Quote:

Clinton, Juppé, Erdoğan, Daesh and the PKK

by Thierry Meyssan

The resumption of the repression of Kurds in Turkey is nothing more than a consequence of the impossible task of implementing the Juppé-Wright plan of 2011. While it was easy to deploy Daesh in the Syrian desert and the provinces of Niniveh and d'al-Anbar (Iraq), which are mostly Sunnite, it proved to be impossible to take control of the Kurdish populations of Syria. In order to realise his dream of a Kurdistan outside of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has no other choice but civil war.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 3 AUGUST 2015 ESPAÑOL DEUTSCH فارسى ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ ITALIANO PORTUGUÊS FRANÇAIS NEDERLANDS РУССКИЙ عربي

Published in 2013, the Wright plan is based on the Juppé plan for Libya, Syria and Iraq. However, Robin Wright goes further by including projects for Saudi Arabia and Yemen.When they took power in Ankara in 2003, the Islamist party AKP modified Turkey's strategic priorities. Rather than using reports on the post-« Desert Storm » balance of power, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan harboured the ambition of freeing his country from the isolation it has known since the end of the Ottoman Empire. Based on analyses provided by his advisor, Professor Ahmet Davutoğlu, he advocated solving century-old problems with Turkey's neighbours, and becoming progressively the inevitable regional mediator. In order to do so, Turkey had to become a political model and build relations with his Arab partners, without losing its alliance with Israël.This policy, known as « zero problem », began sucessfully at first.Ankara no longer feared Damascus and its support for the PKK, and also asked Syria for help in negotiating an exit. In October 2006, the Kurdish party declared a unilateral truce and began negotiations with the Erdoğan government. In May 2008, Ankara organised indirect negotiations between Damascus and Tel-Aviv, the first talks since Ehud Barack's rejection of the Bill Clinton / Hafez el-Assad plan. But President Bachar el-Assad withdrew from the discussions after Israël attacked Gaza in December 2009.Realising that because of the Palestinian conflict, it was impossible to maintain good relations with all the states in the region, Ankara chose to support the Palestinians against Israël. This was the period of the Davos and Freedom Flotilla episodes. Backed by vast popular support in the Muslim world, Ankara approached Teheran and accepted, in November 2010, to participate in a Turkey-Iran-Iraq-Syria common market. Visas were repealed ; the rights of the Customs were considerably reduced ; a consortium was created to manage the oil and gas pipe-lines ; an authority was created to enable the management of water ressources. The overall structure looked so inviting that Lebanon and Jordan presented their candidacy. Sustainable peace seemed possible for the Levant.When, in 2011, the United Kingdom and France launched a double war against Libya and Syria, at the request and under the control of the United States, Turkey quite logically opposed it. These wars, launched on the pretext of protecting the populations, were far too evidently neo-colonial strategies. Besides, they damaged Turkish interests, since Libya was one of its main economic partners and Syria had become one by way of the new regional common market.That's when everything collapsed…

