Syria intervention plans fuelled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concerns | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment

/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-

  • Pour les archives :

    The National 2009 / Déclarations de l’émir du Qatar sur un gazoduc Qatar-Turquie via l’Irak et la Syrie
    http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/qatar-seeks-gas-pipeline-to-turkey#full

    The Guardian / Nafeez Ahmed 2013
    Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

    RAND Corporation 2008
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf

    Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ’Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.

    #pipelineistan #Syrie


  • The Pentagon plan to ‘divide and rule’ the Muslim world
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/pentagon-plan-divide-and-rule-muslim-world-1690265165

    Davidson points out that there is precedent for this: “There have been repeated references in the Reagan era to the usefulness of sectarian conflict in the region to US interests.”

    One post-Reagan reiteration of this vision was published by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Strategic and Political Advanced Studies for Benjamin Netanyahu. The 1996 paper, A Clean Break, by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Richard Perle – all of whom went on to join the Bush administration – advocated regime-change in Iraq as a precursor to forging an Israel-Jordan-Turkey axis that would “roll back” Syria, Lebanon and Iran. The scenario is surprisingly similar to US policy today under Obama.

    Twelve years later, the US Army commissioned a further RAND report suggesting that the US “could choose to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world… to split the jihadist movement between Shiites and Sunnis.” The US would need to contain “Iranian power and influence” in the Gulf by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan”. Simultaneously, the US must maintain “a strong strategic relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government” despite its Iran alliance.

    Around the same time as this RAND report was released, the US was covertly coordinating Saudi-led Gulf state financing to Sunni jihadist groups, many affiliated to al-Qaeda, from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon. That secret strategy accelerated under Obama in the context of the anti-Assad drive.

    The widening Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict would “reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term,” the report concluded, by diverting Salafi-jihadist resources toward “targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East,” especially in Iraq and Lebanon, hence “cutting back… anti-Western operations”.

    By backing the Iraqi Shiite regime and seeking an accommodation with Iran, while propping up al-Qaeda sponsoring Gulf states and empowering local anti-Shia Islamists across the region, this covert US strategy would calibrate levels of violence to debilitate both sides, and sustain “Western dominance”.

    Le rapport de la Rand : Unfolding the Future of the Long War, 2008 :
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf

    Nafeez Ahmed avait déjà cité longuement ce document en août 2013 dans le Guardian (repris à l’époque sur Seenthis par Kassem) :
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

    (via Angry Arab)

    • Ca, que les Etats-Unis aient aidé l’Arabie et les autres émirats à financer des groupes djihadistes, y a-t-il de véritables preuves ?

      “Around the same time as this RAND report was released, the US was covertly coordinating Saudi-led Gulf state financing to Sunni jihadist groups, many affiliated to al-Qaeda, from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon. That secret strategy accelerated under Obama in the context of the anti-Assad drive.”

    • #Israël – Palestine – Liban : Le chemin le plus long vers la paix-
      Auteur(s) :
      Pailhe Caroline
      08 Août 2006
      http://www.grip.org/fr/node/296

      Cette nouvelle guerre contre le Liban [2006] correspond en effet à la deuxième phase d’ un plan stratégique rédigé en 1996 au sein de l’ Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies de Jérusalem, par un groupe d’ experts sous la direction de #Richard_Perle, qui deviendra conseiller du Pentagone dans la présente Administration et jouera un rôle majeur dans la conception de la guerre en Irak.

      Soumis à l’ époque au Premier ministre israélien Benjamin #Netanyahu, le document, intitulé « A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm » (Un changement radical : Une nouvelle stratégie pour sécuriser le territoire), préconise un revirement de la stratégie israélienne[28].

      Au niveau des concepts, le plan prône l’ abandon de la stratégie « terre contre paix » poursuivie jusqu’ alors et plaide pour « #la_paix_par_la_force », une politique fondée sur le rapport de force (balance of power). Il recommande également l’ instauration du principe de #préemption, à côté de celui de #punition, dans la doctrine stratégique israélienne.

      Plus concrètement, le changement de stratégie visait à rompre avec le processus de paix d’ Oslo et fournir à Israël la possibilité d’ étendre une fois pour toutes son empire au-delà des frontières actuelles. Certaines des recommandations sont déjà des faits acquis : changement de régime en Irak, durcissement vis-à-vis des Palestiniens et affaiblissement d’ Arafat. Pour assurer la sécurité d’ Israël à sa frontière nord, le rapport recommande de « prendre l’ initiative stratégique » afin de combattre le Hezbollah, la Syrie et l’ Iran. C’ est ce qui se joue actuellement.

      A la base de ce document, le groupe d’ experts chargé d’ étudier la « Nouvelle stratégie israélienne pour 2000 » n’ était pratiquement constitué que d’ Américains qui, depuis, ont occupé des positions clés dans l’ Administration Bush et singulièrement dans la définition de sa politique étrangère au Moyen-Orient.

      Plus récemment, #Robert_Satloff, directeur d’ un autre think tank néoconservateur influent sur la politique moyen-orientale de Washington, louait la stratégie américaine d’ « #instabilité_constructive » au Liban et en Syrie[29].

      Il constate que, si la recherche de la #stabilité a été un trait caractéristique de la politique des #Etats-Unis dans la région, « George W. Bush a été le premier président à considérer que la stabilité en tant que telle était un obstacle à l’ avancement des intérêts américains au Moyen-Orient. (...) A cet effet, les Etats-Unis ont employé un éventail de mesures coercitives ou non coercitives, allant de l’ usage de la force militaire pour changer les régimes en Afghanistan et en Irak, en passant par une politique de la carotte et du bâton (...) pour isoler Yasser Arafat et encourager une nouvelle et pacifique direction palestinienne, jusqu’ aux encouragements courtois à l’ Egypte et à l’ Arabie saoudite pour les engager sur la voie des réformes. » Sur cet échiquier, le Liban et la Syrie seraient, pour M. Satloff, « un premier test » de cette politique d’ ’ instabilité constructive car « Israël et l’ Iran, l’ Europe et les Etats-Unis, la Syrie et les Palestiniens, tous ces chemins convergent à Beyrouth ». Il reconnaît que les Etats-Unis et leurs alliés locaux devront certes subir « quelques défaites tactiques » mais « avec de la persévérance, des changements positifs continus ne manqueront pas de se produire ».

    • The Redirection - Seymour Hersh, 2007
      http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

      In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

      To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda


  • Syria intervention plans fuelled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concerns | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

    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.

    It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

    #Syrie #Russie #Arabie_saoudite #Iran #Europe #Bandar #gazoducs #pipelines