Other reasons for the Syrian conflict

[Smartmarzipan]

I just thought we should have a separate thread to talk about other possible reasons for this mess over in Syria. It's something I've become very interested in and I like to look at all the different angles and discuss them. Agree or disagree, let's talk about it all!

So, I've become increasingly more interested in the idea that the Syrian conflict isn't so much about chemical weapons as it is about oil, money, and economic strategy. Not such a far-fetched idea, if you ask me.

Anyway, here's a good article:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pipelines

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad's arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 -just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country  to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

What does everyone think?

[SGOS]

What does everyone think?

I don't think there is a question that oil doesn't play a role.  The common argument is that we must stabilize the Mid East to insure a flow of oil, which sounds good on the surface.  Except that we don't stabilize the Mid East.  We do just the opposite at worst, or have no effect at best.  Oil is big business, and it's to the advantage of oil companies to keep prices high.  In that case, destabilization would be to their advantage.  

That is assuming it works that way, which I'm not so sure about.  The Mid East is going to sell us oil no matter who is in charge.  After all that's the point of being in charge over there.  You go from common street thug to billionaire on the oil money.

But it's hard to figure this stuff out.  I have no doubt that some pretty bright people stand to improve profits at whatever costs to the American people.  And our actions will always take into consideration how to benefit select people of power, but the underlying motives will never be made known to the public.

Our government will always put the best face on whatever it does, even if it ends up hurting us.  That's what governments do as they become more an more corrupted.

[Colanth]

The fact that we didn't immediately threaten to attack Hussein when he gassed the Kurds in 1987 tells me that this isn't about chemical weapon use.  We've never threatened any country over their killing of civilians unless there was a profit to be made.

[stromboli]

No question the whole thing smacks of ulterior motives and hidden agendas. It is kind of weird, because Assad is comparatively a moderate- Christians, Coptic Christians and different sects of Islam were living there in relative peace. Makes you wonder if the whole thing wasn't orchestrated from the beginning.

[Shiranu]

While I think their may be power players who are in it for the money, I legitimately believe our politicians are just extremely fucking stupid. While the money helps encourage their stupidity, I honestly believe 4/5th or so of the major politicians just don't realize the consequences of their actions.

[josephpalazzo]

I just thought we should have a separate thread to talk about other possible reasons for this mess over in Syria. It's something I've become very interested in and I like to look at all the different angles and discuss them. Agree or disagree, let's talk about it all!

So, I've become increasingly more interested in the idea that the Syrian conflict isn't so much about chemical weapons as it is about oil, money, and economic strategy. Not such a far-fetched idea, if you ask me.

Anyway, here's a good article:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pipelines

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad's arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 -just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country  to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

What does everyone think?

The real conflict in the ME is between the Sunnis and the Shiites. The rationale has been for sometimes is that if Iran gets nukes, the Sunnis will also want their nukes, hence the US (and the West) have taken the role of trying to avoid this nuclear arms race by putting on notice that Iran should stop developing its arsenal. Traditionally, the US has backed the Sunnis, though this is not an ironclad alignment. The Russians have been supporting the Shiites -- they supply Iran with nuclear material.

Syria has been aligned with Iran. Needless to say it is no surprise that Assad would go for a pipeline that would favor Iran - why Saudi Arabia and Qatar are responding by funding Al Qaeda in Syria. However this has put Russia in an awkward position, since it has also vast amount gas, and has been a weapon supplier to Assad. So Russia has a lot to lose, why they are trying very hard to play the role of a broker in the ME. Of course Russia and the West have been at odds since WW2. And so, what we see in this conflict is not only Shiites Vs Sunnis, but also Russia Vs the West . Syria is caught between Russia and Iran, between Sunnis and Shiites, and the West Vs Russia. Notwithstanding that Syria is a melting pot for different religions, different ethnics and different tribes.

I believe that Obama has played his cards very well so far, in spite of GOP obstructionism. He has focussed the US on the chemical weapon incident, without committing any ground forces, knowing that Syria is a quagmire worse than Iraq. There is no advantage for the US to replace Assad if there isn't a credible successor that would favor the West interest, which up to now, there isn't any.

[Colanth]

I honestly believe 4/5th or so of the major politicians just don't realize the consequences of their actions.

Sure they do.  But remember, the most important job of a politician is getting reelected, so that's the prize they keep their eyes on.  (And if a few thousand A-rabs have to die for Congressman X to get reelected, that's a shame.)