the ICC. Wilkerson almost certainly knows; but if he doesn’t know, that simple bit of ignorance by a war “professional” underscores the fact that those who make war their business are themselves the real threat the whole world over — no matter their organization. We’ve had far more than enough of their expertise and protection. Indeed, we would be immensely better off without any of it.
    Wilkerson is no doubt trying to make amends for the crimes of his former boss, Colin Powell. But, once again, shouldn’t Powell himself be one of the main witnesses and defendants bearing testimony before the ICC, and perhaps even Wilkerson himself?

    Thanks, but no thanks. I, for one, have had far more than enough of all the protection and expertise of all the heroes, experts and profiteers who claim to be protecting us. We would all be better off if all of them would sit down, throw all their weapons and arms industries away, accept a greatly reduced bank account, and quietly fade into the sunset.

    1. Good piece well written & concise. The craziest aspect of stiring up the morass of danger these shallow hawks are crafting is the vast danger to their own heartland that these reckless actons could ignite.
      Are they in possession of some secret weapon which would bar America from effects of the inevitable thermonuclear pushback????? The last reports I have seen don’t show anything better than 1 in 3 intercepts of of ICMS in the best of setup test circumstances. 66% of the Russian answer would certainly end much of the good life we enjoy. The smouldering cities would be an unbearable albatross of shame for longer than decades, more like centuries. All those responsible would end up not much better than the worst of the victims still alive on the losing side. They would find no safe quarter with the entire world as the avengers!!!!!

      1. Thanks George. Your points are excellent. It’s almost as if well-reasoned points don’t matter anymore, and that’s the most worrisome aspect of our modern political life in the U.S. Our current president was the leading birther and many millions more are at least as ignorant. Add to that the apocalyptic yearning for the end times by heretical Christians in the USA and we have political dynamic as insane as anything ISIS dreamed up. The Prince of Peace would climb down from His cross to turn Ted Cruz’s congressional table over before Raytheon could count the profits of the cruise missiles Ted would use to carpet bomb Mideast civilians. But Ted – due to his selfless love of America – would certainly insist Jesus climb back up on His cross just before casting the final vote for congressional approval to unleash the bombs he would drop on Him. The Christian Taliban was a far greater threat than the one in Afghanistan. It wasn’t clear to many when Jesus was whispering in W’s ear, but it should be clear after the consequences of our wars.

    2. You are wrong. There was no proof of any chemical attacks. In fact Sy Hersh reported on that event. Your own link shows a so called “white helmet” in staged action. lol. That report has no credibility.

      1. Read my sentence. It is a U. N. Report. You must not have read the “U.N.” results. Sy Hersh it not an expert on chemical weapons or the chemistry of verifying their use. The “U.N.” Inspectors are experts.

    1. No. Once again, it’s a Not a White Helmet report, nor a U.S. report. Just because someone doesn’t accept the propaganda of a war criminal (Assad), it does not logically follow that one supports the propaganda of Raytheon and the U.S.

Comments are closed.