June 14, 2012

The real reason the US is taking on Syria

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research -  What lies behind this outburst of [Syrian] humanitarian concern by "the international community". Is America coming to the rescue of the Syrian people? What is the real reason for America's war on Syria?

This question is addressed in a lead article by James P. Rubin, a Bloomberg executive editor and former State department official under the Clinton administration. The article appears in this month's Foreign Policy Magazine under the clear-cut title: "The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria"

In an unusual twist, "the answer to the question", namely "the real reason" is provided in the article's subtitle: "Cutting Iran's link to the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic prize worth the risk.".

The subtitle should dispel --in the eyes of the reader-- the illusion that US foreign policy has an underlying "humanitarian  mandate".  Pentagon and US State department documents as well as independent reports confirm that military action against Syria has been contemplated by Washington and Tel Aviv for more than 20 years.

According to James P. Rubin, the war plans directed against Syria are intimately related to those pertaining to Iran. They are part of the same US-Israeli military agenda which consists in weakening Iran with a view to "protecting Israel". The latter objective is to be carried out through a preemptive attack against Iran:  "We're not done with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran" says James P. Rubin.

According to Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies ("a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism"),  the humanitarian concern is not the primary objective but rather as "a means to an end": "If the Arab League is unmoved by the massacres of Syrian women and children (their angry eyes fixed as ever on Israel), and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation doesn’t give a fig about Muslims slaughtering Muslims, why should we Americans expend an ounce of energy? ...[The answer]   Because Syria, under the Assad dictatorship, is Iran’s most important ally and asset. And Iran is the single most important strategic threat facing the U.S. — hands down."


Anonymous said...

The Gulf war and the Iraq war were undertaken, against the interest of the U. S., because they were in the interest of Saudi Arabia. That can only be explained by a combination of corruption and stupidity at the highest levels of our government.

What has changed? Nothing.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the annalists at Global research have become too compartmentalized and as a consequence not sufficiently sharing information. Not discounting any of the elements of the article, it seems there exists one glaring omission--the recent discoveries of potentially massive natural gas reserves throughout the Eastern Mediterranean region, including the coasts off Gaza, Lebanon, and with special relevance to this article, Syria.
Quoting from a Global Research article dated March 5, 2012 ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29609 )
"It becomes evident, especially when we glance at a map of the eastern Mediterranean, that the oil and gas prospective bonanza there is a rapidly unfolding conflict zone of tectonic magnitude involving strategic US, Russian, EU, Israeli and Turkish, Syrian and Lebanese interests."
Interesting, too, is how this may also play out as a factor in the recent monetary crisis in Greece.
Quoting from same source: "In July 2011 Washington joined the Greek energy Sirtaki. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew to Athens with energy on her mind. That was clear by the fact she brought with her her Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy, Richard Morningstar. Morningstar was husband Bill Clinton’s Special Advisor to the President on Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy, and one of the Washington strategic operatives in the geopolitical battles to dismember the Soviet Union and surround a chaos-ridden Russia with hostile pro-NATO former states of the USSR. Morningstar, along with his controversial aide, Matthew Bryza, have been the key Washington architects of Washington’s geopolitically-motivated oil and gas pipeline projects that would isolate Russia and its Gazprom gas resources from the EU. Bryza is an open opponent of Russian Gazprom’s South Stream gas pipeline that would transit the eastern Mediterranean states. [10] Clearly the Obama Administration is not at all neutral about the new Greek oil and gas discoveries. Three days after Hillary left Athens the Greek government proposed creation of a new government agency to run tenders for oil and gas surveys and ultimate drilling bid."

Here's to the number of the beast---
6 protons 6 electrons 6 neutrons

Anonymous said...

Question: Why is the link to the Mediterranean Sea a strategic prize worth the risk?
Answer: Billions of cubic feet of natural gas reserves.

Anonymous said...

Everything proposed by Mr Rubin would be, of course, a violation of international law, particularly the statutes against aggressive war dating from the post-WWII era.
I am still trying to figure out where and when these laws were cancelled.