Peter Lavelle: Washington’s forced-illegal regime change in Syria moves apace

The American attack on the Syrian Army appears more and more to be intentional and with the expressed aim to support terrorist groups to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. Washington talks peace but is determined to expand the war in Syria.

The U.S. government claims its bombing of the Syrian Army was not intentional. This is truly hard to believe. U.S. airstrikes on Deir Ezzor killed at least 83 Syrian troops, a clear violation of the second ceasefire agreed to by Russia and the U.S., and an obvious opening for the Islamic State to capitalize on the losses suffered by the Syrians. This is still another attempt to achieve regime change on the cheap and through deception.

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power slammed Russia’s protest of the bombing and Moscow’s demand that the UN Security Council debate the meaning and consequences of the American airstrike. She called Russia’s proposal according to Power was “a magician’s trick” and “a stunt.” She insisted the Syrian government is to blame for what’s happening in Syria. Power also called the meeting a “diversion from what is happening on the ground.” Her words ring hollow and demonstrate an intentional cover-up. Much more is in play, I am certain.

Consider the following:

Why does Washington demand the entirety of the most recent ceasefire plan remain secret? What does Washington want to conceal?

Did Washington agree to the ceasefire because it was determined to render it meaningless soon after?

Did the Pentagon finally agree to the ceasefire as a means to torpedo the so-called peace efforts of the State Department (knowing full well Barack decided long ago to go AWOL)?

Is Washington determined to undermine any credit to Russia for ending the Syrian conflict?

Does Washington (I know this is sounds crazy) think it can control its terrorist proxies in Syria? Remember Afghanistan and Libya?

Is there any reason to believe Washington has a plan after it achieves it regime change? Again, remember Afghanistan and Libya?

Does Washington hope to trap Moscow into a Syrian quagmire defending the Assad government?

Has Washington finally come to the realization Assad (with Russian and Iranian support) could win this conflict militarily? Is this why the U.S. has directly attacked the sovereign state of Syria?

All of these questions lead me to the conclusion Washington’s forced regime change for Syria is alive and gaining strength. After five years, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died, half the Syrian population is in exile and/or displaced, and Washington and its regional surrogates support terrorists.

The questions cited above amount to a very cynical mindset and agenda, but it won’t work. The U.S. wants more war and it will get it. If history is a guide, it won’t achieve any of its goals.

Peter Lavelle is host of RT’s political discussion program CrossTalk. His views may or may not reflect those of his employer.