Nigel Farage has warned Britain cannot go to war with Syria "on a whim," stating "horrible though it is, there is nothing the British military can do to make things better."
In a sensational interview on the state-run TV channel Russia Today, the UK Independence Party leader slammed calls for intervention over the escalating crisis, and warned Britain's "keenness" for involvement "could lead to something far bigger."
Having already dismissed William Hague's concerns as a mere "whim" in a UKIP statement, Farage said British intervention would lead to "a row that goes on for decades."
"From the very start it's been the British Government, particularly in the shape of William Hague and indeed David Cameron himself, who throughout the entire international community have been the keenest to get involved in Syria," Farage said on RT on Tuesday.
"Ever since Tony Blair's time, starting off with Bosnia, we seem to go in for foreign wars with alarming regularity. Often having no really clear objective or any idea how we're going to withdraw," he said.
"The real worry is we have Iran and Russia on one side and Britain, France and America on the other side and, without wishing to sound like a doom monger, military intervention in Syria could lead to something far bigger. So we really have to think very carefully."
Pushed by the Russian news reporter over whether he believed Assad was behind the brutal attacks last week, Farage argued it is "probable," but not certain.
"Moral outrage on its own is not a good enough reason to get involved in a war that could have unforeseen consequences," he said. Ultimately though, Farage stated, "the feeling of moral outrage will win and therefore a majority in Europe will decide that military action is acceptable."
Nigel Farage has said Britain should not get involved in the Syrian Crisis
As UN weapons inspectors continue their investigations amidst sniper attacks, Farage declared it was essential to wait for conclusive results before taking any action.
"International law is something people ideally, I would have thought, before launching a military attack would want to have," he laughed.
But he added "international law itself" is not going to stop the British, French and Americans "if they chose to do something."
"I think the British Government have made their mind up," he said.
The UKIP leader argued that whenever Britain has become involved in the Middle East, "we tend to have made things worse not better.
"Horrible though it is, there is nothing the British military can do to make things better."
The MEP earlier released a statement insisting that MPs be involved in any decisions on the UK's role in the conflict.
"We must not engage in military attacks or send British troops to yet another foreign conflict on the whim of William Hague" he said.
"We've lost hundreds of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan the MoD budget is being slashed, resulting in thousands of job losses.
"How is it sensible to embark on another military intervention when the MoD is already struggling with substantial budget cuts and redundancies?
"It is not for us to act as world policemen particularly when there is still the question of who the rebels actually are. We've already seen links to extremists in their ranks.
"We cannot risk training soldiers and providing arms when they may be used against British troops and even civilians in the future."
Farage's comment's follow General Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, revealing he is also against military intervention arguing the international community is "fractured" over the issue.
He told the BBC: "It's wrong, because although undoubtedly by any moral standards at all using chemical weapons against your own people - which is what on the balance of probabilities it now seems Assad has done - this does not constitute an open invitation for the international community to impose themselves on the internal affairs of another country.
"Now, if the international community was of one voice on this and the UN Security Council was of one voice... That would be a different issue because the case then would be compelling and undoubtedly legal.
"But the international community is fractured on this, and while there are some things we do know, there are many things we do not know about Syria, and the main thing we don't know is what the effect of these strikes would be on the developments and consequences of the civil conflict in Syria."