Why Syria is Being Destroyed
THE PIPELINE THEORY is the prevailing explanation for the current destruction of Syria. The theory goes like this: The Saudis and Qataris want to run a gas pipeline to Europe to gain extra market share and to put one over on Putin. The Assad regime refuses to give them right of way, hence he has to go. And if that means the destruction of the country and the deaths of up to a million people, well, too bad. I never bought into this, not least because they don’t need to go through Syria. They could go through Iraq instead.
Call me a cynic but when the USA starts blowing up Israel’s (cough) neighbours my thoughts turn to the Yinon Plan, not pipelines. Lo and behold, confirmation comes via a recent release from Wikileaks of an email between Hildebeaste Clinton and some other State Dept. criminal.
The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria [yeah, right] overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.
Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are (sic). For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well.
The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold.
The United States Government is ZOG. Totally owned by a foreign power.
* * *
Source: Irish Savant