Syria is for Syrians

You could be excused for thinking the world has taken a madness pill, and jumped off the deep end. Whether it is the schizophrenic American political scene, the deep and divisive European internal political battles, the Middle East in turmoil, or the fact that the stock markets continue on as if nothing is happening, the place has lost the plot. Speaking of lost the plot, this post focuses on the almost unbelievable actions of foreign nations in Syria, and what may well come next.

Let's start with the rules. The Laws of Wars encompassed within the Convention of the Hague, 1907, specifically defines how a war amongst nations must be declared:

"Article 1

The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."

The United States and Turkey signed this Convention. Ironically, Syria did not. Now Syria is the victim of hostilities perpetuated upon it by two countries who have solemnly sworn not to do so. All the rest flows from this. When the Syrian "uprising" began it was people on the streets - unarmed people. They didn't have small arms, artillery, tanks, or anti-aircraft weapons. Where did all that come from? They didn't have bank accounts with hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a 4 year long conventional war against their own government. Where did that come from? It came from the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia - that's where.

Having abandoned the very basic convention of declaring a war on Syria, there was no reason to believe that the rest of the war would be any different. No rules. No holds barred. The law of the jungle where might is right seeped into the country of Syria. Hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered in the name of ... regime change. That's really what it boils down to. The Russians and Iranians want to keep a strategic ally in the region, and the Americans, Turks and Saudis want them gone. Let's not disgrace the name of democracy and liberty by suggesting the war in Syria has a thing to do with those tenants of freedom.

So where are we going from here in Syria? The map below will tell you where we are now:

As you can see, the blue area in the top to middle part of this picture is the area of Northern Syria controlled by Turkey after it invaded with armed militia supporters. The yellow areas are controlled by essentially the Kurds (backed with armed Americans). The green areas are controlled by the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces. Several things come to mind. Firstly, the Kurds are quite divided in the territories they hold. To the west they hold large parts of northern Aleppo. To the east they hold the areas around Manbij. In between them the Turks hold the area around Al-Bab. What makes things tricky for the Kurds is they cannot unite their territories in the east and west without engaging Turkish forces, which would give Turkish President Erdogan the excuse he needs to go full in with large military forces. So, realistically, the Kurds have no hope of holding the area of Northern Aleppo.

They also have no realistic hope of holding their territories on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River centered on Manbij. As I write this, Syrian and Russian forces are making big advances shown as pink on the map. (see operational map below) They are pushing to and reaching the Euphrates River to  the southern flank of the Kurds Manjib beach head. It is now only a matter of time before the Kurds will have to withdraw from the Manbij area to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. Here their position is far more defensible from the Syrian army, and to a lesser extent the Turkish Army.

That makes the Euphrates River the new dividing line in the battle for Syria - the divide between the Kurds/Americans and everyone else. There is, however, a weak link in that line of defence - Deir al- Zour. This city and nearby airbase is controlled by the Syrian army, and is located to the south of Al- Raqqa (the ISIS self declared capital on the Euphrates. This map gives you a good idea of the area and the cities involved:

 
Deir al- Zour bridges the Euphrates and leaves any Kurdish partition of  North Eastern Syria highly vulnerable. In fact, it makes such a complete partition almost impossible to defend. Currently, the Kurds and Americans are concentrating their forces on the battle to retake Al-Raqqa. They have it surrounded on three sides with its back to the Euphrates. The US has just deployed 2200 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, and 1000 reservists to Kuwait in preparation for the final battle of Al-Raqqa. They have also deployed air mobile artillery, and the 400 troops that go with it, directly to the Al-Raqqa front. As of this morning the Americans and Kurds were within 50 km of the northern gates to Al-Raqqa. It may be a grind, but ISIS has no hope of winning that battle. Al-Raqqa will be laid to waste by American artillery and air strikes.

What comes then? Well, if the American and Kurdish intention is to create a Kurdish territory out of North eastern Syria, which this writer considers a foregone conclusion, then a battle for Dier-al-Zour will be next. It is a strategic must to seal a gaping hole in the Euphrates River defence concept. That will involve the Americans and Kurds attacking the Syrian and Russian military located there. A dangerous proposition indeed.

It has always been the case, since the ISIS advance was halted on the door steps of Bagdad, that the real danger of foreign powers throwing international law to the wind would play itself out once their common menace had been eliminated. We are almost at that point now. Mosul is essentially finished for ISIS. Al-Raqqa is surrounded. It's like the final weeks of Nazi Germany for ISIS right now. What unfolded after Nazi Germany fell was the iron curtain, the Berlin Wall, and the Cold War. Will that happen in Syria? Will the Americans put the brakes on and hold the Kurds to the eastern banks of the Euphrates? Will the Syrians and Russians be prepared to allow that to happen while they turn their attention toward the areas around Damascus and Ibdib that still require action to rid them of Islamic and Turkmen militias? Would that be a fatal move for Syria? And what of Turkey? Would it be prepared to allow a new Kurdish region to be added to the autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq? That would leave just the South Eastern area of Turkey for the Kurds to capture and form their treasured vision of a united Kurdistan - one that already has the implicit and military backing of the United States.

The most plausible scenario, given the pragmatic chess strategy of Russian President Putin, is that the Syrians take the western bank of the Euphrates, and the Kurds/Americans take the Eastern bank - for now. Then the Russians and Syrians will turn their focus to the pockets of resistance in North Western Syria, and isolated pockets around Damascus and their border with Lebanon (Hezbollah and Iran likely playing a predominant role there). It seems Putin is willing to forestall any one-on-one confrontation with the US until after his rearmament program is finished - around 2020. In the mean time he is in the defensive mode, as is clearly demonstrated in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The problem with his strategy, as can be quite clearly seen in the Ukraine conflict, is that it gives the Americans time to establish positions in the area, and reinforce/bolster the local military. Now, instead of Russia taking on an isolated Ukrainian military of 50,000 it faces an unofficially NATO aligned country with over 200,000 troops. The same scenario is almost certainly going to play out in the Kurdish territories. In some ways, if you're Putin, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The real lesson in all of this is that abandoning the rules of order for expediency can never be sanctioned, and that to see it any other way is to invite chaos to the orderly conduct of societies around the world. It has to be said, because it is patently obvious, that the Americans hold the full responsibility for chaos that their cavalier actions have created in the world. They have changed the term "national interest" into the all encompassing "national right". They have claimed the world as their own with no right to do so. An unfortunate, but predictable consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union. A living case of power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. They have perverted the "peace dividend" that was so greatly lauded when the Berlin Wall fell into a "we'll take what we want when we want dividend", and in doing so turned the world against them. It is the Americans who were not invited into Syria to help fight ISIS. Just as it was the Americans that fanned the flames of the civil unrest in Syria to begin with, and it was the Americans, in conjunction with the Saudis, that financed it.

