Who will benefit when the US overthrows the Government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if not terrorist organizations like IS or al-Nusra?

According to Sputnik News, the above question was asked by famous American commentator Patrick J. Buchanan after posing another difficult question: `Why does the US arm rebel groups [which the US calls

A Syrian soldier observes the battle situation in Quneitra province.

America’s `questionable` policy

According to Mr. Buchanan, it is America’s foreign policy, not Russia’s, that is suspicious.

In his commentary written in the American Conservative magazine, Mr. Buchanan emphasized: “Let’s assume that the US can overthrow Mr. Assad’s regime in Syria and force him to flee abroad.

Mr. Buchanan made the above comment in the context that US State Department officials had suggested that President Obama should conduct air strikes against Mr. Assad’s government and Syrian military forces.

Citing CIA Director John Brennan’s statement that IS `is massively advancing into Europe and the United States`, Mr. Buchanan questioned: `So why are we conducting air strikes and launching missiles against the Syrian government and army?`

Meanwhile, according to Mr. Buchanan, Russia’s support for Mr. Assad is completely reasonable because by supporting the legitimate government in Syria, Russia is in fact protecting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In fact, Mr. Assad’s government has never `asked for help` from the US military to conduct any anti-terrorism campaign in Syria.

Mr. James Jatras, an analyst on US foreign policy, said that Mr. Kerry’s words were `extremely contradictory.`

“We all know what Ahrar al-Sham is like.

From Syria, the US has `reached the steps` of Russia

Sharing the same opinion as Mr. Jatras, Mr. Buchanan said that US foreign policy in Syria raises `more questions than answers`.

“What right does President Obama have to provide weapons and training to the opposition seeking to overthrow Assad?

However, according to Mr. Buchanan, this is not the only case in which the US has proposed a foreign policy that is `inconsiderate, full of emotion, and susceptible to such reactions.`

“Last week, 31,000 NATO soldiers conducted exercises in Poland and the Baltic countries right next to the border with Russia.

Mr. Buchanan also expressed his desire to know America’s reaction if 31,000 Russian, Cuban, Iranian or North Korean soldiers conduct exercises along the country’s border.

Not only did the Pentagon initiate land exercises in Europe, it also sent the guided missile destroyer USS Porter into the Black Sea.

Things become even more complicated when not all European countries `excitedly` support confrontation with Russia.

In a recent interview with German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned NATO against `showing off its prestige on Russia’s doorstep`.

`We should not `pour fuel on the fire` by `drawing the sword to threaten` Russia.

However, an open question today is who will replace President Obama in the White House after his term ends and whether the new US leader will continue the current risky foreign policy.

According to Tran Khanh/VOV.VN