SYRIA, ISRAEL, IRAN AND THE USA

THE SYRIAN EQUATION 

Unlike in LIBYA, this time around RUSSIA and CHINA (See:http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/06/china-and-syria.html) will not tolerate to be left out of the equation as was the case with the toppling of the LIBYAN regime and subsequent oil bonanza shared by FRANCE, the UK and the USA, thus the USA is cautious and uncertain on how to proceed with SYRIA, for fear of CHINESE and RUSSIAN retribution. As for the EUROPEAN UNION, as always, the union is rather aimless on how to proceed with the SYRIAN cause. It seems EUROPE is even more unaware of the consequences, a full out civil war will have for the region and that by no means the suffering will end with a new regime in place.

The UK supports the so-called one man show opposition “group”, “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” in London, simply because of the large SYRIAN community living in London. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights and because of Rifaat Ali al-Assad. See: http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/05/syria-switching-perception.html , Chapter title: Internal power struggle.

FRANCE, though once the “protégé” of SYRIA, simply lacks the financial needs to become fully involved in a military intervention and thus prefers to uses strong rhetoric’s instead, (as of recent, telling RUSSIA bluntly that Assad has to go), but without substance. GERMANY on the other hand has to avoid of being drawn into the conflict because of its economic ties with SAUDI ARABIA, IRAN, ISRAEL, CHINA and RUSSIA.

NOT HAVING LEARNED THE LESSON FROM IRAQ, OR CALCULATED STRATEGY?

Regime change in SYRIA will certainly end in full out civil war as was the case in IRAQ. The question still remains as to why the orchestrated revolt in SYRIA was initiated in the first place? If it was indeed one of the USA intelligence agencies who encouraged the revolt, one has to question if the USA has not learned from its ventures in IRAQ. Or does the USA have a hidden agenda that has been kept under wraps from the rest of the world? In most likelihood not, because in IRAQ the USA also was under the false perception that toppling Saddam Hussein would be viewed by the local population as an act of liberation and turn them into an US alley. 

USA SUDDENLY VOICES CONCERNS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC GROUPS TAKING OVER THE RAINS IN SYRIA AND WITH THAT THE BIO – CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARSENAL, ONCE ASSAD IS GONE? A BIT LATE FOR SUCH CONCERNS, ONE COULD ARGUE! 

With a regime change in SYRIA imminent, the USA suddenly voices concerns that Al Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups will take over the rains in SYRIA and that the vast amount of Biological and chemical weapons SYRIA possesses will fall in the hands of such terrorist groups. This assumption seems to come a bit late one would say. It was crystal clear from the beginning that once the revolt started; different Islamic Fundamentalist fractions would infiltrate the revolt in order to gain their own leverage, something the USA and other entities promoting the removal of the Assad regime should have been aware of from the beginning. 

UNPREDICTABLE REACTION FROM THE ASSAD CLAN IF CORNERED  

Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring indicated numerous times that SYRIA’S arsenal of Bio-Chemical weapons pose a threat to the entire region, if falling into the wrong hands. On the other hand no one knows how Assad will react if he is pushed into the corner and realizes that his and his clan’s downfall is sealed.  See also:

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/03/syrian-missiles-will-pre-empt-any.html

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/03/given-fact-syria-does-possess-chemical.html

INCREASED IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN SYRIA PROVOKED ISRAEL TO CHANGE ITS LONGSTANDING TACTICS REGARDING SYRIA 

Adding to the riddle of the SYRIAN revolt and the media PSY-OPS warfare surrounding the tumult, is ISRAEL’S stance on encouraging the toppling of the SYRIAN government. As mentioned numerous times on this Blog, the two countries are technically speaking still at war, the frontier between ISRAEL and SYRIA has been the quietest one for decades simply because the Assad Regime was a predictable entity for the ISRAELIS and Assad maintained a status quo, using harsh anti ISRAEL rhetoric’s in order to portray ISRAEL as the evil of all evil, thus giving his people the distraction needed to diverge them from internal issues and at the same time justify the emergency law and totalitarian ruling, but refrained from a direct confrontation with ISRAEL. So why did ISRAEL, after years of maintain a status quo with SYRIA change its strategy?

IRAN AT THE DOORSTEPS OF ISRAEL

One explanation for ISRAEL’S shift in tactics could be the fact that SYRIA, over the last couple of years has been increasing its ties with IRAN to a point where ISRAEL has become under direct threat from IRAN, who, thanks to its close relationship with SYRIA is now at the doorsteps of ISRAEL, something the Jewish state, for obvious reasons, cannot tolerate and thus had to drop its previous strategy on SYRIA in order to counteract IRAN’S advances, even if it meant to provoke a civil war in SYRIA after the regime change.

FOR BETTER FOR WORST 

Most probably ISRAEL has weighed its options and came to the conclusion that a Sunni dominated regime in SYRIA is preferable to that of a SHIITE one, which is increasingly dominated by IRANIAN entities, just 40km from its current eastern frontier as well as Hezbollah on its northern frontier, thus being almost entirely encircled by Iranian proxies. Sunni dominance in SYRIA, with the help of SAUDI ARABIA would also be a preferred scenario for ISRAEL because of its close, yet unofficial ties to Wahhabi SAUDI ARABIA. (Note:Unconfirmed sources claim the Royal house of SAUD has Jewish roots.)

Israel used Saudi airspace to strike IRAQI nuclear reactor in 1981

ISRAEL COPING WITH A FULL SCALE CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA

With not many options at hand, ISRAEL is most probably willing to take the calculated risk in supporting the SYRIAN Sunni opposition, fully aware that with a regime change, its neighboring country will end up in a full scale civil war, something ISRAEL already encountered and coped with successfully, during the LEBANESE civil war, which lasted from 1975 to 1990.