The only solution for Syria is that Syrians decide what their country will be. To demand otherwise is to place yourself in a type of arrogance not befitting the average person. Always remember it is not righteous people who start wars, it is the self-righteous. The ones that place their beliefs above all others and enforce them over all others. Recent history has shown that the Americans will not allow the Syrians to decide the future of their country, and that is a terrible indictment upon them. It is also a terrible indictment against the rest of us that we allow this type of "God syndrome" to have a place in the civilized  world we claim ours to be. In that way, Syria today is a reflection on all of us - our greed, our arrogance, our uncaring hypocrisy. The very same traits that have their roots in all our conflicts of the past. It shows that despite all our achievements as a species, when all that is stripped away, we continue to act as though we still carry clubs and dwell in caves. That's the really sad part of it all.      

Danger Close For Trump

Donald Trump won the US election handily early this morning. He rode a wave that he didn't create, but was wise enough to see - the disaffected. The people in the US that feel their country was lost due to trade agreements, and foreign trade to Asia, that effectively stripped the United States of its industrial might - and the jobs that went with it. The people who have become war weary after 13 years of straight war in never ending guerilla wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. The constant state of war that George Orwell noted in his book 1984.

The US people rejected their establishment. Both the political and to some extent the financial establishment. They are deeply angered as they watch their country slip from a model to the world (in their eyes) to a wreck on the way to the bottom. In other words they acted out. They lashed out. They made a statement. Contrary to some of the ludicrous mass media analysis that framed the vote as racist (white men acting racist) and/or sexist, the Trump election was the result of his "movement" coming together to throw out the US political establishment - Republican and Democrat. It was an easily foreseeable result given the explosive tension in the US, the anti-establishment movement enveloping the Western world, and the establishment's "let them eat cake" approach to a twenty first century educated populace. The Clintons obvious ties to the odious and dark political "elite" made Hillary Clinton the wrong woman, at the wrong time, to become the first female President of the United States. Not rocket science.

That brings us to today, and the next six weeks or so before Trump is sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. If you believe that there is a political establishment that crosses party lines and looks after its own, then you must believe they aren't happy at the possibility of losing control of the country to a man they consider a "loose cannon". Of course, by loose cannon they mean they can't control him. For them that is a big problem, and that means the next six weeks may be dangerous for the world.

Trump on the face of it appears to be a pragmatic person looking for pragmatic results. It seems obvious to me that as a family man, with a large collection of kids and grandkids, that Trump's motivation for seeking the office of President at the age of 70 is his concern for the future those family members may face in the US. That's my own take, my gut feeling on him. He has made it clear he wants to mend fences with countries like Russia, although perhaps not so much for Iran (which is potentially dangerous in itself), and there has been a concerted effort by powerful elements within the US establishment and government to promote hostilities with Russia and China. The question is this: Will those forces attempt to use Obama's last six weeks in office to start a conflict that Trump will have no choice but to continue when he is sworn in?

A conflict that derails his agenda for a pragmatic world peace. An amicable agreement on spheres of influence, etc. For example, an American strike on  Syrian forces that sees the Russian military shoot down one or more US fighter aircraft. Of course there are many other such scenarios that could green light an American conflict and leave Trump powerless to produce peaceful pragmatism. Furthermore, such a conflict would derail Trump's plans for cancelling trade agreements as the US and those same countries would be allies in any large conflict, and the feasibility of cutting off a fighting ally would be almost nil.

My point is that the next six weeks are "danger close". They are vulnerable to manipulation of international events to maintain a global agenda of successive free trade agreements that marginalize the sovereignty of nations and lay the path for continuing the New World Order of the Bush era. They won't sit back idly while Trump undoes their work, and they won't be able to realistically attack him directly right now as his "movement" has the political capital of a big agenda in the making. Some people believe that Mike Pence somehow represents a modern day Lyndon Johnson scenario. I doubt that as the public is not the relatively naïve public of the 60's.

No, what Trump and his people need to be watchful for is suddenly aggressive escalation of American military actions in either the Middle East, Ukraine or China. Personally, if such a move is made to derail Trump's agenda before he hits office, I believe that Syria holds that distinct potential. It's a place where American and Russian military hardware is operational in close proximity. It's also a place where the US has already painted Russia as the bogeyman in the siege of Aleppo. That despite attempting to do the almost identical thing with their Iraqi allies in Mosul, Iraq. My point is this: Things are dangerous right now in the political vacuum of the exchange of power in the US. There are very powerful forces that don't want to see any peace with Russia or China. My estimate is they will act to make sure that doesn't happen, and they only have six precious weeks to instigate against it. That's why things are danger close for President-Elect Trump right now. 

After ISIS.

As the Syrian army, with support from Hezbollah and Russia crushes ISIS in Aleppo,  and as the Iraqi Army with support from Shite Militias and the US squeezes ISIS in Mosul, the next step becomes the big question. Will the US respect the wishes of the Syrian government and leave the Syria battle to its government and the Russian military, or will the US ignore the sovereign rights of the Syrian government and push to install a Kurdistan from North Eastern Syria and North Western Iraq? That is really the $1 million question. Will things escalate between Russia and the US on this battlefield or will there be a recognition of traditional spheres of influence.

