The Real News Network has the interview, Bennis: There is No Military Solution to Syria. Why should we listen to what Phyllis Bennis has to say?

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow and the Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer.

At the end is a great summary of the forces at work in the Syrian conflict.

BENNIS: We need to be clear there are five separate wars being fought in Syria. And, unfortunately, the victim of all of them is the people of Syria. There is certainly one war between the Syrian regime and a component of the Syrian people, as I mentioned earlier, with a very complex combination of forces challenging and fighting against the regime.

There is a sectarian war that’s underway. It didn’t start that way, but it has become a thoroughly sectarian war between, on the regional side, Sunni and Shia, with the Alawite leadership in Syria on the Shia side. And that takes shape when you see Iraq and Syria and Iran on one side versus Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey on the other side.

Then there’s a regional war for power, largely between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but being fought in Syria to the last Syrian, and with other forces such as Turkey, such as Qatar and others playing a role.

You have the war, the new Cold War, if you will, between the United States and Russia over sea lanes, over control of resources, control of oil fields, etc., pipelines. All those factors come into play. And that war is being fought to the last Syrian.

And then, of course, you have the war between Israel and United States on the one hand and Iran on the other hand over Iran’s alleged nuclear aspirations. And that war right now is being fought to the last Syrian. So you have a number of wars that are taking shape inside Syria. And the people of Syria are the ones who are paying the highest price.

One thing about our tough military stance that we usually take in these situations seems so obvious, that I cannot understand why nobody else has noticed.

What would prevent us from attacking Syria? Would we attack them if they had nuclear weapons? Is Iran correct that having nuclear weapons is the only thing that would stop us? So, has Iran made a completely rational decision based on what we did to them in 1953 and what we are doing now, that having nuclear weapons is the only good defense? Does this mean that the more pressure we put on Iran and the less willing we are to talk to them, the more we confirm their suspicions? Knowing this, should we try some other strategy?

We don’t remember Theodore Roosevelt because he said, “Speak harshly, and carry a big stick.”