No easy victories for NATO in Syria

By Eric MargolisMay 11, 2013 “Information Clearing House” – WASHINGTON DC – The vicious Syrian civil war has put the world’s two biggest nuclear powers on a collision course over a small Levantine nation of no strategic interest to Washington. This cannot be allowed to go on.

News that the US and Russia will hold a Syrian peace conference this month is most welcome and long overdue.

As Benjamin Franklin so wisely noted: “there is no good war, and no bad peace.”

Moscow has been calling for such a conference for two years. But Washington rejected the idea in hope the Syrian rebels it was backing would prevail. However, now that the Syrian war is in stalemate, the US has opted, albeit reluctantly, for a diplomatic effort to end its war before the whole region goes up in flames.

Syria is the latest example of Henry Kissinger’s famous quip, “being a US ally is often more dangerous than being its enemy.”

The Assad government in Damascus was for decades a tacit Western ally that suppressed militant Islamists, kept its border with Israel quiet, and interrogated prisoners for US intelligence services. Damascus even muted claims to its Golan Heights, illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

But good behavior and cooperation did not help Syria when the US, Britain, France and Israel decided to go after Iran, Syria’s leading ally. When Syria’s President Bashar Assad refused to join the US-led alliance of western powers and conservative Arab states against Iran, his nation’s fate was sealed.

“The road to Tehran runs through Damascus,” went up the cry. Syria was marked for Iraq-style destruction.

In Syria, Washington encouraged growing animosity between Sunni and Shia Muslims which it had found so useful in breaking Sunni resistance in Iraq. Theological differences were turned into bitter political rivalry as Iran also continued inflame the Sunni-Shia dispute across the Muslim world.

What began in Syria as a small, non-violent protest against the Assad regime was met by typical brutal repression and quickly grew into a national rebellion. Recalling the western-engineered uprising that overthrew Libya’s Muammar Gadaffi, the West and its Arab allies quickly armed, financed and directed Syria’s insurgents. As in Libya, the cutting edge of the rebellion were militant Islamists.

France, Syria’s former colonial ruler, played a quiet but important role, supplying the rebels communications gear and anti-tank weapons. France seems intent in reasserting its former colonial influence in West Africa, the Sahel, Lebanon and Syria.

The US stayed in the background, providing finance, advanced equipment and political support, letting ally Turkey do most of the work.

But after two years of vicious fighting, the Syrian civil war appears stalemated. The cautious US President Obama seems reluctant to get US forces involved in a Mideast ground war – and for good reason. The US military is dangerously stretched across the globe and the US Treasury runs on money borrowed from China and Japan. But Obama is under intense political pressure from warlike Republicans, the religious far right, and partisans of Israel to crush Syria, then Iran.

As a result, Obama has been dithering while Syria bleeds and its war threatens to spread to Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. Last week, Israel launched heavy air strikes against Syrian military targets, a clear act of war, killing some 80 Syrian soldiers.

It was unclear if Israel was indeed trying to destroy shipments of long-ranged artillery rockets being sent from Iran to Lebanese ally Hezbollah, as it claimed, or launching a campaign to defeat the Assad government by destroying its air and armored forces.

According to reports, Israel did not give the US prior warning of its air strikes against Syria. Here in Washington, many security officials are now wondering if Israel might drag the US into a war with Iran in a similar fashion.

What is clear: Syria is being ground up and pulverized. Like Iraq, it is being severely punished for a defiant, independent policy and refusing to comply with western plans for the Mideast. Syria is also serving as a whipping boy in the place of Iran – a graphic message to Tehran of what can happen if its nuclear program is not switched off.

Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times, Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in Asia. .

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2013

NB – Tap Blog Twitter account is currently suspended.  Please tweet this story.
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

3 Responses to “No easy victories for NATO in Syria”

  1. Road_Hog says:

    For those that don’t understand what this is about, it is about installing a Rothschild style private central bank. Syria’s central bank is currently publicly owned. What that means is that the money supply is owned by the government and people, unlike almost every country in the world that has a private central bank, like Britain & US.

    With a private central bank, the government has to borrow money from the central bank, hence government debt, if the State owned the central bank it could just print money rather than borrow it.

    It is exactly the same thing that happened with Libya. Note the Wiki entries:

    Just before the war started at the end of March 2011:

    This is from the historical Wiki entry dated 20th March 2011:

    “The Central Bank of Libya (CBL) is 100% state owned”

    This is the current Wiki entry, after the UN ‘helped’ the rebel army install a new central bank:

    This is the first entry from the current entry:

    “The Central Bank of Libya (CBL) is the monetary authority in Libya and enjoys the status of autonomous corporate body”

    So, it has gone from State owned, to a private corporate body.

    It’s all about the money and at the moment the Syrian people issue their own money through their central bank. But the global elites don’t want that, they want to won every central bank, so that the people have to borrow from them and so become enslaved in debt for ever.

    The only other countries that don’t have a Rothschild style private central bank are:

    Iran, North Korea and Cuba.

    Can you guess which countries are likely to have problems once Syria has been toppled?

  2. Tapestry says:

    What about Russia which is fighting NATO in Syria? The situation as regards the Central bank seems to be a secondary consideration. Putin lives by oil and commodities. Does he need the money feed of the BIS?

  3. Road_Hog says:

    No, I think Putin and co are just fighting the encroachment of the West, they don’t want them having military bases there, or just in general taking over the area.

    The central bank is just an issue for the West.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.