Traditionally and historically, Turkey has done everything within its power to thwart a Kurdish state. Whether it be decades long intelligence/military operations against the Kurds within Turkey itself, or whether it be actual uninvited military incursions into Syria and/or Iraq to attack Kurdish fighting elements, the Turkish position has always been against the development of any Kurdish state. Given that the Kurds are claiming a good portion of South Eastern Turkey as part of the new Kurdistan one can somewhat understand the Turkish policy toward the Kurds. However, the result has been ongoing turmoil within the region for decades.

As it stands now the main force of the Syrian army, and allies, are focused around the Aleppo area in a time consuming fight in that city. The Turkish army has invaded and driven south toward the Al Raqqa area, although not to the city itself. Instead the Turks have pivoted east to take on the Kurds and drive them to at least behind the Euphrates River that runs through central Syria. At first the US had agreed to the Kurds withdrawing, but that seems to have changed and the Kurds are standing their ground. Meantime, the bulk of Iraqi forces are surrounding Mosul from three sides, but thus far leaving the western side of the city relatively open - which could allow the ISIS elements and others in the city to retreat westward to Syria. Curiously, a large contingent of Shite militia are attempting to cut off that exit by flanking Mosul, however Turkey has since warned them not to take the strategic city between Mosul and Al Raqqa that would cut off the ISIS retreat. All very complicated.

Bottom line is that within three months both Mosul and Aleppo will be liberated from ISIS and other Islamic forces. The race will then be on to take ISIS's capital Raqqa. Currently the Kurds, with their American allies, are closer than anyone else - other than the Turks. And that brings the Turkish role to the forefront. First point: Turkey is only in Syria because Russia allowed it to be so. Shortly after Turkey reconciled with Russia that country's army militarily intervened from the north, and secured its border with Syria. That effectively sealed any chance ISIS could resupply or sell oil to the north without Turkey's approval, and if Turkey approved such an action its relationship with Russia would be over before it started. So Russia's plan for Turkey was to seal the border first. Mission accomplished. In return, Turkey got the green light to go after the Kurds from Russia, but not the US.

Phase two, which hasn't happened just yet, will be Turkey sweeping into Raqqa before the Kurds and the US can. The Syrian army is out of position to move on Raqqa before anyone else does, because they are still fighting to the south along the Lebanon border. They must also retake Dayr az Zawr located strategically south of Raqqa and on the wrong side of the Euphrates River for anything other than a cross river assault - which would involve massive casualties and every chance of a serious defeat. So bank on it that Russia has already got Turkey to take on Raqqa. It suits both of their purposes.

Once that battle takes place, and the remnants of ISIS are trapped on the Syrian-Iraqi border, the focus turns to restoring the territorial integrity of not just Syria, but also Iraq. The area is rich in oil reserves - a wealth that both countries will need to rebuild their war-torn countries. However, American oil companies have strong ties and contracts with the Kurds in northern Iraq,  and are likely expecting the same kind of concessions in north eastern Syria. It is at this point in the conflict when push will come to shove. Russia will have no choice to back the Syrian military in recovering all their territory, and that means driving the Kurds from all of Syria. That will also involve driving all the Americans out of Syria to. Considering the US has opened an air force base in north east Syria, in Kurdish controlled territory, it is easy to see how this battle will escalate. Likely, the only factor that could stop an actual military confrontation between the US and Russia in eastern Syria would be the election of Donald Trump. He has pledged to work with Russia on destroying ISIS and my analysis of him is that he's a deal maker that would seed Syria because the it is Russia's sphere of influence. That is the only action that could stop a direct escalation between Russia and the US.

In case you haven't heard, Russia has mobilized its sole aircraft carrier, along with warships and submarines to the coast of Syria. It is also expanding the facilities of its Syrian air base. The Chinese have also declared they are prepared to intervene militarily on Syria's side. What we are witnessing right now is not the Russians preparing for immanent action in Syria. They are instead prepositioning resources for a much larger battle with the US and its allies. The Americans are doing the same thing by position naval forces off the coast near Syria, and massively reinforcing the air base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. If Trump does not win the US Presidential election, and reverse the show down in Syria, then these prepositioned forces will engage each other. That's why they're there. They're not there to take on rebels, or ISIS or Hezbollah, or Kurds or the Syrian army.

It has to be said that a lot rides on the result of that politicians gone wild election to the south of our country. On the one hand a deal maker who is not opposed to pulling the US back from the "policeman of the world" self-appointed status it has generally abused for the last two decades. He may be a chauvinistic you know what, but he may not be a blood thirsty imperialist - so that's ok by me if the choice comes down to it. Hillary Clinton on the other hand has been shown to be an instrument of the big corporations that are driving America's foreign policy, and also driving it to placing it and the rest of us in the world in mortal danger. So, my fingers and toes are crossed that the egotistical chauvinist isolationist wins in a few days from now, and not the corrupt insider doing the bidding of those that not only do not respect humanity, but in fact see it as a mere inconvenience in a quest to have the world as they see it.

Turkey Changes Sides.

They say that a week in politics is a long time, but for Turkey it was just a few short hours. First, scattered reports of soldiers blocking bridges. Then tanks at the Parliament. Fighter jets and helicopters appearing over the capital. Suddenly all hell was breaking loose on the streets - all covered by social media with main stream media playing catch up. Deathly silence from the US government for several hours. Ditto for Turkey's NATO allies. And then it all failed. Erdogan wasn't killed, and his call to supporters filled the streets. The mutineers were overwhelmed and the world went into damage control.

It was immediately evident to me, at least, that the attempted coup was a result of Erdogan's attempt at reconciliation with Moscow over Syria, and the role it had played there - including shooting down a Russian bomber. It was also clear to me that Erdogan was making such moves, because his allies in the West were supporting the Kurds wholeheartedly in Syria. Essentially the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and for Turkey there is no bigger national security threat than the Kurds as they attempt to form a Kurdistan partially out of southern Turkey.

It must have become evident to Erdogan that US special forces embedded with the Kurds, and a US air base being constructed in Kurdish controlled areas of northern Syria was as big a signal as you will ever need - the US was an ally of the Kurds. You would have to be completely blind not to see that, and apparently the Turkish President is not blind. So, after giving an ultimatum to his Western allies of "the Kurds or us". Erdogan made good and shuffled toward Russia - the one country that could still turn the tide against the Kurds. I wrote about this eventuality last year here .