How France caused the collapse of Turkey

In March 2011, on the initiative of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, Paris secretly proposed to support Ankara's candidacy to the European Union and help it solve its Kurdish problem if Turkey would join France in its war against Libya and Syria. From the French point of view, this was a radically new proposition, since during the period he led the Gaullist party and was a collaborator of Jacques Chirac, Alain Juppé had been firmly opposed to the entry of Turkey into the Union. But, condemned for corruption in France, he had exiled himself to America in 2005 and taught classes in Québec while at the same time following a course at the Pentagon. Converted to neo-conservatism, he returned to France and was chosen by Nicolas Sarkozy as Minister for Defence, then for Foreign Affairs.Retrospectively, the Juppé plan revealed French intentions : they concerned the creation of a Kurdistan in Iraq and Syria, according to the map which was published two years later by Robin Wright in the New York Times, and was implemented conjointly by the Islamic Emirate, the Regional Government of Iraqi Kurdistan and some ex-collaborators of Saddam Hussein linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. The document, co-signed by Alain Juppé and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoğlu, leaves no doubt : France intended to reconstitute a colonial empire in Syria. Moreover, it had connections within the Islamist terrorist movements and anticipated the creation of Daesh. In order to guarantee the Juppé plan, Qatar agreed to make massive investments in eastern Turkey, hoping that the Turkish Kurds would then abandon the PKK.This plan has remained secret until today. If the French and Turkish parlementaries could manage to legally obtain a copy, it would amply suffice to bring Messrs. Juppé and Davutoğlu before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.Contrary to a popular notion, the Kurds are deeply divided. In Turkey and Syria, the PKK, originally a Marxist-Leninist party, has always defended the anti-imperialist point of view. While the Iraqi Kurds, linked with Israël since the Cold War, have always been the allies of the United States. The two groups do not speak the same language and have very different histories.It is probable that, from their side, the United States would sweeten the dowry by promoting the Turkish political model in the Arab world, and helping the AKP to take charge of the political parties born of the Muslim Brotherhood, so that Turkey would become the centre of the next Middle East. In any case, and in extremis, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supported NATO's project, which took over from AfriCom after the revolt of its commander [1].Immediately, Ankara mobilised the citizens of Misrata in Libya. These are mostly the descendants of the Jewish soldiers of the Ottoman Empire, the Adghams, and the nomadic merchants descended from black slaves, the Muntasirs, who had supported the Young Turks. They formed the only significant Libyan group capable of attacking Tripoli [2].Simultaneously, Ankara organised several meetings of the Syrian opposition in Istanbul, from August 2011. Finally, the Muslim Brotherhood constituted the Syrian National Council in October, associating representatives from the diverse political and minority groups.