The fact that the entire SYRIAN conflict is a rather dubious one, which is dominated by “media warfare”, is also reflected in a recent Debkafile article (read article below) in which allegedly a FRANCO - SAUDI plan promoted massive air strike against Assads presidential palace situated atop Mount Qassioun northwest of Damascus, that would at one “fell swoop” wipe him, his family and top leadership circle out. 

(Debkafile wrongly states the palace is located northeast when in fact it is northwest of the city )

INTELLIGENCE OR PSY –OPS?

If indeed these allegations are true (and not again a psy –ops war style “misinformation insert”), one has to seriously question the ability of the intelligence sources that provided such information. It is wishful thinking that Bashar Hafez al-Assad, and his family reside at the presidential palace. Just like his father Hafez al-Assad in the past, Bashar Assad and his family reside at different locations downtown Damascus and surrounding areas. Even if they would stay at the presidential palace, SAUDI FRENCH airstrikes would hardy cause serious damage to the vast bunker system stretching within Mount Qassiun, unless the USA would provide more sophisticated bombing devices that can knock out underground facilities. Furthermore the palace itself is constructed of bomb resisting concrete. Interesting to note is that the palace was paid for primarily by the SAUDIS, designed by a JAPANESE architect, built by a series of foreign contractors, among them a GERMAN construction company specialized in building bomb resisting bunker systems and buildings.

Or is it in the end also about alleged large scale oil shale findings in Syria?

See also: http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2011/08/saudia-arabia-usa-turkey-versus-iran.html

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2011/12/syria-cause-and-effect.html

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2011/12/as-i-see-it.html

http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/01/strait-of-hormuz-and-syria.html

The Debkafile article reads as follows: 

OBAMA NIXES FRENCH-SAUDI PLAN TO FINISH ASSAD BY BOMBING HIS PALACE
Via DEBKAfile

 

US President Obama recently vetoed a detailed Franco-Saudi plan for ending President Bashar Assad’s rule by means of a massive air strike against his palace that would at one fell swoop wipe him, his family and top leadership circle out, debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report.

Their plan was for the presidential palace situated atop Mount Qassioun northeast of Damascus to be devastated by French warplanes taking off from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier off Syria’s Mediterranean coast and Saudi and United Arab Emirates bombers flying in through Jordan.
They would bomb the palace for 12 hours in several sorties while at the same time American fighter jets launched from a US aircraft carrier cruising in the Mediterranean or Red Sea would shut down Syria’s air defenses, which are considered among the most sophisticated and densely-arrayed in the region.
US warplanes would also keep the Syrian Air Force grounded and prevented from repulsing the incoming bombers.

This plan was presented to President Obama separately by Nicolas Sarkozy before he was voted out of office and Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman, who arrived at the White House on April 12 for a personal presentation. The prince maintained that there is no end in sight for the Syrian conflict; it would only spread and ignite the rest of the Middle East. The peril could only be rooted out at source by a single, sharp military strike that would remove Assad and his close clan for good. This would be the only acceptable kind of Western-Arab armed intervention in Syria and it had the added advantage of being effective without bringing foreign boots to Syrian soil.

In early May, Sarkozy was still trying to talk Obama around to the plan. He spent his last days in the Elysée Palace in long telephone conversations with the White House in which he drove home three points:

1.  Because Assad has concentrated his family, top military command and intelligence chiefs at a single nerve center behind the fortified walls of the Qassioun Palace, the snake’s head can feasibly be cut off at one stroke.
The case of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi was different because, unlike Assad, he never stayed long in one place and was constantly on the move.

 2. Once that nerve center is destroyed, Syrian army and intelligence would be bereft of their sources of command. Their troops may remain in their bases and wait for news, while their officers may use the sudden political vacuum in Damascus to try and seize power. In either case, the Syrian military would be free of its orders to crush the anti-Assad revolt.

3.  The French, Saudi and UAE air forces lack a central command center capable of coordinating a major combined air operation and therefore depend on the United States to provide this essential component. American military input is also vital for paralyzing Syria’s air defenses by applying its cyber warfare capabilities to disrupt the radar systems of Syria’s anti-air missile batteries.

Our Washington sources report that Obama consistently resisted repeated French and Saudi efforts to jump aboard their initiative.
The Saudi defense minister at one point in their conversation told the US president harshly that it was time for the Americans to stop talking and start acting. But Obama remained unmoved.
These events, revealed here by debkafile, provide the background for Presidents Barak Obama and Francois Hollande’s divergent responses Tuesday, May 29, to the al-Houla atrocity and its 108 brutally murdered victims.

The White House repeated its objection to military intervention in Syria “at this time,” because it would only “increase the carnage.” A military option was left on the table.

That was standard Obama-speak for the crisis in Syria, behind which he remains determined to stay out of armed action for unseating President Assad and instead seek a deal with the Russians on the Syrian ruler’s fate as part and parcel of a comprehensive accord on Syria and Iran’s nuclear program.
President Hollande was at first quoted as saying he does not rule out armed intervention in Syria. Elysée sources later watered down this statement with the qualifier: …”only with UN Security Council approval.”
On top of the American hurdle, Moscow and Beijing rushed Wednesday, May 30, to reiterate that they would oppose (veto) any Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention in Syria, so effectively nipping the French intention in the bud.
Bashar Assad accordingly had no qualms about sending UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan off empty-handed from a final bid to salvage his peace mission: The world powers have left him sitting pretty in his palace, unconcerned about his future and free to pursue one of the most vicious anti-opposition campaigns of modern times.