Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[give her dixie]

Robert Fisk: Once Washington made the Middle East tremble – now no one there takes it seriously

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-once-washington-made-the-middle-east-tremble--nowno-one-there-takes-it-seriously-8793321.html

[give her dixie]

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

[muppet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#History

Interesting read that.

Sarin was invented by the Germans at the start of WWII.

One of the first people known to be killed by Sarin was a British Engineer. The British enquiry ruled 'death by misadventure' in 1953. In 2004 that verdict was overturned and changed to 'unlawful killing'. (What is it with the Brits and getting their original enquiries all wrong?).

Later Sarin was used by Saddam in 1988, to kill 5,000 Kurds and then against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. But Saddam was still 'good Saddam' then, mainly because he was gassing Iranians and his other activities thus were misdemeanours.

[seafoid]

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

That's why there has been no new treaty on chemical weapons for a very long time.
The West can use them at will.
It's the same reason the Yanks won't ratify the International Criminal Court. Hypocrisy. 

[seafoid]

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/02/janice-hahn-on-potential-u-s-engagement-in-syria-i-just-am-not-convinced-that-we-ought-to-rush-in-and-use-military-force/

The Israeli lobby gets off the fence

http://www.aipac.org/en/news-hub?id=%7B1F8ECED7-E27D-47D7-9015-4F606E787E97%7D#

Israel wants this war

[muppet]

This is Golum's take on it, and he leaves Israel out of it, for the moment.

It is long and only 2 of 3 parts are complete. But anyone who is remotely interested should take the time to read it all.

http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/09/syria-cui-bono/

Syria – Cui bono? Part 1

by Golem XIV on SEPTEMBER 1, 2013 in LATEST
Once again the current rulers of the USA have decided some little dusky-brown skinned people need to be saved from some other dusky-brown skinned people. Once again they'll be saving them by bombing. Carefully, of course, and with every effort made to kill only the bad brown ones and not the good brown ones, and in a strictly limited numbers. It's going to be another one of those Shock, Awe and Mutilate humanitarian gestures by a regime which specializes in them. Never, I think, has any regime been so consistently 'called upon by history' and its own 'moral beliefs' to save so many people so often in such an explosive manner.

A NOTE ON REGIME v GOVERNMENT –  I have noticed that when our leaders approve of the people running a country those people get called 'the government' while those they do not approve of seem to get called 'the regime' instead. And of course our ever compliant and rarely questioning media always obligingly use whichever term is fed to them allowing the manipulation to go unchallenged. The regime/government difference has nothing to do with democratic or not – Saudi is not democratic but is always either 'the rulers of' or 'the government of', but never 'the regime'. So I thought I would simply reverse the manipulation for a while to see how it feels.

The run up to the Iraq war was based on telling lies. This time the run up to war is based on trying to ensure no one asks 'Why', 'What for' and 'Cui Bono' (Who benefits)?

The use of limited questions

The regimes in America, Britain and France want you to fixate on a simple question – did the Assad regime use chemical weapons? And they want to convince you that the answer to this question is of purely moral importance to them. As deeply moral and caring people – and a nobel peace prize winner himself – Mr Obama wants to establish that unlike other people, other 'regimes', he and his democratic government, his "Shining City on the Hill" to quote President Reagan's famous speech, have no grubbier motives, no hidden agenda or real politik policy objectives. Our enemies, the 'evil doers' may have ulterior motives – in fact they always do. We don't. We are simple moral crusaders – sorry, not crusdaers,err.. liberators! Yes, that's it.

To this end Mr Obama declared in August 2012, that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a 'Red Line'. The Red Line idea caught on. A month later Mr Netanyahu used it and drew his own Red Line in a speech at the UN about Iran's quest for nuclear technology. 'Red Lines', 'Lines in the Sand', plus ca change. "Change you can believe in"?  Kiss my arse!

Why are lines in the sand and red lines so popular? They make the world a simple place. If you can accept them they enclose you in a world where there are no complex criss-crossing of motives and policies, no need to wonder 'who benefits?' There are just clear lines, with right on one side and wrong on the other. They are easy to get into a sound bite, visually memorable and easy for a compliant media to sell to the hard-of-thinking. What is not to like, when you want to have people forget to ask any questions?

And our media have talked about virtually nothing else but these red lines and whether we have proof or not that they have been crossed. They have been so focused on this quest for proof they have offered nearly no deeper analysis. A simple cover has been pulled over all the real complexities of who is after what.

Of course having proof sounds so right. Who could argue with it? The problem is that in the real world proof in human affairs is often so elusive that the  quest for it quickly degenerates into claim and counter-claim. What I belive we are in danger of losing sight of, as a result of this insistence on proof, is analysis. Proof that some action or event took place does not guarantee that you understand WHY it happened. For that you need analysis. But I have begun to feel that our governments don't like analysis because anyone can do it. It is democratic. Whereas insisting on proof is a convenient thing for those who claim to have it but cannot show it to us because it is too...secret.

It seems ot me that those same people who insist on proof have taken to dismissing any analysis they don't like as 'conspiracy theory'. In fact I wonder if analysis as a whole is being slowly demonized as conspiracy. I want to argue that proof is great where you can get it. But to make a fetish of it and forget analysis is to surrender to authority. It is not proof we need but understanding.

What is being covered over?

1) History

The US regime says it now has proof of chemical weapons use and who used them and therefore, according to Secretary of State- John Kerry, quoted in The Guardian,

"We can not accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale,.."

Which sticks in the throat a little. Formerly classified documents seen by Foreign Policy Magazine show very clearly that the American military and intelligence machine has been quite happy to see chemical weapons used when those using them were their allies – as was the case in the 1980′s when the US smiled upon Sadam Hussein's use of gas against the Iranians.

From Foreign Policy's excellent article,

Top CIA officials, including the Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, a close friend of President Ronald Reagan, were told about the location of Iraqi chemical weapons assembly plants; that Iraq was desperately trying to make enough mustard agent to keep up with frontline demand from its forces; that Iraq was about to buy equipment from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds and bombs; and that Iraq could also use nerve agents on Iranian troops and possibly civilians.

Thousands of Iranian troops died. And when the same weapons were used again in 1988, this time to gas Iraqi civilians, there was not a murmur of moral concern in the regimes in America and Europe. A friend of mine was one of the scientists who did the work on those gas attacks and remembers the indifference and denial.

But of course today the gas attacks are by a someone our rulers no longer like and therefore, in Mr Kerry's mind,

"History will judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turn a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction,.."

Funny how history in America is always very closely aligned with American foreign policy. Anyway, Mr Kerry said he would present a compelling case, which was supposed to be in the document released along with his speach. Only the document is long on assertion of who was responsible and mostly devoid of actual proof.

Mr Kerry and the regime he serves are nevertheless quite certain. History, apparently is also certain. British intelligence is not. The document compiled by the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee said, there was only

...some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack,..a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks.

Perhaps I am missing it but nothing in that shouts 'Proof'.

2) confusing proof of use with proof of perpetrator

Let's be clear. Proof that chemical weapons were used is quite different from proof of who used them. The former is a questions of chemical residues. The latter requires eyewitnesses,  photographs or video showing who used them or a confesssion from those who used them. Nothing else is proof.

Falling short of actual proof you can offer a case based on showing who had the means, the opportunity and the motive. But of course all that pulls back the cover of the simple 'ask no questions and  offer no analysis' and opens up a real debate.

So what do we know?  Early on there were reports of chemical attacks. The US was quick to seize upon them. At the time the video evidence did not suggest organophosphates (Sarin and other modern gases are organophosphates). The most tell tale thing to look for is pin-point pupils. In the early attacks the videos showed lots of distressing frothing and choking but not pin-point pupils. There were reports from people in the affected areas saying they smelt Chlorine. So it seemed likely that someone got their hands on industrial chemicals including chlorine and perhaps other nasty chemicals such as insecticides and simply used them in home made mortars and rocket payloads.

More recently videos have shown adults and children dying and some of them did appear to have pin-point pupils. Obviously a less ambiguous proof would be an actual sample, which should be possible to get. When Sarin breaks down, one of the residues produced is  isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA), which is specific only to Sarin. Find it and you have proof Sarin was used. The French say they have such samples from as long ago as April. Brought to them, they say, by journalists working in Syria for the French newspaper Le Monde. The French claim they have a full audit trail of who had the samples and where and so can guarantee the samples were not tampered with. The French may be telling the truth or they could have tampered with the samples to get the result they wanted. The French have a very definite agenda and interest which I'll come back to.

For what it's worth the French let the UK Chemical Warfare group at Porton Down test the samples and they concurred the tests showed positive for IMPA.

The only reliable non-government agency on the ground in Syria that has spoken up is Medicins Sans Frontieres. They have by far the most people on the ground who see and treat the actual casualties and have the best relationships with local hospitals and doctors and are, in my opion a trustworthy oragnization.

In a press release on 24th August 2013 they said,

MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack," said Dr Janssens. "However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.

So some sort of neurotoxic agent has probably been used and if we believe the French it was Sarin. But no one has proof of WHO was responsable. That is what Mr Kerry and the Obama regime should have said but didn't.

3) Various groups might have been responsible.

We don't have proof so we should proceed carefully as a good detective would do – Means, Opportunity and Motive.

The Assad government.

They have the means. They are one of the few countries which have not signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Five countries have not signed at all, two have signed but never ratified. The two are Israel and Burma, the five are Syria, Egypt, South Sudan, North Korea and Angola.

Chemical weapons are far simpler to use than nuclear or biological. They are the poor man's mass and indiscrimiate murder weapon. They can be delivered by most means, from mortar to missile. All you need to do is be careful not to break the container while you are still handling it, make sure the wind disperses it where you want it (simple enough if you fire it far enough away from your own side) and make sure the explosion disperses but does not destroy the chemical.

In Syria the delivery may have been by plane, missile/rocket or mortar. There have been several claims of unguided missile attacks in the past and the US document concentrates on a recent rocket attack which it thinks was carrying a chemical payload.

Motive is the troubling bit for the Assad regime. Various experts and commentators  (see second half of article) have pointed out that it made little or no sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons which would  not achieve any decisive military objective but would certainly bring down international condemnation upon their heads and would cross Mr Obama's red line. Of course someone, senior or junior, still could have.

The Rebels

Back in May the US regime (gets to be insulting doesn't it) was already claiming Assad's forces were using chemical weapons. So it was an almighty embarrasment when a former Swiss Atorney-General, Carla Del Ponte, now a member of a UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria that had been working in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and people working in field hospitals, said they felt there was growing evidence of gas attacks but by rebel forces. Reuters quoted her and the Obama regime was in danger of looking like what it was.

Since then the US has just ignored the UN evidence.

Some time later RT reported that Assad's forces had found a storehouse of rebel chemicals which it suggested was proof of rebel chemical use. In my opnion it was just a poor piece of propaganda. The report said there were "toxic substances" including Chlorine, "corrosive substances", which, it quoted Syria's UN ambassador as saying, were

"capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country."

Capable of destroying the whole city? Unlikely. Among the bottles of chemicals the embedded video shows are bags of caustic soda. With which you could clean a whole city perhaps but not destroy it.  The article then gives the names of two other chemicals it says were found: monoethylene glycol and polyethylene glycol. The former is rated as moderately toxic. It is used as the coolant in fridges and air-conditioning. The latter is used, among other things, in laxatives and in hospitals for whole bowel irrigation. To destroy a whole city that way would be messy, smelly and traumatic, but difficult.

It seems to me that both Rebels and Assad, are aware of what a coup it would be if they had 'proof' showing the other side using gas. So far both sides have provided propaganda and asssertion rather than proof.

Do the rebels have the means to use chemical weapons? They might well do. They could have seized government stores or been supplied by others. There are plenty of claims that Saudi or Qatar have provided the rebels with chemical weapons. The most recent published on 29th August by MintPress News says the very attack the US regime blames on Assad and holds up as the atrocity over which the US will go to war, was in fact carried out by rebels who admit it was them.

The article begins,

As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week's chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

It then goes on,

...from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the deadly gas attack.

The article describes how chemical weapons were smuggled in through tunnels by rebels who did not understand what they were carrying and there was an accident.

The reporter who spoke to the rebels, families and victims on the ground in Ghouta in Syria was Yahya Ababneh. The article was written for MintPress News by Dale Gavlak, who is a freelance journalist who has in the past worked for AP. Is the report true? Or are the journalists lying or being fed lies? Sadly the endless lies of the Iraq War and the financial crisis have ensured that no one believes anyone.

I believe this means we cannot and should not hope that some report, some 'proof' is going to appear and be so conclusive that we will all accept it and all arguments will be over. I believe, therefore, our only hope for clarity is to try to understand the broader context in which all these conflicting claims and warring factions exist and focus not on 'is this or that report or claim true, do we have proof?, because we won't. Instead of looking for proof which is always elusive and always contested, we should look  for understanding.  And the key to understanding is motive, which is there just beneath the surface.

So back to Means, Opportunity and Motive.

If the rebels were given chemical weapons would they they have the means to deliver them? it's not impossible. A mortar, small artillery shell or rocket will do.

Do they have the motive?  They certainly have a far stronger motive than the Assad side. The rebels know if they can make it look as if the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, then they have given Mr Obama the excuse he needs. So they have every motive. All that would stand in their way is common humanity and care for innocent victims. Both of which are commonly in short supply in war.

So far I have been using the term 'rebels' much as our media and governments use it – lazily. The use of the term 'rebels' suggests they are a uniform bunch. It suggests they are Syrians opposed to Assad. In fact the 'rebels' are not all Syrian and though they are united in opposition to Assad they are certainly not all on the same side. They have one common enemy but serve different masters who have different agendas. And this is where we begin to do what our rulers have been keen to prevent – look at the real complexities of who is working for whom and for what advantage.



I am sorry this has been so long but I felt if I jumped straight to offering my analysis without addressing what has been claimed and how the whole issue has been carefully framed as a quest for 'proof' then my analysis would founder because people would feel I had not addressed any of the questions our masters claim are the essential ones. I felt I had to show why I felt their approach was wrong before I offered the beginnings of what I hope is better.

[muppet]

Part 2 of 3.

http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/09/syria-cui-bono-part-2-a-partial-analysis/

Syria – Cui bono Part 2 – Qatar, Saudi, Russia and Gas

by Golem XIV on SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 in LATEST
Our leaders would like you to believe that what is going on in Syria is simple – a bad man has gassed innocent victims and it is up to good people to punish him (take out his air defenses), prevent him from ever doing it again (regime change) and serve notice to other bad men (Iran) that doing really bad things (to be defined as and when) to people we like is verboten. In Simple World, the emphasis is on 'what happened'.  As if why things happen is unimportant or too obvious to be concerned about. It's 'watch the birdie' politics. Please look right here – only here. Something pops out, you're surprised, there's a flash and we all enjoy the memories.

Or you can ask 'Why?' But asking 'why' confuses the simplicity.

A Partial analysis

Some of the questions I think any analysis of what is going on in Syria has to answer:  Why is France so keen to get involved in Syria?  Why are both Qatar and Saudi supplying and supporting the 'rebels' in Syria? Given that the 'rebels' which both Qatar and Saudi are funding are largely Jabhat al- Nusra who are seen as affilated with al-Qaeda, why are the US and the West happy to allow this?

My analysis involves Qatar, Saudi and gas.

Qatar

Qatar and Saudi are rivals.  Saudi is the old hegemonic Arab power allied to the West's old hegemonic power, the USA.  Qatar is a rising power, thoroughly fed up with being held down, as they see it, by Saudi. I first wrote about their rivalry in Qatar's rising importance and power, back in Feb. 2011, in which I pointed out that while both Qatar and Saudi are Wahabi and  'Wahabism' is considered a very orthodox strand of Islam, Qatar, by comparison to Saudi is quite moderate, even liberal in a limited sense. For example Qatar funds Al Jezeera. Al Jezeera is much freer ro report on Arab affairs than any Middle Eastern state broadcaster, except that it refrains from reporting negatively on any Qatari affairs. The very existence of Al Jazeera tells you that Qatar is looking outwards and wishes to project political influence abroad.

Gas

The root of their rivalry is economic. Saudi is oil. Qatar is gas. For some time Qatar has wanted to be able to expand its gas supply to Europe, for  which it needs a pipeline. In 2009 Qatar proposed building a pipeline across Saudi to link in to the Nabucco pipeline which runs through Turkey into Europe. Qatar, already in 2009, the world's largest exporter of LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) had just finished doubling its production capacity  from the world's largest gas field, North Field, and wished to export to Europe. Saudi said no.

That left Qatar looking towards the already existing Arab Pipeline which supplies Egyptian gas to Jordan, Lebanon and SYRIA.

Qatar suggested extending this pipe across Syria to Kilis in Turkey. In 2006 Syria had in fact signed an agreement and the Russian company Stroytransgaz had got the construction contract. Suggesting that in 2006 at least, the Russians were OK with Egyptian gas coming to Turkey. But in 2009 the agreement was annulled. I can't help but wonder if Russia felt Egyptian gas to supply Turkey – which relies on gas imports – was one thing, but the prospect in 2009 of Qatar joining the party to export huge quantities of gas to Europe was quite another. Russia is the major supplier of gas to Europe and as Syria's main protector in a position to tell Syria yes or no. I think Russia had a word with Assad and suddenly Qatar was again blocked.

Politics

Qatar can't hope to change Saudi's mind or its regime, but Syria?  In 2009 perhaps that too seemed remote, but then along came the Arab Spring. And Qatar had not been idle. While Saudi has been visibly and publically cool to the popular calls for political change, greater freedoms and democracy, Qatar has been very busy placing itself as the champion of change. But not just any old change.

As The National newspaper of  Abu Dhabi put it in an article in May 2012,

Qatar's ties with the Muslim Brotherhood affect entire region

The alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar is becoming a noticeable factor in the reshaping of the Middle East. There are several striking aspects to this evolving and deepening relationship...There are strong indications of media help, political training and financial support.

The article details how Qatar has trained, promoted and funded numerous influential Muslim Brotherhood figures many of whom have been prominent in the Arab Spring's calls for change in their own countries.  It is worth noting that as a formal organization the Muslim Brotherhood does not exist in Qatar because the Qatar branch dissolved itself. It is thus very like Al Jazeera in that it is active in every other Muslim country but refrains from agitating in Qatar.

That Qatar's growing regional influence is seen as a direct challenge to Saudi is clear in an article in Al Monitor, (which calls itself the Pulse of the Middle East),

Qatar Encroaches on Saudi Influence
In Yemen

It is worth noting that Al Monitor was founded by a Syrian born American millionare Jamal Daniel, who now lives in Texas and has close ties to former US Presidents, George Bush Sr and George W Bush. Al Monitor is liked and quoted by many mainstrean American media outlets.

According to the Al Monitor article,

Qatar's role in Yemen can be likened to breathing air. Its effects are visible without it being palpable. Yet, it sometimes gains exceptional prominence such as when Qatar funded the establishment of a Yemeni television station affiliated with one of the Muslim Brotherhood's factions in Yemen: the Yemen Youth Channel.

In keeping with Al Monitor's political leanings towards the America and Saudi axis, the article warns,

...Qatar succeeded in penetrating Yemeni political affairs, disregarding all previously established rules of political action there, and giving itself the ability to greatly and dangerously affect Yemeni and Saudi affairs.

Qatar has been a major funder and supporter of The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) not only in Yemen but in all the uprisings across North Africa from Tunis, to Libya and Egypt. In Libya the Muslim Brotherhood was fairly small and not, at first, in the van of the revolution. But once Qatari money began to flow the MB's influence has grown. Much to the concern of the US and Europe. In Egypt, Qatar has backed the Muslim Brotherhood from the start and was instrumental in their electoral organization and victory. A victory which did not please the Americans or the Saudis.

Qatar has helped make the Muslim Brotherhood a powerful force for change across the Arab world, which in return has given Qatar huge influence and real power to rival Saudi's. Saudi has not been happy with that and the US has not been enrirely comfortable with the Muslim nature of the change envisioned by the MB. This, as the Al Monitor piece puts it, has led to,

...obvious differences in opinion it had with Riyadh concerning the current events in Egypt, which led to the Muslim Brotherhood's overthrow.

An interesting sentence you have to admit.

The Arab Spring has been a gift to Qatar. As the Muslim Brotherhood has made its power felt in every uprising, so Qatar now has influence in every country. And unlike Saudi it is largely seen as a progressive power. Of course there is opposition to its power from those who say it is meddling. As Middle East Online reports, Anti Qatar groups have sprung up in most of the countries I have mentioned. I strongly suspect the US and Saudi have been frantically funding and building those anti-Qatar groups. They are still small but expect to hear more about them in our press. The legend being put about is, 'Never Mind the Muslim Brotherhood connection,  Qatar is too closely aligned with the US and Israel.'

Let's now combine the politics with the gas.  Qatar has worked to become a power in its region. Which is great, but Foreign Policy tends to need more immmediate and tangible goals, not just getting nice nation of the year award.

Gas and Politics

Libya has untapped gas reserves, possibly very large ones. Qatar was a  financer of the uprising and of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt has gas and the Arab pipeline. Qatar was and is a major funder and supporter of the Egyptian MB. The Arab pipeline was built and supervised largely  by Egyptian construction companies largely owned and controlled by the Egyptian army. In Egypt the real business of the army is business.  It is Egypt's largest and most powerful business conglomerate. Qatar would like the MB in power but also needs the friendship and cooperation of the army. It will be interesting to see what compromise can be reached. Qatar will surely be pushing for one, even as the US pushes against it.

So Qatar has now got major influence across its region, on the side of the vocal and ascendant forces for change and can offer those forces something valuable. Qatar is rich and has gas it wants to sell. Egypt would profit from helping Qatar to shift it. In fact anyone aligned with Qatar could profit.

Which brings us to Syria.

Assad, possibly with Russian persuasion has said 'no' to Qatar's pipeline connection to Turkey and from there onwards to Europe. It's easy to see why Russia would object. Russia's Gazprom makes lots of money and Russia itself wields enormous power over Europe because so many European nations rely on its gas. I'll come back to Europe and its gas needs in part three.

To make matters worse just after Assad's government refused the Qatar/Turkey plan (which Turkey was very keen on), as The Guardian reported,

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  [My emphasis]

This was a deal almost designed to start a war. It scuppers Qatar's hopes. So cue Qatari interest in removing Assad. The deal would give Iran a direct line to Europe to sell its own gas. Cue American anger at Iran (axis of Evil) getting a crowbar of energy needs between America and Europe which would torpedo America's 'isolate and destroy Iran' policy. And finally, since the outlet for this 'Islamic' pipeline was supposed to be in Lebanon NOT Turkey, cue Turkey to split with Assad who until that time it had been supporting. So now you have Turkey agitating for war and for removing Assad.

If nothing were done about Assad, his Russian allies and their decision, Qatar would be stymied while Russia for its part would have ensured that any gas coming in to Europe, not belonging to them, was coming from one of its allies which also happens to be the major thorn in the side of America's neo con hawks.

So time for a revolution. Which requires Assad to show his true evil..ness. Cue chemical attacks.  As I said in part one it could be someone from Assad's side using chemicals but it makes very little sense. Assad gains nothing and potentially loses everything.

Supporting Syria's rebels

So what does all this mean for Syria? As far as I can see it means half a dozen countries have huge and conflicting financial and political interest in trying to make sure whoever is governing Syria in a year's time is pro their particular needs. Whatever else, Simple World it is not.

Russia wants Assad to stay. Qatar would like him replaced with  a pro-Qatar pipeline government. While Saudi doesn't really like democratic rebels of any stripe, but if Assad does go, they do NOT want Qatar to run the show and thus are trying to ensure an anti pipeline government. I do not believe anyone is primarily moved by humanitarian interests, or particularly concerned with the fate of Syrian civilians, nor particularly outraged about the use of gas. None of the countries in the region shouted loudly when Iraq used gas.

Qatar was the first country to 'champion' the uprising and has been the major funder of rebel forces in Syria from the start. According to the FT quoted by Zerohedge,

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government,...

Three billion dollars buys a lot of influence and can create quite a network of support. I think Saudi woke up to this idea a few months ago and recently started to buy its own influence. As the FT notes, Qatar

...is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

The Saudis will obviously want a post Assad government to be anti the Qatar pipeline. What is emerging in Syria is what we had in Lebanon – a boiling pot of conflicting and shifting allegeance. What we can be sure of is that in Syria the 'rebels' are not one group and not fighting shoulder to shoulder for the same outcome. We know already there are  ordinary Syrians who have taken up arms,  plus a large Muslim Brotherhood and  then of course foreign Islamists radicals, the largest group of whom are known as Jabhat al-Nusrah which is affiliated with al-Qaeda.

A vivid example of the real nature of the West's mythic 'rebels' was apparent in a story run by MintPress News a week ago, about who might have supplied the chemical weapons that killed so many people in the attacks last week.

"My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry," said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abu Abdel-Moneim lives in Ghouta, so he is a Syrian. But who had supplied the weapons his son was asked to carry?

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a "tube-like structure" while others were like a "huge gas bottle."  [My emphasis]

Now we have Saudi paid 'rebels' who are calling the shots because they are the ones who have the weapons. Are they all rebels together in one happy, peace seeking opposition?

"They didn't tell us what these arms were or how to use them," complained a female fighter named 'K.' "We didn't know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons."

"When Saudi Prince Bandar [Saudi Arabia's Intelligence Chief] gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them," she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named 'J' agreed. "Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material," he said.

"We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions," 'J' said.

Even if you chose to believe the story itself is fabricated I think the picture it paints of the real nature of the 'rebels' is accurate. The 'rebels' are divided against each other serving different paymasters intent on quite different outcomes. Regime change will rid Syria of one unpleasant man only to open the door for a whole group of similarly unpleasant men.

That is my partial analysis of the interests of Russia, Qatar and Saudi.  In part three I will wrap it up by looking at what Europe, the USA and Israel hope to get out of Syria.

[theskull1]

But these articles are almost implying that national economic interests are all that these players are interested in. Itchy...tell this man its about a bad man doing bad things and we're only interested in giving him a rap his knuckles.   

[Franko]

I have been following this debate quite closely and as I have said before - I dont really know what is the side of right here.  However, the (almost universally agreed) fact of the matter is that a lunatic head of state has used chemical weapons to kill his own citizens.  Now, I'm not naive enough to think that the Americans are on some sort of noble crusade to help the people of Syria but surely something has to be done about this?  Debating over who is to blame and and what each country's agenda is is not doing any practical good for the people who are getting gassed in their homes.

I asked this before and nobody could give me an answer.  Could some of the people who are putting themselves forward as the foremost experts on the politics of the area tell the rest of us what they believe should happen?  (Seafoid - an 'International Peace Conference' is, IMO, a wishy washy cliche and not a practical short-term option).

I don't think an armed intervention is necessarily the right thing to do but I'm getting fed up listening to the incessant and almost rabid attacks on every move the Americans make by people who never seem to put forward any sort of credible alternative.

[muppet]

I have been following this debate quite closely and as I have said before - I dont really know what is the side of right here.  However, the (almost universally agreed) fact of the matter is that a lunatic head of state has used chemical weapons to kill his own citizens.  Now, I'm not naive enough to think that the Americans are on some sort of noble crusade to help the people of Syria but surely something has to be done about this?  Debating over who is to blame and and what each country's agenda is is not doing any practical good for the people who are getting gassed in their homes.

I asked this before and nobody could give me an answer.  Could some of the people who are putting themselves forward as the foremost experts on the politics of the area tell the rest of us what they believe should happen?  (Seafoid - an 'International Peace Conference' is, IMO, a wishy washy cliche and not a practical short-term option).

I don't think an armed intervention is necessarily the right thing to do but I'm getting fed up listening to the incessant and almost rabid attacks on every move the Americans make by people who never seem to put forward any sort of credible alternative.

Since you obviously didn't read the above, here is more:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

From.....

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on 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.

[theskull1]

As has been pointed out .... the Assad regime would have to be completely stupid to use chemical weapons as they would know that armed intervention from outside forces would come about. You have to admit it doesn't smell right.

As is always the case ....following the money is they way to get to some sort of truth about this sorry state of affairs.

No one gives a flying fcuk abut human rights in all of this so don't be sucked in by that one

[muppet]

As has been pointed out .... the Assad regime would have to be completely stupid to use chemical weapons as they would know that armed intervention from outside forces would come about. You have to admit it doesn't smell right.

As is always the case ....following the money is they way to get to some sort of truth about this sorry state of affairs.

No one gives a flying fcuk abut human rights in all of this so don't be sucked in by that one

It is amazing how effective 'Won't someone think of the children?" reporting is.

Syria is at the crossroads of a lot of criss-crossing and conflicting oil/gas agendas.

It marks the intersection of Iran's oil with Turkey & Europe, Saudi oil with the same and this explains why Europe's main gas supplier, Russia would get involved. Golum XIV brilliantly outlines the rise of Abu Dhabi's influence (of which I had absolutely no idea - I need to find better news outlets) and vested interests in all of this (Qatar - $3Bn spent arming 'the Rebels') and also in Egypt. Then there is China in the background. Put all of that into a bubbling cauldron and you would have a recipe for multiple proxy wars before you even look at the USA and Israel's interests.

Suddenly it seems completely appropriate that talks would be taking place at the G20 and not the UN.

[stew]

I have been following this debate quite closely and as I have said before - I dont really know what is the side of right here.  However, the (almost universally agreed) fact of the matter is that a lunatic head of state has used chemical weapons to kill his own citizens.  Now, I'm not naive enough to think that the Americans are on some sort of noble crusade to help the people of Syria but surely something has to be done about this?  Debating over who is to blame and and what each country's agenda is is not doing any practical good for the people who are getting gassed in their homes.

I asked this before and nobody could give me an answer.  Could some of the people who are putting themselves forward as the foremost experts on the politics of the area tell the rest of us what they believe should happen?  (Seafoid - an 'International Peace Conference' is, IMO, a wishy washy cliche and not a practical short-term option).

I don't think an armed intervention is necessarily the right thing to do but I'm getting fed up listening to the incessant and almost rabid attacks on every move the Americans make by people who never seem to put forward any sort of credible alternative.

+1

[Franko]

I have been following this debate quite closely and as I have said before - I dont really know what is the side of right here.  However, the (almost universally agreed) fact of the matter is that a lunatic head of state has used chemical weapons to kill his own citizens.  Now, I'm not naive enough to think that the Americans are on some sort of noble crusade to help the people of Syria but surely something has to be done about this?  Debating over who is to blame and and what each country's agenda is is not doing any practical good for the people who are getting gassed in their homes.

I asked this before and nobody could give me an answer.  Could some of the people who are putting themselves forward as the foremost experts on the politics of the area tell the rest of us what they believe should happen?  (Seafoid - an 'International Peace Conference' is, IMO, a wishy washy cliche and not a practical short-term option).

I don't think an armed intervention is necessarily the right thing to do but I'm getting fed up listening to the incessant and almost rabid attacks on every move the Americans make by people who never seem to put forward any sort of credible alternative.

Since you obviously didn't read the above, here is more:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

From.....

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on 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.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/07/barack-obama-syria-iraq

From the same newspaper. The EU seems to be broadly in agreement that Assad was responsible. Thats 550 odd million people. Still, I suppose the unnamed, 'experts' in the article helped you to dodge the question again.

[muppet]

I have been following this debate quite closely and as I have said before - I dont really know what is the side of right here.  However, the (almost universally agreed) fact of the matter is that a lunatic head of state has used chemical weapons to kill his own citizens.  Now, I'm not naive enough to think that the Americans are on some sort of noble crusade to help the people of Syria but surely something has to be done about this?  Debating over who is to blame and and what each country's agenda is is not doing any practical good for the people who are getting gassed in their homes.

I asked this before and nobody could give me an answer.  Could some of the people who are putting themselves forward as the foremost experts on the politics of the area tell the rest of us what they believe should happen?  (Seafoid - an 'International Peace Conference' is, IMO, a wishy washy cliche and not a practical short-term option).

I don't think an armed intervention is necessarily the right thing to do but I'm getting fed up listening to the incessant and almost rabid attacks on every move the Americans make by people who never seem to put forward any sort of credible alternative.

Since you obviously didn't read the above, here is more:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

From.....

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on 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.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/07/barack-obama-syria-iraq

From the same newspaper. The EU seems to be broadly in agreement that Assad was responsible. Thats 550 odd million people. Still, I suppose the unnamed, 'experts' in the article helped you to dodge the question again.

A British Baroness may speak for you, but she does not speak for me.

Did you miss this bit: "...and says it was probably carried out by the Syrian government."

Probably?

Did you also read this at all: "...She said information from a wide variety of sources had confirmed the chemical attack and "seems to indicate strong evidence that the Syrian regime is responsible" as it is the only party "that possesses chemical weapons agents and the means of their delivery in a sufficient quantity".

Break this sentence down.

"..She said information from a wide variety of sources had confirmed the chemical attack..."

No one is disputing this. So what the very authoritative sounding 'wide variety of sources' had to say is not in question.

Then she says: "....seems to indicate strong evidence that the Syrian regime is responsible..."

Read that over and over. ...seems to indicate... on the one hand   ...strong evidence... on the other. This is political speak which 'seems' to say a lot, but ultimately says very little.

Finally she said this: "as it is the only party "that possesses chemical weapons agents and the means of their delivery in a sufficient quantity".

This is patently untrue. The rebels have been supported by a motley crew of Saudis, Qataris and who knows who else. All of these have the resources to create and deliver (a mortar would do it) the offending attack.