CNN "Wolf" - Transcript: Syrian Conflict

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: All right, Barbara, thanks very much.

Let's get some more on the shifting U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Angus King is the independent senator from Maine. He's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator King, thanks very much for joining us. You were there in the room. You heard the testimony today. I first want to get your reaction to the breaking news, our Global Affairs Correspondent Elise Labott now reporting, quoting U.S. officials, "that Iran for the first time has been invited to join in these international negotiations with the United States involving the future of Syria." Not only Russia is involved but Iran will now be involved as well. Your reaction?

SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Well, I think my reaction is that we've got to have Iran and Russia focusing on the necessity of moving Assad aside. They are both concerned about ISIS. They are both enemies of ISIS. But they're trying to have it both ways, supporting Assad and also opposing ISIS. That isn't going to work. Assad and ISIS are kind of evil twins. Assad, in many ways, brought ISIS into being.

[13:05:03] So, the fact that Iran and Russia are ready to talk about what we're going to do in trying to move Assad aside, I think is probably a positive development. We're always uncomfortable negotiating with people like Iran and having those discussions. But I remember President Kennedy saying we should not negotiate out of fear but never fear to negotiate.

And so, this -- it's going -- this is going to have to happen, Wolf, if we're going to get Assad out. It's going to take Iran, particularly Russia, deciding that he no longer viable. And that keeping him there is only going to keep ISIS going. And ISIS is a direct threat to Russia. And they're going to have to make that calculus.

BLITZER: Because this represents a significant shift in the Obama administration's strategy, right now, as the future of Syria is concerned. The U.S., of course, was willing to negotiate directly with Iran on the nuclear deal. But always said it was not talking to Iran about what was going on in Iraq, was not coordinating with Iran against ISIS in Iraq, was not coordinating with Iran, as far as the war against ISIS, in Syria is concerned.

But now, under enormous pressure from the Russians, the U.S. now is ready to bring Iran into all of this. And you think this is long overdue. Is that what I'm hearing?

KING: Well, I don't know if I'd say long overdue but I think it's got to be part of the path to getting out. Remember, the goal here is to move Assad aside. Iran and Russia have been propping him up for many years. Without their support, he would have been gone two years ago.

So, if we're going to get rid of him, they have to be at the table. And they have to somehow have to realize that it's in their national interest as well as the people of Syria to get rid of him. So, I cautiously think that it could be a positive development. You can't solve a problem if you don't have all the players at the table.

BLITZER: But you know what the critics will say, that the Iranians and the Russians, they want to prop up the regime of Bashar Al Assad, Damascus. They consider him the proper (ph) or the legitimate power in Syria. If anything, they say the U.S. is going to have to come around in the fight against ISIS, accept Bashar Al Assad's regime in Damascus. Your reaction to that criticism which almost certainly will unfold if the U.S. is capitulating to Iran and Russia as opposed to the opposite?

KING: Well, I don't know how anybody can say anybody is capitulating if all you're doing is beginning discussions. So, I just don't think that's relevant. I don't think the U.S. is going to be accede to Assad being left in power. I think that's part of the -- part of the goal here.

In fact, you know, the Russians are playing a sort of dangerous game in a sense that they -- this could become a quagmire for them, because they are really swimming against the tide of the opinion of the vast majority of the -- of the Syrian people.

And by taking Assad's side, by entering into doing these air strikes in western Syria against the non-ISIS opposition, they are really solidifying their place as part of the problem, as far as Assad is concerned. So, as I say -- as I said at the beginning, I think what has to happen is that Russia and Iran have to figure out that ISIS is really the more serious threat than keeping Assad in power.

And, you know, that's the dilemma for us as well. We're trying to fight ISIS and not be on the ground against Assad. And it's -- that's a very difficult problem.

And I asked some of the same questions that Lindsey Graham asked today. If Iran and Russia are determined to keep Assad in power, it's going to be very difficult for the opposition to overcome them. But the follow on question is, OK, so what do we do? Do we want to get involved in what would then turn into a major proxy war with Russia over Assad? I think the diplomatic course is one that really needs to be pursued first.

BLITZER: What's your understanding, Senator King, to this apparent new shift recommended by officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere that the U.S. become more assertive, get involved in more potential boots on the ground combat in going after ISIS, whether in Ramadi, in Syria or Raqqa -- excuse me, Ramadi or Raqqa, the ISIS headquarters in Syria. Until now, there have been no U.S. boots on the ground in Syria. There are about 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq but none in Syria. Are you ready to support that potential dramatic shift?

KING: No. And I think -- I think Barbara, your Correspondent, previously was accurate when she said the administration's response, Secretary Carter's response, today was cloudy. They talked about upping the ante on air strikes. I think everyone understands that.

[13:10:01] They talked about hitting them in the oil and where they're getting their revenues. I think everybody understands we can support that. Going after the high value of leadership, that's fine. But this -- exactly what they were saying and what they meant, in terms of more combat involvement, was pretty vague.

And my position all along has been not only should we not do that, from our point of view, but that it would be a gift to ISIS. If -- they want this to be a war between the west and Islam. That's the way they'd like to characterize this dispute. If we have American troops in there or western troops, that would be -- that would rejuvenate their now, I think, stalled momentum. So, I think that would be a real mistake.

Now, what exactly were they proposing? Were they talking about a little more active training, embedding for advice, for leadership, intelligence? It was unclear in today's hearing. But if we're talking about significant U.S. troop involvement in Syria, that would be a huge change of policy. I don't think that's what they were saying today. And I certainly wouldn't support it because I don't think it would work.

BLITZER: Senator King, thanks very much for joining us.

KING: Thank you, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source