You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Chemical Weapons are Not the Reason for War in Syria
I'm rather doubtful about the pipeline hypothesis. I've followed the policy and seen the maps; but America hasn't been good about following through with or executing successful strategic infrastructure development since the Marshal Plan and I don't see any sign this has changed.
Duly noted, what hypothesis do you subscribe to?
Why do you think the United States is so interested
in the ouster of Assad, or the occupation of Syria?
Dualing pipeline proposals: Qatar–Turkey pipeline, Iran–Iraq–Syria pipeline
Leviathan oil basin in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea is likely the primary reason for turning Syria into slag. Jews already shelled Beirut to oblivion, Egypt is under a Western puppet regime, ISIS is still a relevant force in the region to disrupt flow of oil. With Israel the only politically and economically stable nation-state in the atea to develop Leviathan oil basin, the Western petrodollar hegemony has an insurance policy against the Sino-Russian resource axis. In a sense, this proxy war is about the very survival of the modern West.
I'm not certain about it, but I think the opposition between Iran and Saudi Arabia is the root of it, and Israel and Turkey have involved themselves mainly out of choice. Meanwhile, at the geopolitical level Russia, China and NATO are interested in how the conflict unfolds, because the future of the global order is being defined there, the UK is tied at the hip to Saudi Arabia and the US to Israel, Russia is seeking to secure its near abroad, and China doesn't want the conflict to flare up sending the wider region and eastern Europe into war and damaging its economic vision.
Interesting, what is it about there do you suppose defines the future of the global order?
You're trying to get at the strategic value of the Middle East?
That aside for a moment, I think it is geopolitical accident that chooses a certain focal at one time or another for the contestation of the global order.
Now as for geopolitical strategy, the multipolar global order that the US/NATO resists is an order even more globalized where the connexion between the East, Africa and Europe, the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean, will be essential, as will be the Arctic, Americas and Pacific.
The US/NATO seeks to control how the new global turns out and in the geopolitics that plays out, the Middle East is now the focal point particularly because the regional competion going on is so hot and the geopolitics drawn in for one reason or another, that the importance is magnified.
In the nuclear age, a regional war can thus easily turn into a limited world war then from a world war into a nuclear war. The last world wars weren't so different in this regard.
The pipelines, highways, railroads, water basins, etc. - I don't believe - are not the prime motivation of the US/NATO. These have much regional significance. But in the post imperial era less significance for the great power rivalry.