NATO renounces the invasion of Syria

Watching NATO's implication in Libya, Ankara was logically counting on an identical implication by NATO in Syria. But despite a large number of terrorist attacks and an unflagging international Press campaign, it proved impossible to both inflame the population and attribute mass crimes to President el-Assad in a credible manner. Above all, Moscow and Bejing, angered by the Libyan affair, opposed any Security Council resolution pretending to « protect » the Syrians from their own government (October 2011, February and July 2012).Washington and London abandoned the game, even though Paris and Ankara continued to believe in it [3]. The two states developed close collaboration, which went as far, in September 2012, as planning the assassination of the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Walid al-Mouallem, and President Bachar el-Assad.The terrorist attack in Riyadh, a response to the assassination of members of the Syrian National Security Council, seriously wounded Prince Bandar ben Sultan in July 2012, and left the international jihadist movement orphaned. Even though the prince survived his wounds, he only left hospital a year later, and was never again able to assume the role he had played until then. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seized the occasion to replace him. He opened personal relations with Yasin al-Qadi, the banker for al-Qaïda, whom he received in secret several times in Ankara. He supervised a number of jihadist groups, initially created by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.In January 2013, by intervening in Mali, France distanced itself from the Syrian jihadists, thus leaving on-the-ground military operations to Turkey, even if it left a few legionnaires in place. Shortly afterwards, the Emir of Qatar, cheikh Ahmad, was obliged to abdicate by Washington, which blamed him after denunciation by Russia for operating in a way that was damaging to United States economic interests. Even before his son, cheikh Tamim, succeeded him, the greater part of the financing of the war against Syria was being handled by Saudi Arabia.In order to benefit from this support, and that of Israël, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan began to promise anyone who was listening that the United States were going to ignore the Russian and Chinese vetos and launch NATO in an assault against Damascus. Profiting from the confusion, he organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch [4]. Still apparently unaware of the consequences, with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance - the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. But London immediately uncovered the manipulation and refused to engage [5].Turkey participated in the operation of ethnic cleansing and partition of Iraq and Syria, known as the « Wright plan ». The presence of the Turkish secret services in the preparatory meetings for Daesh in Amman is verified by the publication of a record of decisions by the PKK. Moreover, the « Wright plan » is a copy of the « Juppé plan », which convinced Turkey to go to war. Following this, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself took command of the terrorist organisation, ensuring at the same time its arms supply and the sale of its petrol.Anxiously observing the talks between Washington and Teheran, Ankara feared a peace agreement which would leave it powerless. Solicited by his Russian opposite number, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Erdoğan accepted to participate in the gas pipe-line project Turkish Stream, intended to break the US monopoly and avoid the European embargo. Then, racking up his courage, he went to see his Iranian opposite number, cheikh Hassan Rohani, who assured him that he had nothing to fear from the agreement which was then being developed. But as soon as it was signed, on the 14th July 2015, it was apparent that it left no room for Turkey in the region.Without surprise, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan received, on the 24th July, an ultimatum from President Obama, requiring him to
immediately renounce the Russian gas pipe-line project ;
cease his support of Daesh of which he had become the excutive chief behind the screen of calife Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi - and go to war with them.
Applying even greater pressure, Barack Obama evoked the possibility of excluding Turkey from NATO, with the concertation of the United Kingdom, even though this situation is not mentioned in the Treaty.After having begged pardon and authorised the United States and NATO to use the the military base at Incirlik against Daesh, Mr. Erdoğan made contact with the special emissary for the Anti-Daesh Coalition, General John Allen, known for his opposition to the agreement with Iran. The two men agreed to interpret President Obama's remarks as an encouragement to fight terrorism, a heading under which they listed the PKK. Exceeding his functions, the General promised to create a « no-fly zone » ninety miles wide, over Syrian territory, along the whole border with Turkey, supposedly intended to help Syrian refugees fleeing from their government, but in reality to apply the « Juppé-Wright plan ». The Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, revealed US support for the project on the TV channel A Haber by launching a bombing raid against the PKK.General John Allen had twice succeeded in prolonging the war against Syria. In June 2012, he plotted with General David Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to sabotage the Geneva agreement between Washington and Moscow for peace in the Near East. This agreement called, amongst other things, for peace in Syria even though Damascus had not been invited to the conference but this was considered inacceptable by both the US neo-conservatives and the US « liberal hawks ». The trio Clinton-Allen-Petraeus counted on the new French President, François Hollande, and his new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius, to convene a conference of the « Friends of Syria » and reject the Geneva Agreement. Since he was in the heat of an election campaign, President Obama could not sanction his collaborators, but the day following his election, he had David Petraeus and John Allen arrested, victims of a sexual trap. Hillary Clinton stayed on for a few weeks, but then suddenly retired after an « accident ». Finally, only Petraeus was found guilty, while Allen was whitewashed and Clinton like Juppé began preparations for the next Presidential election campaign.The trio Clinton-Allen-Petraeus staged a second operation in December 2014 which managed to disrupt the Moscow Conference. By promising the Muslim Brotherhood that they would implement the « Juppé-Wright plan », they convinced the Syrian National Coalition to refuse any disscussions on peace. Incidentally, this episode attests to the fact that the aim of the Syrian National Coalition is not regime change in Syria but the destruction of the country and its state.Learning the facts during his journey to Africa, President Obama officially denied the engagement of General Allen, recognised Turkey's right to fight the PKK, but denounced any action against it outside of Turkey. President Erdoğan then called for a meeting of the Atlantic Council to inform them of his entry into the Anti-Terrorist Coalition and his double action against Daesh and the PKK. On the 29th July, the Allies coldly replied that they supported his action, but did not recognise his right to bombard the PKK in Iraq and Syria except in cases of « pursuit » - in other words, if the PKK used bases in other countries to manage troop movements against Turkey.Moreover, President Obama has relieved Daniel Rubinstein of his functions as Special Envoy to Syria, and replaced him with Michael Ratney, a specialist of both the Near East and communications. His main task will be to keep an eye on General Allen.

