London's Anti-Iran attempts reminder of Iraq War: US Prof

In an interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), David Yaghoubian said, 'Regrettably the British approach to the crisis as demonstrated through its failed UN resolution does nothing to alleviate the immense suffering of the Yemeni people, which the British government is itself complicit in by way of its massive, ongoing arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This approach seeks to obfuscate the reality of the ongoing Saudi onslaught on Yemen and the resulting humanitarian crisis by absurdly attempting to shift blame for the conflict to Iran.'

'As Washington’s most loyal European vassal, which itself is profiting handsomely from its arms sales that perpetuate this conflict, the British government is ingratiating itself with its masters and partners in crime once again by doing the dirty work of the United States at the UN and in the region. It is a long and shameful track record of fealty dating back to the shift of imperial power from the British to the US after 1956, illustrated most disastrously by Tony Blair and the Iraq debacle.'

Regarding the missiles shot from Yemen, he said the source of the missiles 'supposedly transferred to Ansurallah' has not been proven. 'Irrespective of the origins of Yemeni missiles, the fact is that not a single Saudi or [Persian] Gulf citizen has been killed in a Yemeni missile attack, whereas Yemeni civilians are indiscriminately killed and their infrastructure destroyed on a daily basis by the Saudi coalition, which, again, receives arms from Great Britain, and bombs, aerial refueling capacity, and intelligence from the United States.'

Answering a question regarding the UNSC resolution which calls for a 30-day ceasefire and its significance for Syrian people, Yaghoubian said, 'If adhered to by all parties the resolution could enable at least a temporary break from the fighting and a window for much-needed humanitarian assistance to Syrian civilians.'

'Unfortunately, I see this “save Ghouta” campaign as the latest ploy by the United States to selectively use the suffering of Syrians to ensure that the Syrian government remains threatened in its very capital. Maintaining the threat to Damascus from Ghouta enables the United States to argue that the Syrian government is not in control of its capital city, that Russia hasn’t actually been victorious, and that American occupation of portions of the country is necessary.'

'An unstated reason is to save its Daesh and al-Qaeda operatives, who are the unqualified favorites of Israeli officials according to their own public statements. The United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are scrambling to find ways to extend this conflict and to partition Syria, and it is a sad fact that selective outrage over Syrian civilian suffering and casualties serves their Machiavellian agenda,' he said.

Regarding the fact that US President Donald Trump has accused Russia, Iran, and the Syrian government of being ‎responsible for a 'humanitarian disgrace' in Syria, he said, 'Trump’s accusation is an example of psychological projection, which American political elites are unfortunately prone to. Beyond the fact that Daesh and Syria’s al-Qaeda elements are the direct offspring of American policy in Iraq and Syria, in 2017 the United States killed over three thousand civilians in Raqqa with a rain of air strikes and artillery, and rejected a ceasefire for the purpose of evacuating civilians, claiming it had to keep up the pressure on Daesh.'

'After thoroughly destroying the city it subsequently cut a deal with Daesh terrorists so they could evacuate. Of course, the destruction of both Yemen and Iraq, as well as Afghanistan and Libya, has created suffering and vast humanitarian crises for which there is no contemporary parallel, while providing an ongoing rationalization for American military occupation and regional meddling, increasingly in the service of Israeli and Saudi Arabian hegemony rather than to serve any logical or identifiable American security or economic concerns.'

Russia had suggested creating a safe passage for civilians to leave ‎Eastern ‏Ghouta. But, ‎according to media reports, the ‎militants in that area issued a statement that they would not ‎allow civilians to leave the area.

Regarding the above fact, Yaghoubian commented, 'It would not be surprising if the militants or Eastern Ghouta refuse to let the civilians leave.'

'Like in Aleppo, the civilian population of Ghouta serves both as human shields for the militants, as well as their primary source of anti-government propaganda. If the civilian population was evacuated there would be no opportunity for them to hide and maneuver amongst noncombatants, nor the ability to generate global sympathy due to civilian casualties,' he said.

9417**1377

Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish