"I urge Europe to do more. After WW2 it was Europeans seeking the world's assistance." Ban Ki-Moon 2009 Secretary-General of UN
Re-construction by 'Disaster Capitalism' doctrine: War or Civil-Uprising (open-ended war by proxy) is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war or revolutions that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate "economic shock treatment". Its a variation on Machiavelli's advice that "injuries" should be inflicted "all at once"; meaning the status-quo can be changed, only through an actual or perceived crisis. Naomi Klein
People sincerely seemed to believe that, simply by replacing Mubarak, Egypt’s multitudinous problems would be solved. No one really said how any of these problems would be solved, there was just a general assumption that they would be. You did not need a particularly active imagination to look at Egypt, a country with a poor, under-educated, unskilled, and rapidly growing population, and see the potential for trouble. In fact given the shambolic state of Egypt’s economy, its yawning religious cleavages, and the immaturity of its political institutions, it would have been nothing less than a miracle if the post-Mubarak iteration of the country hadn’t ended in total disaster. Few of the brave young men and women behind the Arab Spring have been willing to publicly admit the possibility of a link between their revolutions, which were organic and home-grown, had anything to do with the wars.
Qatar hosts the US’s biggest military air base in the region, while maintaining cordial relations with Iran; it held contacts with Israel while simultaneously backing the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hizbollah. Whether in terms of armaments or financial support for dissidents, diplomatic manoeuvring or lobbying, Qatar has been in the lead, readily disgorging its gas-generated wealth in the pursuit of the downfall of the House of Assad.
“Khawalid is a term used in Bahrain to describe an ultraconservative faction within the Royal Family who trace their lineage back to Khaled bin Ali al-Khalifa, who in the 1920s was the powerful younger brother of the then Emir. He led a brutal crackdown against a Shi’a uprising and was imprisoned by the British. His supporters were known for their intense dislike of the island’s majority Shi’a population and spent much of the late twentieth century outside the corridors of power. But key Khawalid figures have managed to get into senior positions within the Royal Family and in recent years appear to have sidelined figures who are more sympathetic to economic and political reform such as the Crown Prince Salman bin Hamed al-Khalifa. “
Only once over the past two years has Israel fully condemned atrocities committed by the Assad regime, and while it has given medical help to wounded rebels on the Israeli-Syrian border, it fears an Islamist caliphate in Damascus far more than a continuation of Assad’s rule. One former Israel intelligence commander recently described Assad as “Israel’s man in Damascus”.
The Citadel of Aleppo is a large medieval fortified palace in the center of the old city of Aleppo, northern Syria. It is considered to be one of the oldest and largest castles in the world.
The 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria”, outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both Jordan and Turkey. De-linking Syria from Iran and unhinging the Resistance Bloc that Damascus and Tehran have formed has been one of the objectives of the foreign-supported anti-government militias inside Syria. This includes preventing the Iran-Iraq-Syria energy terminal from being built and ending the military pact between the two partners. Such a schism between Damascus and Tehran would change the Middle East’s strategic balance in favour of the US and Israel.
For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni-Wahabi Islamists (who killed thousands of Americans on 11th September, 2011) and all of its enemies are Shiites. The slow bleeding of Syria has other interested parties that want to smash the country and its society into pieces. Suncor Energy helped produce oil for export from Libya, but in Syria produces energy for local consumption. In reality, hostile governments are letting these companies to stay, because they siphon money out of Syria. They want to prevent any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to internal implosion in Syria. There is also clamouring for steps to be taken to de-link Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, from its Christian allies in Lebanon. The German Marshall Fund showcased a text essentially saying that the Lebanese Christians that are allies to Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran need to be presented with an alternative political narrative to replace the one where they believe that Iran will ultimately run the Middle East as a great power. Israel mounted an airstrike in 2013 that reportedly destroyed a weapons convoy leaving a Syrian army depot near the Lebanese border, widely seen as a warning to Damascus. Another of the region’s supreme ironies is that Hamas, supposedly the ‘super-terrorists’ of Gaza, have abandoned Damascus and now support the Gulf Arabs’ desire to crush Assad. Israeli airstrikes inside Syria have targeted missiles believed to be from Tehran and bound for Hezbollah.
