The US and other Western regimes are threatening to attack Syria, at the risk of provoking a major war. What purpose is this intended to serve?
The Chemical Weapons Pretext
First of all, one must dismiss the ostensible reason; that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in the ongoing conflict in that country.
Furthermore, the US regime is itself guilty of utilising chemical weapons; as, for instance, in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
When the Israelis were blatantly dropping white phosphorus on the civilian population of the Gaza Strip in their ‘Operation Cast Lead’ of 2008/9, the US and allied regimes were cheering them on from the sidelines.
The true reasons for the current belligerence clearly lie elsewhere.
Global Banking Deregulation
In the late 1990s a plan was hatched by Wall Street and officials of the US Treasury Department; to open up global banking to the highly lucrative, and socially irresponsible, derivatives business. This involved coercion of World Trade Organisation (WTO) member states to deregulate their banks.
Some states were not members of the WTO. These typically had non-usurious state-run banks. Some of these countries also were not members of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). Such states were impervious to the kind of pressure applied to WTO and BIS member states, and would require a different approach.
Retired US general Wesley Clark reported that in 2001 he was told by an officer in the Pentagon that the US regime planned to attack seven countries: “starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” This bizarre-sounding plan becomes comprehensible when it is noted that these countries were all non-members of the WTO and BIS.
Afghanistan, which was invaded in 2001, was also in this category.
Even as Muammar Gadhafi’s Libya was in the process of being demolished by NATO, the alliance’s local proxy forces declared the formation of a new central bank to replace the old state-run one; a strong indication of one purpose of the war.
The Yinon Plan
In 1982 Oded Yinon, a senior advisor to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published a document titled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s’. The content of this document was revealed to the non-Hebrew-speaking world by the late Professor Israel Shahak, who edited it and published it in English as ‘The Zionist Plan for the Middle East’. Essentially, Yinon’s plan calls for Israel to exploit the ethnic and confessional fault lines of neighbouring countries to foment internecine strife. The intention is that those countries collapse into mutually hostile factions and statelets, dependent on Israel.
Failure in Lebanon in the long war which it started in 1982, demonstrated that the Zionist state lacked the military might to carry out the plan under its own steam. Rather than abandon the strategy, the Israelis mobilised the powerful Zionist lobbies in the USA and other Western countries to manipulate those states into doing Israel’s heavy lifting for it. It should be noted that the Israeli and banking lobbies are in large part identical.
Oded Yinon had identified Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as Israel’s principal enemy at the time he wrote, and the Zionist lobby embarked on a campaign to bring about the destruction of Iraq by Western powers. The country was attacked in 1991 and 2003, and a weakened Iraq duly divided into semi-autonomous Shi’ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish regions as prescribed by Yinon; albeit under considerable Iranian influence.
With Iraq reduced, Iran succeeded to the role of Israel’s bête noire, and the Zionist lobbies have been persistently pressing the Western states to attack that country. Thus far, even the usually compliant Western politicians have baulked at the prospect of launching such a potentially ruinous war, and have limited their efforts to imposing economic sanctions on Iran.
For many years, the Israeli regime has been declaring that Iran is on the verge of building nuclear weapons, and must be crushed before that can happen. Possibly they fear that Iran might end Israel’s monopoly of nuclear weapons in the region: alternatively it may be only a pretext.
Iran has regional allies; in the form of Syria, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah resistance movement. If these could be eliminated, Iran’s capacity for retaliation against potential Israeli aggression would be severely diminished. Zionist machinations have been successful in having the Syrians accused of murdering Lebanese politician, Rafik Hariri; and their troops removed from Lebanon. They have also had Hezbollah’s military wing declared to be “terrorists” by the US and EU regimes.
In addition to their alliance with Iran and Syria, Hezbollah are targeted because they prevent the partition of Lebanon and frustrate Israel’s desire to capture the waters of the river Litani, important in that arid region.
Clearly, Israel wishes to bring about the destruction of Syria because of its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah, as well as its mere existence as a neighbouring state.
A further reason for the Israelis to seek the destruction of the Syrian state is to advance their intended illegal extraction of oil from Syria’s Golan Heights, which they have occupied since 1967.
The ongoing invasion of Syria by foreign Salafi insurgents, characterised by sectarian atrocities, fits the agenda of breaking up the country along confessional lines; and the aggression of Western states mirrors the Iraq scenario.
There are plans to build a light natural gas (LNG) pipeline from Iran via Iraq to Syria’s Mediterranean coast, whence the gas (from Iran’s South Pars field) would be shipped to Europe. This scheme does not suit the regimes in Israel and the West, and conflicts with the interests of some regional states.
Qatar ‘s North Dome gas field is contiguous with Iran’s South Pars. The Emir of Qatar would prefer that the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline not come into existence, and that instead Qatari gas be piped to the Mediterranean via either Jordan or Turkey. This explains the current hostility of these three states to Syria. Turkey has been attempting to establish itself as the principal transit hub for hydrocarbons between Central Asia and the Middle East, and Europe.
Saudi Arabia is backing the attack on Syria because of its rivalry with Iran and Shia Islam; and perhaps also because of the potential for shipping Saudi oil via the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights to Haifa in Israel or Lebanon if Syria could be brought under Saudi domination. This means of transit would be much cheaper than the current tanker route via the Suez Canal. It would also bypass the Strait of Hormuz, which is susceptible to being closed by Iran.
The regimes in Israel and the West would prefer that their satrapies should prevail, rather than the defiant Iranians and Syrians.
Since the supposed end of the Cold War, the US regime and its NATO vassals have been seeking to weaken and surround Russia. For example, they broke their agreement not to expand NATO eastward into the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet countries; and have been placing missile defence systems which may threaten Russia’s second strike ability and hence its deterrent against a NATO nuclear first strike.
Russia maintains a naval supply and maintenance site near the Syrian port of Tartus. This supports the operation of units from the Black Sea Fleet in the Mediterranean. It is possible that the removal of this facility is also sought by the Western regimes.
The true motives of the US and allied regimes in threatening Syria are very different from the stated pretext. A Western attack on Syria would be in the interests of neither the Syrian population nor the peoples of the West.