As ISIS is destroyed in Iraq and Syria the focus becomes the end game. The Kurds already controlled the northern region of Iraq as an "autonomous Kurdish area". ISIS put a large dent in that with its capture of Mosul, but the Iraqi army is positioning itself to assault ISIS in Mosul, and it's only a matter of time before it recaptures it - months even. So Turkey has positioned itself now, with Syria and Russia, to turn on the Kurds even before the war with ISIS is finished. In fact, this week saw the first major clashes between the Syrian army and the Kurds. It also witnessed the US scramble fighter jets against Syrian bombers hitting the Kurds. This is a foreboding of things to come.

The Americans are in northern Syria for good. Their construction of an airbase there is a signal of that. By doing so, the US has signalled not just to Syria, but to Iraq and Turkey, that they intend to assist the Kurds in the creation of a Kurdistan that takes territory from all three countries. This naturally concerns countries like Russia and Iran that are allies of Syria, and becoming very close allies of Iraq. Now Turkey is leaving the American club and heading over to the Russian club to take care of its own interests. Hence the often repeated word Erdogan uttered during his speech to the Turkish nation after the failed coup: " independence". Turkey is not saying that it is leaving NATO yet, but in effect it has "quit and stayed on". It is negotiating to allow Russia to use the massive air force base currently used by the US just 65 miles from the Syrian border - an unprecedented move for a NATO ally, which spurred the US to remove its nuclear weapons from the base this week.

It is becoming ever apparent that the West has really blown its own strategic legs off in the Middle east over the last two decades. Russia, and Eurasia in general, are simply filling the spot left in many ways. The US did the heavy lifting for them by its policies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and now Turkey. Speaking of Eurasia, China announced this week it will be massively upping its commitment to the Syrian conflict with "advisers", and supplies (read weapons, ammunition, etc). Rather than isolating Russia, and by ricochet Eurasia, in the Middle East, the US is now isolated in a land locked spot in between three countries - a hopeless position. The coup-de-grace is that it is also severely alienating itself from all these extremely important and strategically desirable nations.

As Turkey gravitates now toward Eurasia, slow at first but then very quickly, the West will only have itself to blame. It's hard to see it any other way. The fact that it is in northern Syria without the consent of the Syrian government would normally be considered in international law as an act of war. The fact that it is directly assisting the Kurds to overthrow the elected Syrian government is a blatant violation of internal law. You can't claim to be the world's superpower rooted in democracy and the rule of law, and then blatantly toss those principles to the side for expediency whenever the notion suits. It's that very attitude, that very "real polik" that has been the undoing of US foreign policy and influence over the last 20 or so years. Yet, it appears to be a hard habit to break.

In any case, Turkey is on the verge of becoming a new Iran. An Islamic state that asserts its independence through a distinctly national defence industry and close ties to powerful friends to its north and east. A realignment that will be all consuming. Gone will be the German political and economic influence in Turkey. A relationship that is being tested by Turkey as I write this post. It's the "you're either with us or against us moment" or, as Erdogan put it:

"The PYD (Kurds) has been getting closer with both the United States and Russia of late. We view the PYD as a terrorist group and we want all countries to consider the consequences of their cooperation."

Apparently the ever wise Putin did, and the ever self-righteous US administration did not. This monumental shift in geo-politics is far greater than most people on this side of the world are giving it credit for. Turkey isn't just " another hot-headed country in the Middle East" as our media seems to paint it. It has one of the largest standing armies in the world, but far more importantly than that, Turkey is the southern flank of Russia and the bridge between Europe and the Middle East. That should signal something to western governments. What has been lost, and what has been gained? A sobering thought indeed.

Steps from Armageddon

Unfortunately, it now appears the world is heading to that long prophesized war in the Middle East that we have all feared - the battle of Armageddon. The Bible describes it as a massive war in the Middle East where millions of soldiers are consumed. It begins with Russia coming out of communism (Godlessness) and doing God's bidding by taking on the forces of the Eagle (the US). It predicts that Russia will defeat the combined might of the US at the battle of Armageddon, including the Israeli army, and then there will be a large earthquake which will consume the Russian forces there. Forgive me if the biblical interpretations aren't 100%, but you get the idea.

As a young fellow I used to wonder how the "Bear" (Russia) could possibly end up in the Middle East with massive armies. It didn't seem to make sense, However, today, we are mere moments from that exact circumstance. There is no denying it any further.

In my opinion the war in Syria and Ukraine and elsewhere around the globe has to do with one thing, and one thing only - the US dollar. Simplistic as that may sound, it has been obvious as the nose on your face that China and Russia have managed to undermine American world economic dominance. The replacing of the US dollar with the Chinese Yuan, or a Yuan backed world currency, has been an ongoing issue since at least 2010 when it was first publicly advocated at the Davos world economic forum in Switzerland. China's moves since then have shown a steady path toward that goal. The Eurasian economic, and in many ways military bloc, have developed to the strategic level. The Chinese and Russians are using their reserves of US dollars to purchase hard assets (ie: Chicago Stock Exchange, Canadian tar sands, etc), and more importantly to subsidize the economic consequences of their actions. For example, while the West applied massive sanctions against Russia for the Ukraine situation, Russia simply turned to China for financial backing. The Chinese used their US reserves for the purpose. And so it goes.

The truth of the matter is this: the West has lost the economic war. It's over. It has been for awhile. The West is simply "dog paddling". Signs of this are: negative interest rates by Western central banks; zero or near zero inflation rates and economic growth; and the inability of traditional stimuli to fire up economies. It's over. We simply sit on the very cusp of complete economic collapse. The same applies to the Eurasian economies, except they are far less indebted than we are (Russia's government debt to GDP ratio is 16%, Canada is 86.51 %, the US 102.98%)  That part of the war is lost. The US/Saudi deal of the 1970's that allowed the US dollar to replace gold as the reserve currency is also undone. Saudi has been made redundant by technology for oil recovery, and by Russian and American production. In other words, the American cartel on oil has been irreversibly broken.