Turkey enters into civil war

Presently, the actions of the Turkish army against the PKK in Iraq and Syria have no legal justification in international law. Both governments have denounced attacks on their territory. From the US pont of view, the PKK and the Syrian Arab Army in other words, the army of the Republic - are the only ground forces capable of confronting Daesh. The resumption of the war against the Kurdish minority illustrates the AKP's desire to continue the implementation of the « Juppé-Wright plan », even after the partial withdrawal of Qatar and France.However, one fundamental element has profoundly changed the game : Israël and Saudi Arabia, who not so long ago supported the idea of creating a Kurdistan and a Sunnistan in Iraq and Syria, are now opposed to it. Tel-Aviv and Riyadh now understand that these two new states, if they come to be, will not be controlled by them, but by a Turkey which is no longer hiding its imperial ambitions, and will become a de facto regional giant.By one of those turn-arounds of which the Near East has the secret, Israël and Saudi Arabia have reached an agreement in order to oppose President Erdoğan's folly, and also, surreptitiously, to help the PKK, despite its Marxist identity. Furthermore, Israël has already contacted the traditional enemies of Turkey, Alexis Tsípras' Greece, and Níkos Anastasiádis' Cyprus.Let there be no mistake - Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has chosen civil war as his only political exit. After losing the general election and managing to block the creation of a new government, he is now trying to scare his own people into convincing the MHP (nationalists) to support the AKP (Islamists) and form a coalition government, or call another round of general elections - and win.The anti-terrorist operation which was intended to fight both Daesh and the Kurdish population is aimed almost exclusively at the PKK and the PYG (its Syrian alter ego). The bombings which were supposedly aimed at the Islamic Emirate destroyed nothing. At the same time, Mr. Erdoğan has begun judicial enquiries against the Kurdish leaders of the HPD, Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ. For a start, the prosecution accuses them of having called for violence against non-Kurds which is ridiculous and secondly, of supporting the PYG, the militia of the Syrian Arab Republic and therefore, according to the magistrate, a terrorist organisation.The civil war which is beginning will not be the same as in the 1990's. It will be far more wide-ranging and murderous. Partly because Turkey has not one ally left outside its boundaries, and partly because the government's Islamist policies have divided its own society. Thus there will not be Turkish institutions supported by NATO on one side and Syrian-backed PKK on the other - but a fragmentation of Turkish society - secular against Islamist ; modern against traditionalist ; Alevis against Sunnites ; Kurds against Turks.

Quote:September 05, 2015

Under Fight-Against-ISIS Disguise "West" Prepares To Openly Attack Syria

Updated below
The German chancellor Merkel called for a migrant avalanche when she declared Germany an open house and disbanded the Dublin agreement on asylum seeker in Europe. A media campaign followed and thousands of migrants from Syria are now shepherded through Europe by dozens of journalists who record every move for tonight's news - fake photos (in German) included. No one is asking the migrants why they are now leaving Turkey, where most have been the last months or years, or who now provided them with money.
I asked what purpose this media campaign may have. It now seems clear that it is part of preparing the European public for all-out war on Syria, its government and its people.
The Guardian editors use the created migrant crisis to demand that "something" be done. They ridiculously first remind us that the false "no-fly-zone" campaign against Libya ended in a country ripped apart and more refugees only to then demand a similar campaign in Syria. Saner British voices remind us that "western" meddling in the Middle East is the source, not the solution for the current catastrophes.
But the BBC lets us know that the UK government is preparing for war on Syria despite an earlier parliament vote against such a move:

Ministers will start to make a case for British military action in Syria next week - with Downing Street keen to take the "next step" against so-called Islamic State - the BBC understands.

France is, of course, on board:

Europe's refugee crisis, largely caused by vast numbers of people fleeing the civil war in Syria, the failure to push back Islamic State and a rising presence of Russia in the region may prompt a change in policy, Le Monde reported, saying Hollande discussed the issue with his defence team at a meeting on Friday.

