The Real Reason for USAia’s War on Syria
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Jun 8 2012
Sec State Clinton is calling for an R2P humanitarian military intervention in Syria to curb the atrocities allegedly ordered by Assad. In a twisted logic, Clinton recognizes that while “opposition forces” are integrated by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, the government rather than the terrorists is held responsible, without a shred of evidence, for the ongoing massacre of civilians. Amply documented, these sectarian killings and atrocities are being committed by foreign mercenaries and militia which are armed and supported by the Western military alliance. The killings are carried out quite deliberately as part of a diabolical covert operation. The enemy is then blamed for the resulting atrocities. The objective is to justify a military agenda on humanitarian grounds. In the logic of Operation Northwoods, the killings in Syria are carried out to “create a helpful wave of indignation”, to drum up public opinion in favor of an R2P US-NATO operation against Syria. Clinton said:
The international community cannot sit idly by, and we won’t.
What lies behind this outburst of humanitarian concern by “the international community”? Is USAia coming to the rescue of the Syrian people? What is the real reason for USAia’s war on Syria? This question is addressed in a lead article by James Rubin, a Bloomberg executive editor and former State Dept official under the Clinton administration. The article appears in this month’s Foreign Policy Magazine under the clear-cut title: “The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria“. In an unusual twist, “the answer to the question”, namely “the real reason” is provided in the article’s subtitle:
Cutting Iran’s link to the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic prize worth the risk.
The subtitle should dispel in the eyes of the reader the illusion that US foreign policy has an underlying “humanitarian mandate.” Pentagon and US State Dept documents as well as independent reports confirm that military action against Syria has been contemplated by Washington and Tel Aviv for more than 20 years. According to Rubin, the war plans directed against Syria are intimately related to those pertaining to Iran. They are part of the same USraeli military agenda which consists in weakening Iran with a view to “protecting Israel.” The latter objective is to be carried out through a pre-emptive attack against Iran. Says Rubin:
We’re not done with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran.
According to Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (“a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism”), writing in the National Review on May 30, the humanitarian concern is not the primary objective but rather a means to an end:
If the Arab League is unmoved by the massacres of Syrian women and children (their angry eyes fixed as ever on Israel), and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation doesn’t give a fig about Muslims slaughtering Muslims, why should we USAians expend an ounce of energy? Because Syria, under the Assad dictatorship, is Iran’s most important ally and asset. And Iran is the single most important strategic threat facing the US, hands down.
The military roadmap to Tehran goes through Damascus. The unspoken objective of the USraeli-NATO-sponsored insurgency in Syria is to destabilize Syria and undermine Iran’s influence in the region (including its support of the Palestinian Liberation movement and Hezbollah). The underlying objective is also to eliminate all forms of resistance to the Zionist State:
That is where Syria comes in. It is the strategic relationship between the Islamic Republic and the Assad regime that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security. Over the three decades of hostility between Iran and Israel, a direct military confrontation has never occurred, but through Hezbollah, which is sustained and trained by Iran via Syria, the Islamic Republic has proven able to threaten Israeli security interests. The collapse of the Assad regime would sunder this dangerous alliance. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, arguably the most important Israeli decision-maker on this question, recently told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that the Assad regime’s fall “will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world, and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
Rubin candidly outlines the contours of US military intervention in Syria, which is to be implemented in close liaison with Israel. A diplomatic solution will not work, nor will economic sanctions:
Only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator’s stance. […] Obama’s administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria similar to the campaign in Libya, for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians, the longtime patron of the Assad regime, are staunchly opposed.
Washington’s first step, according to Rubin, should be to work with “its allies”, the Arab sheikdoms of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, “to organize, train, and arm Syrian rebel forces.” This “first step” has already been launched. It was implemented at the very outset of the insurgency in Mar 2012. The US and its allies have been actively supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists for over a year. The organization and training consisted in the deployment of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, alongside the incursion of French, British, Qatari and Turkish special forces inside Syria. US-NATO sponsored mercenaries are recruited and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Rubin’s proposed “second step” is “to secure international support for a coalition air operation,” outside the mandate of the UN. “Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UNSC,” says Rubin. The air operation contemplated by Rubin is an all-out war scenario, similar to the NATO air raids conducted in Libya. Rubin is not expressing a personal opinion on the role of the UN. The option of “sidetracking” the UNSC has already been endorsed by Washington. The violaiton of international law does not seem to be an issue. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice confirmed in late May, in no uncertain terms, that “the worst and most probable scenario” in Syria might be the option of “acting outside of the UNSC’s authority” (RIA Novosti, May 31 2012):
In the absence of either of those two scenarios, there seems to me to be only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable. And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity. The UNSC’s unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead and members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they’re prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council.
Rubin also points to “the reluctance of some European states” to participate in an air operation against Syria:
This operation will have to be a unique combination of Western and Middle East countries. Given Syria’s extreme isolation within the Arab League, it should be possible to gain strong support from most Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. US leadership is indispensable, since most of the key countries will follow only if Washington leads.
The article calls for continued arming of the Syrian Free Army (FSA) as well carrying out air raids directed against Syria. No ground operations are to be envisaged. The air campaign would be used, as in the case of Libya, to support the FSA foot soldiers integrated by mercenaries and Al Qaeda affiliated brigades:
Whether an air operation should just create a no-fly zone that grounds the regime’s aircraft and helicopters or actually conduct air to ground attacks on Syrian tanks and artillery should be the subject of immediate military planning. The larger point is that as long as Washington stays firm that no US ground troops will be deployed, à la Kosovo and Libya, the cost to the US will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the US as more friend than enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes.
While the participation of Israel in military operations is not mentioned, the thrust of Rubin’s article points to active cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv in military and intelligence affairs, including the conduct of covert operations in support of the opposition rebels. This coordination would also be carried out in the context of the bilateral military-intelligence cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey. “Coming to the rescue of the Syrian people” under a fake “humanitarian” R2P mandate is intended to destabilize Syria, weaken Iran and enable Israel to exert greater political control and influence over neighboring Arab states including Lebanon and Syria. A war on Syria is also a war on Palestine. It would weaken the resistance movement in the occupied territories. It would reinforce the Netanyahu government’s ambitions to create a “Greater Israel”, initially, through the outright annexation of the Palestinian territories:
With the Islamic Republic deprived of its gateway to the Arab world, the Israelis’ rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on its nuclear facilities would diminish. A new Syrian regime might eventually even resume the frozen peace talks regarding the Golan Heights. In Lebanon, Hezbollah would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor, since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance, and missiles. All these strategic benefits combined with the moral purpose of saving tens of thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime, make intervention in Syria a calculated risk, but still a risk worth taking.
What we really need is “Regime Change” in USAia and Israel.