So all this leads us to today. One economically decaying super power facing the inevitable consequences of its own economic lack of discipline facing the rising contenders. The battlefield is switching to arms from dollars. The battlefields are the Middle East and the Pacific Rim. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, one a NATO ally, the other a US oil ally, are mere hours from starting the events that will lead to the battle that "consumes millions". A Turkish invasion of northern Syria is guaranteed. Today Saudi Arabia transferred fighter jets to Turkey to assist. That alliance also points to the almost certain invasion of southern Iraq by Saudi Arabia. That in turn will lead to the direct intervention of Iran against Saudi. If you ever watched Harry Potter, this is the real game of "Wizard's Chess". The Americans will come with their full military might to intervene (if you believe the Bible - which I do). Israel will for the most part stay pat and watch it unfold. However, even Israel will be turned on once the Americans have been defeated (if you believe the Bible - which I do).

The only question really left in my mind is: " Is this a bad thing, or is this simply God's will?". If it's God's will, and the Bible certainly says it is, then it's not a bad thing. Myself, I kind of hoped that humanity could rise above this kind of result, but that simply doesn't appear to be the case.

The Phoney War

We are living at a time of phoney war - at least that's my theory. A phoney war is a period where war-like moves are made, but the major powers of the day are not yet engaged in actual fighting. The most recent example of this was Hitler's moves in Europe before 1939 - like the Czech and Slovak Republics, etc. Acts that really ought to be considered acts of war, but for "pragmatic" reasons the world over looked them in hopes they would satisfy the aggressor. Those moves are happening today.

Consider Turkey for a moment. Turkey is at once fighting the Kurds on its own territory, and in northern Iraq, supporting ISIS and others against the Kurds in Syria. The problem in the geo-strategic sense is that Turkey is asserting its own perceived interest at the expense of world peace. It is breaking international law by fighting a "hybrid war" against Syria, and is on the verge of making that a very real conventional war in Syria - along with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is making similar moves in Yemen. In the Yemen case, Saudi has already invaded with conventional forces so there was not much pretense there of a phoney war.

In the big picture, however, today we are in a world scale phoney war. For some time I have thought on the reasoning the United States has "betrayed" its long time partner Saudi Arabia and allowed fracking to undermine the world price of oil. Purely examining today's events might leave you scratching your head. The US breaks its long time agreement with the Saudis, world control of oil for using US dollars in its purchase and sale. However, take a step outside the box, look at the many places of near war in the rest of the world, and a very real strategic move may be afoot.

My theory is this: the US is weaning itself off Saudi oil, and putting itself in a position of self-sufficiency, to insulate itself against a Middle east war that will see Saudi, Iraq and Iran lose the ability to export oil. Really its the only sensible conclusion to come to. The transition period was the last five years. Mass fracking in the US has resulted in over 4800 capped oil wells. Over production of oil has resulted in mass storage of oil reserves. Together, the result is a stockpile of strategic oil in the US, but also in Russia. The two big foes are insulating themselves against oil shortages at the same time in this phony war.

If that theory holds true, then I would expect a Middle East war to break out really at any time. Certainly the flash points are Iraq and Syria. Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia and some other minor allies will make a move on Sunni Iraq and northern Syria at the same time leaving rival Iran to address two fronts at once. Clearly that will bring in the Americans and Russians - although I would bank on the Russians being there in large numbers first. In any case, the damage to the oil fields of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would be on a massive scale. Given the technology and weapons possessed by both sides, massive damage to oil infrastructure is only a logical result.

It's funny how today's phoney war eerily points toward the biblical prophecies of the Battle of Armageddon. It's something that nobody wants to think is possible, but the signs seem to be growing all the time. It's as if we have a little self-destruct mechanism and are programming ourselves toward this fate. Of course you could always argue it's the will of God as expressed in the Bible. We have a hard time seeing it from that point of view, because we can't believe God would wish that upon us. But, God is God for a reason. We have human minds which are but a spec in the big picture. That being said, I hope I'm wrong in my observations, and analysis. Nobody should want or thirst over a phoney war. They always lead to the bigger one.  

On the March to World War III

As hard as it is to believe, and as hard as it is to comprehend, we are quickly moving toward World War III. It's strange in a way that the causes and signs of the impending war are wrapped like an onion - in many layers. This post is dedicated to unwrapping some of those layers, and giving people a point of reference for what's happening to their world before their very eyes.

1.  Economic Dominance equals Power.

Since the mid 1970's the US has dominated world power when it struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to have all world oil transactions conducted in US dollars. That caused currencies around the world to be valued against the US dollar rather than the previous gold standard. In recent decades the Russians and Chinese have positioned themselves to challenge Saudi's oil domination for exports and American domination in manufacturing and commerce. In 2010 the Russians and Chinese began aggressively pushing for a new world reserve currency that better reflected the strength of the world's economies (specifically the amount of debt countries carried).

After decades of  a cheap manufacturing/labour policy in China, the US had become a "fat cat" living on the glories of past economic discipline. Its national debt, much of it held by China, has come as a result of capitalism's weakest flank - the race to the bottom of the "lowest possible price". US corporations built their profits on it over the last 25 years, and the Chinese were only too happy to accommodate American corporations greed. China has now turned those profits, held in US dollars (in the trillions) into a weapon, or what is commonly referred to as the "Chinese Nuke". While maneuvering to have their Yuan installed as the world reserve currency, and thereby overtaking the US in economic and political dominance in the world, China has held the threat of mass de-dollarization , and a fire sale of US debt, over the Americans head.  In essence, the Chinese have placed the US, and the rest of the Western world in checkmate using capitalism - which is ironic considering it remains a communist country.

That leaves the Western world with two choices: 1. Accept that China and Russia have beaten them at their own game, and turn over world economic and political power; or 2. Engage China and Russia with the only possible advantage they still have - armed force.

