What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Mr. Webre, first of all we know that according to the British parliament the UK does not have permission now from its own MPs to get involved militarily but the United States has suggested that it is going to go it alone.
With no report yet on the part of the United Nations and no agreement or no UN mandate, what could a possible move by the United States mean in terms of international law?
Webre: Well it seems rather clear that this appears to be a replay of what the George W. Bush administration launched a war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 on the basis of a false flag operation and its false claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this is the exact analogy and George W. Bush and Tony Blair and the Bush administration have been adjudged war criminals because of this.
If we look at the law of the UN Charter it is clear that wars of aggression are prohibited and it would be clear that if the US were to attack Syria, that would be the commencement of a war of aggression.
Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter states all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
And the only exception is the right of collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations which is not the case here and in fact we now have mounting evidence that the gas attack against the people of Syria was in fact the false flag attack.
This is a former PLO member, a native speaker Walid Shoebat which shows for example that there is a video showing the Free Syrian Army or FSA rebel forces launching a sarin gas attack on a Syria village. There is another YouTube that shows what appears to be Syrian rebel forces loading a canister of nerve gas on a rocket to fire presumably at civilians and possibly government forces.
And I have seen and I am looking at what appeared to be canisters in the sea to rebel arsenal from Jobar that appeared to resemble the canister launched by rebel forces initially. These are canisters of sarin gas.
And in a Syrian television report you can see a chemical agent and I am looking at the picture now that was identified has having been made in a Saudi Arabian factory.
In fact you can go to the Russian channel RT and an Arabian language channel shows captured rebel arsenals apparently with chemical agents manufactured in Saudi Arabia as well as gas mask, supporting the Russian claims that the rebels here are the culprits in the alleged chemical attack i.e. is a false flag attempted to provide a pretext for the attack by the US which itself would be a violation of the UN Charter and a war of aggression.
Press TV: Mr. Webre, just quickly before we leave you, we are hearing the United States say now that when we are going to decide on the Syria's situation, we are going to consider the United States national interest.
I wonder what that means, you know if we want to get into the meaning of this, what is America trying to say by considering America's national interest in this decision?
We earlier heard the French President also saying that France considers the chemical attack as a threat to global peace apparently in defense of the argument that this could actually be some kind of self-defense. So what is your argument here?
Webre: Well the arguments are that in all phases of this war starting with the false flag operation of September 11, 2001 to the Iraq war, the false claims of weapons of mass destruction and now to the Syrian case where we can see that there are apparently pictures of sarin gas attacks manufactured in Saudi Arabia and launched by the FSA as a false flag attack, that these are the standard operating procedures of the US forces and of the military and intelligence assets of the US forces carrying out a false flag operation which always proceeds their attempted war of aggression.
So they are just following their own military intelligence manuals. It means absolutely nothing in the world of truth. What it means is that this is part and parcel of the lead-up to a war of aggression and it is a real question as to which nations are going to stand up in the United Nations at the Security Council, at the International Criminal Court, in the various courts and tribunals and bring this war criminal nation to justice, both Israel and the United States which are war crimes nations. It is utterly clear in the UN Charter.