The campaign will be "led" by the U.S. and it will not be against the Islamic State. The U.S. let the Islamic State rise in a willful decision and its current bombing campaign against IS is less than halfhearted at best. It is also holding back the Shia militia in Iraq from attacking the Islamic State in Ramadi and Fallujah. The coming attack will be against the Syrian government and its people with the Islamic State and the "refugee crisis" only being the convenient pretext.
To add to the artificial urgency to bomb now, now, now a rumor campaign was started to claim that Russia is sending lots of fighter planes and troops to Syria. There were "reports" of new Russian fighter jets arriving in Syria even though none were ever seen. A normal move of material transport for the Syrian army by Russian ships which have happened regularly over the last years is now suddenly hyped. Old social media pictures of a few Russian soldiers in Syria ore even fake ones are suddenly "found" and presented as "evidence" of somehow nefarious Russian intent. The Russians denied any move of fighter jets or troop contingents to Syria.
The Russians also held talks with various Syrian opposition figures and with several of Syria's neighbor countries. Putin has voiced a new plan that would include Syria and Russia into an anti-Islamic State campaign and thereby sabotage the U.S. regime change plans:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has agreed to early parliamentary elections and to share some power with his opponents, a concession that may facilitate a broader international coalition against Islamic State, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.Russia would consider participating in the coalition and the Russian president has already discussed the issue with U.S. President Barack Obama, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi, Putin told reporters in Vladivostok on Friday. Russia has been pushing for a wider campaign against Islamic State that would include Assad, something the U.S. and Europe have opposed.

The U.S. has not issued any official response to the plan. It would of course make a lot of sense to have the Syrian government and Russia included in any real steps against the Islamic State. By publicly announcing the plan Russia shows that the U.S. is indeed not interested in really fighting the Islamic State but follows its long term plans to destroy Syria.
Putin also denied the rumored troop movements:

"It's too early" to talk about Russian military action in Syria, though "we are considering various options," Putin said. Russia is actively helping the Assad government with weapons and military training, he said.

I regard Putin's "considering various options" as a warning clause. But I do not expect that Russia would fully engage in Syria. Russia correctly fears another "Afghanistan trap" laid by the U.S. But there might be other options available for Russia to beef up Syria's air defense or to otherwise sabotage U.S. attack plans. For now sowing fears and doubt into U.S. planning is the best way to proceed.
Update:
The State Department just released this Readout of Secretary Kerry's Call With Foreign Minister Lavrov:

The Secretary called Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning to discuss Syria, including U.S. concerns about reports suggesting an imminent enhanced Russian military build-up there. The Secretary made clear that if such reports were accurate, these actions could further escalate the conflict, lead to greater loss of innocent life, increase refugee flows and risk confrontation with the anti-ISIL Coalition operating in Syria.The two agreed that discussions on the Syrian conflict would continue in New York later this month.

Would "risk confrontation with the anti-ISIL Coalition operating in Syria". Exactly. And that makes some folks in the White House and Pentagon really nervous.
So nervous that Kerry offers more "discussions".
"Hey Sergey, you can't be serious. Oh, you are? Please let's talk."

Quote:Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines


U.N. chemical weapons experts visit people affected by an apparent gas attack, at a hospital in the southwestern Damascus suburb of Mouadamiya. Photograph: Stringer/Reuters STRINGER/REUTERSNafeez Ahmed
Friday 30 August 201317.11 BSTLast modified on Thursday 22 May 201404.20 BST

On 21 August, hundreds - perhaps over a thousand - people were killed in a chemical weapon attack in Ghouta, Damascus, prompting the US, UK, Israel and France to raise the spectre of military strikes against Bashir al Assad's forces.
The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict that has increasingly taken on genocidal characteristics. The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom have been killed by Assad's troops. An estimated 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. International observers haveoverwhelmingly confirmed Assad's complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear.
Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain dividedon whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad's arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.
Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.
In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.
Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"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."

Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate "on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf." Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:

"One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations."

The RAND document contextualised this disturbing strategy with surprisingly prescient recognition of the increasing vulnerability of the US's key allies and enemies - Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Iran - to a range of converging crises: rapidly rising populations, a 'youth bulge', internal economic inequalities, political frustrations, sectarian tensions, and environmentally-linked water shortages, all of which could destabilise these countries from within or exacerbate inter-state conflicts.
The report noted especially that Syria is among several "downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow", increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an 'Arab Spring', it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region's growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.
These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. 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.
What is beyond doubt is that Assad is a war criminal whose government deserves to be overthrown. The question is by whom, and for what interests?
Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

Magda Hassan Wrote:Bulgaria closed it's air space to Russian supply planes heading to Syria acting on a 'request' from USA.
http://www.rt.com/news/314719-bulgaria-airspace-russia-syria/