Translated by Ben Kearney
When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.
For all of the actors involved in the Syrian conflict, there are two primary interests at stake: influence and energy. The parties that are currently engaged in the battle want to shift the current balance of power. To this end they are employing all available means, from information to weapons to fighters. As shown in this DeepJournal series on Syria
, the interests of these parties are widely divergent, despite the fact that they are all pursuing the same goal.
Europe is seeking to become less dependent on Russia for its energy supply, the U.S. wants to cut off China’s access to Middle East energy sources, a Syria without Assad is one step closer to the liberation of Syrian energy reserves (and most importantly those of Iran) and a liberated Iran also ensures that Israel - and thereby the West - will be able to maintain its dominant position in the Middle East. At the same time, military conflicts with Syria and Iran feed a long-standing desire to divide and conquer by fomenting internecine warfare among all sorts of factions and reducing what were once large countries/concentrations of power to a patchwork quilt of conflicting interests.
- The pipeline
One component of the conflict deals with energy and its transport - preferably through Syria via a pipeline carrying gas from “the largest gas field in the world, which is located in the Persian Gulf and is split between two adversaries: Iran and Qatar. Both countries are seeking a land route over which to transport the natural gas, and both envision a route stretching over Syrian territory which would be used to transport the gas onward via the Mediterranean Sea to Europe,” writes
Ludo De Brabander for Uitpers
. In deference to Russia, Syria rejected
a contract with Qatar and signed
a memorandum of understanding with Iran and Iraq. A “direct slap in the face to Qatar,” according
Qatar wants to quash the plans of its competitor in favor of its own pipeline, which may or may not
need to run through Syria. As such, Qatar’s interests are squarely in line with those of the West plus Israel, which are seeking to isolate Iran. They are also in line with the interests of Turkey, which is not a party to the deal between Iran, Iraq and Syria. “Europe wants to become less dependent on Russian natural gas. Qatari natural gas would therefore be more than welcome,” writes De Brabander, who goes on to explain that Qatar invests a great deal of money in Europe and can thereby count on some sympathy. The problem
in the meantime is Saudi Arabia, which has no interest
in a pipeline running from Qatar. Another possibility is that the lack of cooperation ends up driving up the price for future negotiations.
- The energy
And then there is the energy itself. Currently, Qatar must share these gas reserves with Iran. Both countries are tapping from the same barrel: the world’s largest gas field
is divided into North Dome (Qatar) and South Pars (Iran). If Syria falls, Iran will lose a key buffer, and the main prize will then be within reach for all those seeking to overthrow the current Syrian regime: an Iran that will no longer be able to defend its own interests. But this would also mean that South Pars would become available. The clock is ticking, because Iran is working to develop nuclear energy, and when the time comes that it is capable of producing a nuclear weapon - even without revealing it - the chances of ‘liberating’ the country will be lost. This is an unacceptable notion for anyone currently devoted to the interim goal: Syria.
It’s not just Iran; Syria is also about energy. In 2010, Houston-based Noble Energy
discovered huge gas reserves
along the coasts of Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Israel has already begun producing and expects
to become an energy exporter. Some of this gas is located along the coast of Syria, and according to geologists, it’s a gold mine
. Syria also possesses proven oil reserves of 2.5 billion barrels
: "That’s more
than all of the nation’s neighbors except Iraq." It also has an estimated 50 billion tons
in oil shale deposits. The oil, and especially the gas, are interesting
to the new rulers in Syria: “this is the thing to watch as the end game for the Syrian conflict unfolds,” writes OilPrice
- The religion
Another factor that is playing out in the background is the religious motive
. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a Sunni monarchy and Qatar is a pro-Sunni
emirate. Both support the battle being waged against Syria, the population of which is three-quarters Sunni. President Assad belongs to the minority Alawite sect and he has the support of a Shiite Iran. Yet British MP George Galloway is correct when he says
(4:45) that the conflict is not about 'prophets’, but 'profits'. And speaking of money, there is also a financial angle
to the conflict. The countries which now find themselves under attack have a banking system that exists outside the bounds of the banking system in which the rest of the world operates. This puts these countries largely out of the range of Western financial weapons and control.
“We are going to learn some terrible and extremely serious lessons here”
A war against Syria is intended to radically alter the relationships in the Middle East to the detriment of Syria, Iran, China and Russia. Because the interests which are at stake are so large, and because everyone, including organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas,
to the teeth, this conflict has the potential to take on global proportions. Former Secretary General of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
: “We are going to learn some terrible and extremely serious lessons here.” What Obama is considering is relatively small-scale, but “taking that first step would almost surely lead to other steps that in due course would put American troops on the ground in Syria as a similar process did in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan,” states
Middle East expert William R. Polk correctly. There is a great deal of opposition to military intervention, even in Western military circles, but at this point the forces in favor of an attack are quite strong. And just as with previous wars, opposition efforts are being sidelined by means of emotional arguments. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show discovers a pattern
Syria and the manufacturing of consent
The debate is now centered on a potentially false accusation
concerning the use of chemical weapons. Between 281 and 355
people lost their lives in this attack. Thus far, a total of approximately 100,000
people have been killed in the Syrian conflict. The fact that we are currently focusing on whether or not a red line has been crossed - instead of whether 300 deaths from a chemical attack are worse than 100,000 deaths from conventional weapons, or what the role of the West in the conflict is, or what the underlying objective of the escalation of the conflict is - is te result of what is called framing
. The framing is a component of what linguist and critic Noam Chomsky has called the manufacturing of consent
. As indicated in previous parts of this DeepJournal series, as well as by research
carried out by Anthony Dimaggio, the mainstream media plays a guiding role in this effort. For instance, if you pay close attention
, you will notice that when John Kerry and Senator John McCain cite an expert in order to underscore their own argument that the support given to Al Qaida is negligible, it turns out that this source works for both the Syrian lobby and the neoconservative Institute for the Study of Wars. This is a fact that has little effect on the framing and the manufacturing of consent. This is a process that targets the emotions of the public, while the facts tell a completely different story: one that is full of victims and potentially serious consequences for the global economy.
Identifying and publicizing manipulations which are in turn further magnified by the mainstream media is a step in the right direction - a direction which represents more than just the interests of a small group. The next step is to think about ways to change this. The above-mentioned
retired General Wesley Clark reflects on possible solutions
: “Forces of big oil are the most powerful economic forces in the world. If you look at the entire wealth of mankind, the value of oil reserves in the ground is like 170 trillion dollars. It’s the most valuable commodity as currently priced in the world. You’re going against people who control those reserves. So this can only be done through a mass movement that overturns the established structure of energy markets. It can’t be done in a smooth transition.”