The Turks have never got on well with the Assads, especially since the 1980s when the Assads became allies with Iran (because both Iran and the Assads were Shia and both were enemies of the Sunni minority dictatorship in Iraq that was then led by Saddam Hussein). Russia, Iran and the Assads find themselves facing (and often fighting) and informal coalition of Turkish and American troops along with SDF (predominately Kurdish rebels) and some Sunni Islamic terror groups that appear to be cooperating with the Turks. To further complicate matter the Turks want to eliminate all armed Kurdish groups west of the Euphrates River. Actually, the Turks don’t want any autonomous Kurds in northern Syria and neither does the Iran backed Syrian government. The Assads are trying to back out of their long (since the 1980s) alliance with Iran and have the backing of Russia for that. Israel believes the Assads are hostile to a permanent Iranian presence because that might lead to an Israeli invasion, which would give the Syrian rebels a boost.
The two most powerful Moslem nations in the Middle East (Turkey and Saudi Arabia) are at odds over how to deal with Syria and Iran. It works like this. For over 500 years (until the end of World War I in 1918) Turkey ruled most of the Middle East as the Ottoman Empire. This job was never popular with many Turks, who considered the Arabs troublesome subjects and not really worth the effort. So when the Turkish Empire was dissolved and a republic declared (for what is now Turkey), most Turks embraced the new arrangement. Turkey renounced its leadership of Islam and declared itself a secular state (that was composed mostly of Moslems, plus some Christians and Jews).
In the wake of that Turkish reform the Arab states became independent (after a decade or two of French and British colonial rule). After World War II (1939-45) rapidly growing demand for oil (which Arabia had lots of) made many Arab states (especially Saudi Arabia) quite rich. The Saud family had taken over most of Arabia in the 1920s and formed a kingdom for the express purpose of safeguarding the primary Moslem holy places in Mecca and Medina. The Saudi royalty tried to use this to become the leader of Islam but found that most Moslems politely ignored them. There was no denying the huge oil reserves (the largest in the world) the Saudis had, and gradually that became quite a lot of power.
While the Turks and Saudis (and about 80% of Moslems) were Sunni, the Iranians (and 10% of Moslems) belonged to the Shia sect (which conservative Sunnis considered heretics). In the 1980s Shia clerics in Iran managed to form a religious dictatorship and proclaimed a worldwide Islamic revolution (which most of the word, including Moslems, ignored). The Shia clerics in Iran saw themselves as more worthy guardians of the most holy religious sites in Mecca and Media. The Saudis, and most Moslems, did not agree.
The Iranians are still at it and are being quietly supported by Turkey (a traditional and ancient enemy). Although Turkey has been ruled by a moderate Sunni Islamic party for the last decade, the Turks don’t feel they should take sides in some Sunni-Shia conflict. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab oil states feel threatened by a militant Iran. Turkey sees itself as the only adult power in the region and deserving of resuming a major leadership role (without the old imperial burden of actually administering and policing all the people in the region). The Arabs are not keen on this, as they have bitter memories of the harsh Turkish rule. There’s also the ethnic factor. Islam was created by Arabs and while all Moslems are supposed to be equal, many devout Arab Moslems believe they should be a bit more equal.
The Turks are trying to demonstrate their new statesmanship by achieving peace in Syria without enraging the Iranians or handing Syria over to Islamic terrorists. At the same time the so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria. According to the Turkish and Lebanese media, France had sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria. The Saudis feel the Turks don’t know what they are dealing with. The Syrian rebels would appreciate some more Turkish help in overthrowing the current pro-Iranian Syrian government.
However, the move had been opposed from the outset by Germany and Scandinavian countries as well as by Baroness Ashton, the British head of EU foreign affairs. "There is no shortage of arms in Syria," said Jean Asselborn, the Luxembourger Foreign Minister. The Turks are reluctant to get too directly involved lest Arabs get upset over a return of the old Turkish (Ottoman) Empire in the form of Turkish troops in Syria. Currently the Turks feel the Syrian government will eventually fall. The Arabs would prefer to see this happen sooner rather than later. But, unlike the Turks (who have one of the two, next to Israel, most powerful military forces in the region) the Arabs are unable to just march in and overthrow the Syrian government. This rankles the Arabs but it’s just the way things are (and have been for a long time).
Turkey, which has and could again dominate the region, doesn’t want to do it via force. Iran, which wants to turn all of the Middle East into part of its new Islamic empire, doesn’t have the military might to do this. Decades of sanctions have left Iranian forces weak, which is why Iran is so eager to have nuclear weapons. The Arab states have not been a major military power for over 600 years and are nowhere near to regaining the power they had in the distant past. Reality, resentments, and unrealistic aspirations all conspire to create what passes for politics in the Middle East. All this misdirection and posturing also tends to give the Islamic terrorists a free ride and a degree of sanctuary. For centuries it was customary to shelter rebels and terrorists from neighboring states and try to use these zealots as one of your own diplomatic and military tools. The more lucid zealots figured out how this went and sort-of went along. Think of it as another local tradition that just won’t go away.