2. Bi-Polar World

As a key part of its strategy to deny the US sole world power status, China and Russia have focused a great deal of their wealth on creating the "BRIC Alliance" or "Eurasia"(which I prefer). The core partners in this alliance are Russia, China, India and Iran. The lesser partners are Iraq, Syria, Cuba, South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil. Together they reflect the most demographically prolific regions in the world, which means they have the greatest markets to consume products, which further means that denying those markets to the West is fatal to Western trading and therefore quality of life and power. Having these regions trade together without the US dollar also necessarily relegates the US dollar to second place behind the Chines Yuan. The result is a bi-polar world. Two massive economies separated from each other - one built to grown and thrive on inter-trade and one destined to die from debt and lack of markets to support that debt.

A key developing feature of this new trading reality is military cooperation. Key to this is the gravitation of India into the Eurasian military sphere. Not only is Russia exporting its latest technology to China, India, and other Eurasian partners, but constant large scale military exercises between these countries have proliferated over the last few years. The relationships, both military and economic, now intertwine the Eurasian Community, and leave no doubt that their national interests lay with each other - not the West.


3. Might is Right.

The US is not reacting well to losing its international "top-dog" status. In fact, it has laid down the gauntlet - a bi-polar world is unacceptable. As it is incapable of attacking the Eurasian alliance financially, as to do so would immediately result in economic chaos for the West, it has chosen a military path in what can only be seen as a large scale, and very dangerous game of chicken. Notable challenges to Russia have included sponsored revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and to some extent former Soviet Republics on Russia's southern borders. Notable challenges to China have come in the form of economic warfare in Africa, and direct military and diplomatic measures in the South China Sea, and to a lesser extent South Korea. A large scale, but dubious economic challenge aimed at China is of course the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" (TPP) which excludes China, and is obviously intended to entice its neighbors toward the rewards of importing and trading with the American market.

Currently the epicenter of the "might will make right doctrine" is being played out in Syria, Iraq, and to a lesser extent Yemen. An escalating game of chess there is leading the "two solitudes" toward actual war. In a sense, it's a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran - between Sunni and Shia. In reality, it's the purposeful use of centuries old hatreds between the two, with the goal of forcing either Eurasia or the West to accept the other's view of a "Brand New World Order". To that end, everyone is all in. Russia, despite having attempted to keep the conflict between the West and Eurasia on economic grounds (as its military is in rebuild mode with a finish date of 2020), has moved strategic and tactical forces into Syria. It has also promised to do the same for Iraq should the Iraqi government request it.

Turkey, a NATO partner, has shot down one Russian bomber, allowed ISIS forces to use its territory to conduct a "regime change war" against Syria, and now just days ago invaded Northern Iraq with a combat team of tans and infantry. According to the Iraqi government, the US has informed it that up to 90,000 Saudi troops and 10,000 US troops will be entering Iraq to "fight terrorists". In reality, both Saudi and the US have been accused of aiding, directly and/or indirectly, ISIS and other groups to overthrow the Shia governments of Iraq and Syria. Iran, the primary Shia power in the area, is already fighting in Syria, and would immediately enter Iraq, likely at the request of the Iraqi government, to fight any Saudi invasion of Iraqi territory.

In summary, it's quite easy to see where all this is leading - first the proxy powers and then the main powers. Neither side will blink. The die has been cast by both.

4. The Fall Out.

The result of the escalation we've seen is very predictable on the Middle East. Given the massive military buildup of Iranian and Saudi forces, we can expect so see a very quick and very deadly battle between the two. A battle played out from Iran to Egypt involving millions of troops, massive armour, and more importantly missile forces. While Saudi has the clear advantage in air forces, Iran has a clear advantage in missile technology to deal with them, so a land forces/ conventional war like early World War II is the likely result. In such a case, millions of fatalities can be expected. That is without the direct intervention of any super powers.

However, with Russia already in theater in Syria, and American bases scattered throughout the region, it would be naive to believe they would not be engaged. The clear advantage in such a scenario is to the Russians. Russia is closer to the area, so deployment of conventional forces there is much easier, and less fraught with intervention, than the US moving forces across the Atlantic or Pacific in large numbers. Also, in such a scenario, the US would have to deal with China on a stand alone basis in the Pacific area. Not an easy task considering China's conventional and strategic forces.

Then there is the "home front factor". In such a scenario Western Europe is bound to be drawn in immediately against Russia. It is very, very doubtful that western civilian populations have any stomach for war against the Russian people - no matter the sell to support it. Having lost untold millions in recent memory to large scale war, and the destruction of their countries, most Europeans are likely to rise up against such a proposition. Equally volatile is the American population. Notoriously inward looking, most Americans are consumed with their own country and have no stomach for foreign wars or any kind that involve casualties - let alone a war that would cause mass casualties in the US itself.

So, while the powers to be in the West maneuver toward world war, it is highly doubtful the population would support such an action. Conversely, the Chinese in particular have no such issues. The financial collapse of 2008 required 200 million Chines be sent back to their villages from urban centres in China, without so much as a peep. Such an action in the Western world would have resulted in revolt. So, that is the playing field. In all scenarios, the West can not win the battle it is formulating. It is unlikely that anyone would win from such a war, but it is certain that if there would be a victor that it will not be the US or the West.

5. What Should Happen.

In the ideal world, which could be this one, the West ought to admit economic defeat and take its place in a new bi-polar world. The rules of the game were set by the West, and the loss of that game ought to be accepted by the West. To change the rules to suit your own purpose simply destroys not just your credibility, but also that of the "world system" itself. History has ebbs and flows. Empires rise and fall. Economic systems collapse and are rebuilt. We know all of this from a simple study of our own recent history. It is the nature of the beast. To fight that result as if somehow your empire is more noble than any other of the past is arrogance beyond the pale.

The rationing of whatever resources the world has that we feel the need to consume has always been dictated by the efficient production and consumption of those resources - whatever the system. If the Chinese, Russian, Indian, etc countries are now in a stronger position to carry forward with that leadership in consumption, well, that's just natural selection really. They've shown discipline in consumption while we have not.

