Direct Attack on Damascus Could Trigger Conflict between US, Russia: Analyst

“While I still believe that a direct nuclear confrontation is a remote (low percentage) possibility, the fear is that we may accidentally step into a more "escalated" confrontation,” said Alex Christoforou, a writer and political commentator withTheDuran.com, in an interview with the Tasnim news agency.

“I believe that both Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin understand that a nuclear confrontation is out of the question. Right now the United States is under the firm belief that it can wage a contained war within Syria's borders, against the Syrian Army, Russia and Iran.”

Following is the full text of the interview.

Tasnim: Recently, there has been talk of a scenario in which the US would directly target the Syrian Arab Army. Earlier, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said, "I would recommend our colleagues in Washington to carefully weigh possible consequences of the fulfillment of such plans”. Later, Washington brushed off the Russian warning, saying, "We'll continue to conduct our operations as we have for months now over Syria, and we'll continue to do so taking every possible step we need to ensure the safety of our air crews.”

In similar remarks, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, told a news conference in Moscow on Thursday that any threat against its forces in Syria will not go unanswered after the High Negotiation Committee (HNC), a foreign-backed opposition group, requested anti-aircraft weapons.

In one of your latest interviews you said, “We are moving towards a conflict between the United States and Russia and that would be NATO and Russia...”. Experts believe that the growing tensions between the United States and Russia may lead to a nuclear war and destroy humankind. What is your take on this? What the future may hold and what should Russia prepare for? Kindly explain.

Christoforou: While I still believe that a direct nuclear confrontation is a remote (low percentage) possibility, the fear is that we may accidentally step into a more "escalated" confrontation.

I believe that both Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin understand that a nuclear confrontation is out of the question. Right now the United States is under the firm belief that it can wage a contained war within Syria's borders, against the Syrian Army, Russia and Iran.

Where things get scary is if Hillary Clinton comes into office. Hillary is the ultimate neocon and has publicly been pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria...in private email leaks Clinton has admitted that a no-fly zone will not work. In Hillary Clinton we have an unstable warhawk who has admitted to having "a public and private" opinion on policy matters. The question is, with regards to Syria, will Hillary's public desire for a no-fly zone win out over her private admission that a no-fly zone will be an utter disaster.

If neocon Hillary Clinton goes forward with a no-fly zone over Syria, then the conflict has escalated to dangerous levels where a nuclear confrontation becomes a very real possibility.

There is no doubt that we have a full scale proxy war playing out in Syria. We have great powers fighting very different agendas. Russia, Iran and the Syrian Army (which is the internationally recognized government) are fighting to preserve the sovereign nation state of Syria.

The United States is fighting a proxy war in Syria to remove Assad. This means funding, arming and coordinating with Al Qaeda (Al Nusra rebranded) and ISIS (also Daesh or ISIL) elements.

Turkey at first got involved in Syria to cement its place as the regional power player and energy hub into Europe, but then as the Kurdish forces began to make gains, Erdogan shifted his concern towards beating back the Kurds. A Kurdish state in northern Syria is an existential threat to Turkey's very existence and to this end Turkey will do whatever it takes to prevent this from happening.

And of course we have the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar who are the principle trouble makers in Syria, the states that illegally began the conflict and help it escalate to the tragedy we see today. The principle goal was to place a Wahhabi satellite state in power in Syria and furthermore begin t move energy (gas and oil) via Syria into Turkey and onwards to Europe. Follow the money and you find the bad actors in this war.

This benefits the US petrodollar which is deeply aligned with the Saudi Kingdom as well as removes Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas. A double win for America, and a big negative for Russia should this have happened.

We also cannot forget that should a black flag fly over Damascus, then Saudi Arabia and The United States would have a very big territorial Launchpad to export terror jihadists and further destabilize regional neighbors like Iran, as well as the Caucus states in the southern underbelly of Russia.

Tasnim: In recent weeks, western countries, Britain and France in particular, have started an anti-Russian campaign, accusing Moscow of war crimes in Syria’s Aleppo. It seems that these countries are part of a blame game policy pursued by the US to save terrorists and undermine Moscow as Syrian troops, backed by Russian warplanes, are making major advances on the ground. What do you think?

Christoforou: Let's not forget the sinister role that the UK and France played in the illegal destruction of Libya. A once prosperous African nation has now been torn into pieces. The EU was squarely behind this illegal action and the UK and France lead the charge to destroy Libya. Cameron and Sarkozi even made an appearance in Libya once Ghaddafi was murdered by western sponsored jihadist terror gangs, and began proclaiming the beginning of Libyan democracy.

The entire exercise in the demolition of Libya was to colonize the very prosperous and independent African nation. So once again follow the money. In Syria, as in Libya, the UK and France smell the riches of a Saudi - Qatar pipeline into Europe. Russia, Iran and Assad are getting in the way of what could be an energy geo-political game changer. If European states had succeeded in removing Assad, Iran would be next on the regime change list.

Remember when US General Wesley Clark famously rattled off a list of countries that the US and its "partners" had targeted for regime change. Guess what, Syria and Iran are on that list. As was Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

This is European/American nation state colonization for the 21st century...and its deadly, destructive and dangerous....and it's not working out very well either.

Tasnim: It is no secret to anyone that Saudi Arabia and Turkey have now turned into two major regional players given their geographical positions in the Middle East region. According to confirmed reports, they are, directly or indirectly, backing the terrorists in the Arab country, fanning the flames of the ongoing crisis. What are these two states pursuing in Syria? What repercussions such hostile acts may bring about?

Christoforou: It is no secret whatsoever that Saudi Arabia and Qatar sponsor ISIS. The recent Wikileaks Podesta emails even have Hillary Clinton admitting as much to her presidential campaign staff...and i quote...

"While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

We know who is behind ISIS, and the energy politics behind the desire to overthrow Assad and instil a Wahhabi puppet government in Syria. The "progressive-liberal" west is illegally supporting the regime change of a secular government for that of a brutal monarchy dictatorship. This is why "progressive-liberal" values are nothing more than western media spin. The UK and French governments are complete and utter hypocrites.

Turkey as I outlined above was at one point delusional about its new Ottoman Empire desires. This has now been readjusted to focus on Erdogan's war on the Kurds. Turkey at this point does not care about ISIS, Al Qaeda or Assad...Turkey just wants to prevent any type of Kurdish state forming in north Syria and Iraq. Should this happen then we are looking at the end of Turkey as we know it.