But the break-up of Syria's opposition, got splintered into hundreds of armed groups, and worsens the dilemma faced by the West as they arm rebels which ends up in the hands of hostile Islamist militants. The head of the Islamic State of Iraq, announcement that al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq had also formally merging with Nusra to form the ISIL. He had financial support from private donors in Arab Gulf countries and from al Qaeda's global support network. Perhaps Saudi Arabia and Qatar were looking to create oil and gas pipelines through Syria to the Mediterranean and beyond into Europe in order to muscle into Russia's energy market. Moreover, Turkey and Israel play a major strategic role in "protecting" the Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridor.
While Iran’s allies in Damascus have been weighed down, its allies in Baghdad have not. After Syria, the same conglomerate of countries working against Damascus will turn their attention to Iraq. They have already started working to galvanize Iraq further on the basis of its sectarian and political fault lines. Turkey, and the Sunni Muslim countries - Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are playing prominent roles in this objective. Qatar was dominate during the Syrian uprising. In the years before the Arab uprisings, Qatar had cultivated its role as a mediator, capable of talking to all sides on the divisions that polarised the Middle East. Qatar has rapidly become a major power broker across the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) region. Ironically, although the relationship between Riyadh and Doha has long been characterised by mutual suspicion, in many ways they have worked very closely on Syria.
All the talk about lethal chemical gas (2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) is being used to justify the deployment of NATO’s missiles on the borders of Syria. There was deployment of the Patriot missiles shield in Jordan and Turkey under the Orwellian pretext of protecting Jordanian and Turkey’s skies from a Syrian attack. Even through the last thing that the government in Syria will do is attack Jordan or Turkey. But Russia is trying to project power to deter a Libya-style intervention in Syria. The port of Tartus is Russia's only remaining military outpost outside the former Soviet Union. Moscow's is trying to strengthen its hand in any talks over Syria's future and buttress its influence in the Middle East. Russians focused on the Arab Spring’s potential for economic disruption, religious conflict, and generalized political chaos.
For the Russians, of course, the ‘Middle East’ is not in the ‘east’ at all, but to the south of Moscow; and statistics are all-important. The Chechen capital of Grozny is scarcely 500 miles from the Syrian frontier. Fifteen per cent of Russians are Muslim. Six of the Soviet Union’s communist republics had a Muslim majority, 90% of whom were Sunni. And Sunnis around the world make up perhaps 85& of all Muslims. For a Russia intent on re-positioning itself across a land mass that includes most of the former Soviet Union, Sunni Islamists of the kind now fighting the Assad regime are its principal antagonists. Russia is deeply invested in the survival of the Assad regime, if not Assad himself. Russia, which supplies lots of oil and gas to Europe, would be affected by any Saudi pipelines through Syria to the Mediterranean.
Russia sold advanced Yakhont anti-ship cruise missiles to Syrian President Bashar Assad, outfitted with an advanced guidance system that makes them more effective than the older version of the missile Russia sold to Syria. Syria had ordered the coastal defense version of the Yakhont system from Russia in 2007 and received the first units in early 2011. Russia sent at least a dozen warships to its Tartus naval base in Syria, in a move partly meant to send a message to Israel and the West not to intervene militarily in the country. Russia also decided to provide advanced, long-range S-300 air defence weapons to Syria, to prevent even a limited no-fly zone far more risky for US pilots. Russia has insisted that it is within its rights to keep arming the regime as there are no UN resolutions prohibiting this. It is the Syrian regime's air defences, overhauled and upgraded with Russian help, which have been a powerful deterrent against the West declaring a "no-fly zone" or “humanitarian corridor” stretching up to 40km into Syria (as it is called in US/NATO doublespeak) of the type which, after it became a bombing campaign, brought down Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
Why are Syrians leaving their homes?
Violence: Since the Syrian civil war began, as many as 386,000 people have been killed, including nearly 14,000 children, says the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The war has become more deadly since foreign powers joined the conflict.
Collapsed infrastructure: Within Syria, healthcare, education systems, and other infrastructure have been destroyed; the economy is shattered.
Children’s safety: Syrian children — the nation’s hope for a better future — have lost loved ones, suffered injuries, missed years of schooling, and witnessed unspeakable violence and brutality. Warring parties forcibly recruit children to serve as fighters, human shields, and in support roles, according to the U.S. State Department.
Myth: Migrants or refugees are breeding at high rate and can become the majority.