In the end, the only way to avoid what is playing itself out now in the world, the US and the West in general needs to accept that the Eurasian countries have worked their way up to likely dominate world trade and to some extent power. Perhaps it is a chance for all of us to renegotiate, or rediscover, the respect for sovereign nations and people that has been woefully discarded. Would that not make for a much better world for all of us? I believe it would. We don't need a Walmart to survive or be fulfilled.We do however need this planet.  



  

The King is Dead. Long Live the King

The oil world as we have known it is dead.

As the established market price setter, OPEC has reigned supreme internationally since 1960. In that year Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Kuwait founded the organization - known as the "Founding Members". In 1973, US President Richard Nixon signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia that in exchange for US protection, and arms, the Saudis would accept only US dollars in oil transactions. The other OPEC members then followed suit. All was well in the Kingdom.

Things have changed for three primary reasons. Firstly, China has risen to the point where it is now the second largest consumer of oil in the world. Secondly, the US with its fracking policies has now become the largest producer of oil in the world. Thirdly, Russia has grown to challenge Saudi Arabia's production levels. Three monumental shifts. Essentially the shifts have on the one hand structurally reduced the value of oil, and on the other hand have changed the demand cycle for oil.

Between 1973 and 1980, the US produced roughly an equal amount of oil as that of Saudi Arabia. However, from 1980 to 2009 US production dropped dramatically until the fracking revolution again placed it near Saudi production. At the same time Russia dramatically grew its production of oil just after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990's, to the point that Russia shares top spot with the US, and Saudi.  

Then there were wars. The US and Saudi Arabia covertly and overtly attempted to either control or destroy the oil capabilities of Iran, Iraq and Venezuela (three of OPEC's founding members) by way of military force or revolution. For the most part these actions were successful to one degree or another. However, now all three have gravitated toward Russia and China for their economic well being. In a sense, this is another monumental shift to add to the three above.

That brings us to today. Russia and China have moved to eliminate the US as the controller of world-wide oil wealth. They have created a Eurasian trading community that speaks to the production of oil, and perhaps more importantly the consumption of oil.

In 2015, Russia and China began signing oil supply and purchase agreements that required transactions to be conducted in local currencies - not US dollars. That had the effect of increasing oil production and trading among the Eurasian bloc of countries. It excluded the US, but also Saudi Arabia, from oil market influence. For example, Russia signed agreements with Venezuela to swap Venezuelan oil for Russian consumer goods - not much different than the old Soviet model of international trading. China signed oil supply agreements with Iran. And so it goes.

That left the old King of OPEC, Saudi Arabia, out in the cold. In an attempt to restore its position Saudi Arabia increased production, along with the Americans, The resulting massive price per barrel decline had the effect of driving many countries into recession and/or hyperinflation (Venezuela). But, and it's a big but, the move failed in its objective. The Eurasian community, and its allies, simply turned inward and compensated each other by trading in their own currencies and products.

Hence the recent visits by Saudi royalty to Russia. On the face of it, Saudi is looking for Russian cooperation in Syria - ie: a departure of Russia from the Syria conflict. However, the real reason for the sudden Saudi diplomacy toward Russia is peace overtures in an oil war they have lost. Saudi is now a lonely supplier of oil running out of markets. Worse for them, the US now no longer needs them for supply and or control of OPEC. The new OPEC is in Eurasia. Specifically Russia.

What all this means for the world of oil is that the cartel days are over. The US stands alone as an oil force. Eurasia and allies stand alone as an oil force. Saudi stands alone with Kuwait and Qatar. It means that world oil prices will now be permanently depressed - likely well below where they rest today. It means an end to the boom of the expensive oil exploration and trade that fueled petro economies around the world - my own included. It's a new reality. Oil is no longer King, and it is no longer exclusive. So, while OPEC is dead, a new oil King has been anointed. That King without any doubt whatsoever is Eurasia.  

Canada's New Moth to Flame Foreign Policy

The Conservative government in Ottawa is dragging the Canadian people into the fire that is the geo-strategic war between the United States and Eurasia. It is not a place that Canadian have traditionally wanted to be in, nor is it a place they want to be in now - yet it's happening.

The first step in the march toward becoming America's "little brother", rather than "cousin", came during the initial Ukrainian conflict with the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. Prime Minister Harper quickly jumped in on the side of the never elected, but mutinously in-placed "Maiden" government. A collection of protest groups, organized it is allegedly by western governments, and dominated by neo-Nazi groups like "Aydar", "Right Sector", and the like. Real like torch burning, swastika waving neo-Nazi's. The kind of people that would make my father spin in his grave having spent five years of his youth fighting this kind of scum. He took pride in playing a part to wiping them out. And now, so many years later, like a dormant virus the neo-Nazi's reemerge in Ukraine.

Next, we as a country intervene, albeit in a small way, in the conflict in Syria. Or, loosely defined as the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia being played out in Syria. Some will jump in and say wait a minute, we started by bombing ISIS in Iraq, and just now moved that into Syria. True enough, but the fire started in Syria, and it's now returned. The bottom line for Canada is why are we intervening with even one singular soldier in this conflict? Saudi Arabia is no different than ISIS. The major difference between the two is Saudi Arabia uses swords to cut off the heads or limbs of those it condemns of breaching the Koran, while ISIS uses knives. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. The west rightly condemns ISIS for it's brutal implementation of  ultra-orthodox Islamic law, but doesn't utter a singular word against Saudi Arabia for the exact same crimes. Geo-strategic selective vision at it's worst.

Back to our new "Evil Empire Russia" foreign policy. All things Russian are now viewed as all things repugnant - including to our great shame, the boycotting of the Russian celebration of the 70th anniversary of Victory Day against the Nazis. Despite being elected by the Russian people with double the plurality that our own Prime Minister has ever received in a decade of his governance, we refer to the Russian President now as the head of a mafia, a Godfather of the Russian Mafia, a murderer of the media, a controlling evil manipulator of his own people and the world, etc. We demonize the man. He is the new enemy, therefore he must lose all "humanness". Meanwhile, the government of Canada ignores the massive list of war crimes documented and committed against the people of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics as if somehow it never happened. It's bizarre. The Ukraine army leveled entire villages, towns, and relentlessly shelled and even fired ballistic missiles, into the major cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. Thousands upon thousands of civilians were slaughtered by modern, high explosive munitions. Tens of thousands were maimed for life. Hundreds of thousands have been left homeless and as refugees. Their crime? Wanting to get the hell out of Ukraine with their land. Also known as self-determination - a right guaranteed under the UN Charter.

