Published time: May 28, 2013 03:27

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is pictured with U.S. troops at a Patriot missile site in southern Turkey on May 27, 2013.(Reuters / Handout)

Republican Senator John McCain, a staunch advocate of US military aid to the Syrian opposition, has made a surprise visit to war-torn Syria and met with rebels. The controversial move comes as Russia and the US are trying to set up a peace conference.

According to a report by the Daily Beast, Arizona Senator McCain crossed into Syria form Turkey with General Salem Idris, who leads the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, and stayed there for several hours before returning back. The senator met with assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army units in both Turkey and Syria.

Idris told the Daily Beast "We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation."

A senior State Department official has confirmed that the senator did "cross into Syrian territory" but referred all questions to McCain's office. McCain’s spokesman confirmed that the visit took place but declined to give any details.

The move had come shortly before the EU agreed to end its arms embargo on Syrian rebels on Monday. Last week, a US Senate panel voted overwhelmingly to send weapons to forces fighting the Syrian government, underlining growing sentiment among lawmakers for a change in the US approach to the Syrian conflict.

Meanwhile Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry have met in Paris where they are discussing the upcoming Geneva peace conference on Syria.

Lavrov, emerging from the talks said that a peace conference on Syria was a “tall order,” but expressed hope that "when the United States and the Russian Federation take this kind of initiative, the chances for success are there."

Kerry spoke for both countries when he said they were committed to upholding the principles outlined in the Geneva Communique of 2012, which proposed a transitional government to be elected by mutual consent between the government of Bashar Assad and the Syrian opposition.

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) (4th L) is pictured with U.S. Air Force airmen just before taking off from Turkey on May 27, 2013 .(Reuters / Handout)

McCain’s actions are a dangerous provocation reminiscent of his actions on Iraq and Libya, says independent researcher and writer Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich. She adds that under the US Constitution, one of the things that is considered treason is to promote or to bring about war.

"McCain did the same thing for Iraq. He was a part of a Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and he met with the Iraqi opposition and we saw the war there. He was all for this Libyan opposition group.”  

“McCain does not serve the interests of the American people or the world at large,” she told RT.

It remains unclear if the Arizona senator and an outspoken critic of Obama’s handling on Syria crisis had informed the White House about his plans to visit Syria.

However Sepahpour-Ulrich does not believe the Obama administration was unaware of the McCain’s move.

“I don’t think that Senator McCain would take it upon himself to go to Syria and meet with the opposition had he not had a nod from the government otherwise he would be locked up the minute he returns because he is acting against America’s interest if indeed that’s America’s interest.”

The researcher claims that we are seeing two sides here - “We are seeing the government, the administration, Obama, trying to play the nice guy. But everything that is going on is what had led up to all the other wars in the region.”

“I don’t think they want peace – peace doesn’t serve them.”

This is a tricky question.

Without question Asad and the current government MUST be brought down. They are slaughtering their own people to the tune of tens of thousands AGAIN. (His father did the same thing). This is unequivocally unacceptable.

However, out of desperation the rebels have been forced to work with whomever is willing to fight Asad and that includes all sorts of extremists and possibly Al Quida. If they do win, then what happens? How do you form a government with groups with very desperate ideologies who's only commonality is fighting a brutal dictator?

The other factor shackling the US is that as bad as Asad is, he is an (backstabbing) ALLY of Isreal. Some would dispute that, but Syria and Isreal have been at peace for years under his rule. As long as he remains, peace remains. Syrians really hate Isreal. A truly democratic government might become an actual threat to Isreal.

So Obama is in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation here (plus the US military is already taxed being in Iraq and Afghanistan). Doing nothing is completely unacceptable and the US are looking like huge hypocrites for going into Iraq for 'made up' WMD and now ignoring Syria's blatant use of those same weapons (even Isreal has called the US out on this). But if they help overthrow Asad... who knows what happens then?

What is Right for the people of Syria is Asad must go. But is that Right for the US? Not so clear. Russia is also a big supporter of the Syrian government. There was a time the US backed Afghanistan rebels (including Osama Bin Laden ironically) just to mess up the Russians. But Russia is an Ally now. There's little to nothing for the US to gain trying to countermeasure the Russians (and Iran) who are supplying the Asad regime with weapons.

In short it's a messed up situation. But Asad still has to go.

In the beginning I sided with the rebels but now I ironically side with the Syrian government.

The conflict began as a protest against a dictatorship but it's now all but a sectarian war (Sunnis versus everyone else), and if the rebels win the outcome will be worse since it will pave the way for a nasty society with sharia laws, no true democracy, no civil rights, discrimination of and eventually the extinction of minorities.

God no, they are pure scum. Just look at any of their propaganda videos. Disgusting.

The rebels are siding with the USA, they must be the bad guys.

I just read that the EU is planning to send weapons to the opposition "to allow them to protect civilians".

I'm totally against that.

First, it will be used as an argument that if Syria goes to hell, the West will be blamed because we interfered.

Second, I don't understand how EU politicians can be so out of touch with reality. If they wanted to protect civilians they should have sent weapons two years ago when the opposition didnt have any, not now when there's a full blown war between Sunni muslims on one side and Alawites and Christians on the other. Any external support will turn the tide in one party's favor.

I want them to, but what are they going to do when Assad is finally gone? They have nothing, there will probably tons of instability in the area like Libya has. Gaddafi was hated but he brought stability, just like Assad does. But i don't think the rebels will stop until he is overthrown no matter what we say. They say they fight for democracy but who knows what regime they will come up with. It just seems once again, religion is playing a dark and twisted part in politics and war. Personally, i think if they want to kill each other just let them get on with it, we can't potentially fuck up another war. This war will go for years anyways.

Not anymore. Had the rebels won two years ago, we might have seen something like Libya or Tunisia. Now it's far more likely to end up like Iran, or Egypt at the very best. It's best to just not get involved.

Of course, I do. Finally cannibals will be equated in rights with the rest of the people in that country.

I hope both sides lose :(