Yet, despite the ugly, brutal truth of the Ukraine government's slaughter of its "own" people in the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk over the last year or so, the Canadian government now sees fit to send "trainers" to Ukraine to help retrain an army that lost horribly at the hands of its "own" people. Not to say they didn't have some help along the way, but none the less, our government is going to assist in the rebuilding of the Ukraine army. An army guilty of horrendous war crimes. That means the Canadian people are assisting as well, as long as we remain silent on the issue.

Prime Minister Harper seems to be a guy that can't help being that Cold War leader he always wanted to be, but was born too late for. It's just hard to see it any other way. We stayed out of Iraq, because we had a Prime Minister who understood Canadians don't want to follow the US from one war to another. We're not into it. We like our wars on ice. We don't support dictators, no matter which geo-strategic side they're on. We shake our collective heads at the American government as it goes around the world trying to be "world cop". Live and let live in peace, for all. That is our policy. That is our wish. Now, that is our dream. Canada has lost its way. It's role as honest broker in the Middle East, which we always cherished, has been reduced to our just recently retired Foreign Minister being egged in a Palestinian refugee camp. We've been snubbed at the UN from Security Council roles. We have lost any appearance of being an honest broker for disputes between Eurasia and the US. In a word, we have lost "respect". With that loss of respect we have lost the trust of those who we now stand opposed to. We no longer enjoy the position that Pearson and others engineered for us on the world stage. We no longer stand for the "right". Now, like a moth lured excitedly to the flame, we jump at every opportunity to prove we are anything but a friend of peace.

Sorry to the world. It's a government, not a people.



 

The Oil Overdose

Oil is done as a "gold" standard. "Black Gold" is now more like "Black Coal". It's everywhere and plentiful. Many countries in the world, and provinces in Canada (like my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador) have bet the farm on unending oil wealth to fuel their growth. Some, like Norway, have banked all those petro dollars into a trillion dollar savings fund that essentially makes every Norwegian a millionaire. Others have used the big bucks to build massive militaries - like Russia; Saudi Arabia; and Iran to name a few. The old black gold has been a God send for those that have it, but those days have come and gone.

Some economists are predicting a relatively short turn around for oil prices - somewhere between a year or two. Very few economists have ventured into the permanently depressed price projection. So, does the evidence support a short term downturn or a fundamental, long-term decline in the price of crude oil? One of the few interesting trends in oil, that has not been discussed much, is the narrowing of the price for oil between the benchmarks of West Texas Crude (WTI) and Brent Crude. Generally, Brent Crude is a world price for oil, while the WTI is the American price. Not too long ago there was a 20% difference in the two benchmarks - WTI being the cheapest. Today that gap has narrowed to the point of near parity. What does that indicate? In two words - European deflation. The European economy is spiraling downward with massive unemployment in places like Spain and Greece, and negative bond issues in places like Germany and Switzerland. In effect, Europe as an economic entity is tapped out.

Then there is the suppression of oil exports into the world oil trade. Most notably Iran. Iran has been severely restrained from exporting oil due to US led sanctions. It has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and is strategically located to send that oil to market at a low cost. In effect Iran's oil has already been priced out of the market price. Then there is Libya. It has been torn apart by civil war like conditions, inter-tribal warfare, and now Islamic warfare. Its oil exports have been essentially removed from the market. Nigeria is falling into a similar position. Ditto for Iraq, In other words, the glut of oil in the world is really only a small measure of what that glut would look like if and when these countries come back into the market in a significant way.

There is the major factor of new discoveries and technology to consider. A massive oil and gas field has been discovered off the coasts of Israel and Gaza, and is as yet untapped. There are major oil plays in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and to some extent Turkey that remain well underutilized. The dueling technologies of fracking and offshore sub sea "tentical"lines have revolutionized the ability to recover oil from previously trapped locations.

In other words, there is just too much oil in the world, for the foreseeable future, to warrant a scarcity price. The current prices really reflect almost a Debeers - type strategy. Debeers of course controls the world diamond market and ensures that prices remain high by restricting volume in the market. A similar trend is happening with oil. In reality, oil should be at $15-25 per barrel US. Prices above this reflect artificial interventions in the market place, which cushion the fall for many governments that have built societies based on $100 + oil. My province is no different. In fact, even at the current inflated prices, Newfoundland and Labrador looks to be taking a 15-20% hit on its annual budget. Addressing these issues of revenue loss for governments is guaranteed to add further to deflation as consumer confidence crashes and the internal markets realign to economic reality. The same can be said for countries like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, etc.

Predicting the future is a tough task indeed. But, as the CSI saying goes: "people lie, the evidence doesn't." In order to see that future we need to understand demographic trends, political/trade trends, supply and demand trends, etc and synthesize them into one living organism (our world). It's abundantly clear that artificial barriers, primarily caused by speculators in the trading markets, are becoming more and more redundant. As the world economy deflates, which it is, those artificial barriers to the true market value of oil fall away. Expect to see oil decline as the world economy deflates. They go hand in hand, with one racing before the other. Unfortunately, for people like ours that have been subjected to "good times" spending and zero savings, the end of the oil bounty is the end of the party. The government has suffered an oil overdose, and we let them.

The Middle East on Fire

The Middle East is a complicated place in some ways, but it is understandable. It's firstly about religion. Secondly, it's about power. Then it's about money. In that order. Often I hear people discuss the Middle East as if it was "all about oil", but that is very naive and simplistic. Then I hear people say "well they've been killing themselves since history began". Well, that may be true somewhat, but so have people in the rest of the world. Also, oil has only been a factor for 100 years. What about the rest of history?

The key to understanding the Middle East is realizing everything in the Middle East is anchored in religion. In the Arab sense that means either Shia or Sunni branches of Islam. From the same beginnings, but divided in history, and at war ever since. Throughout most of recent history, western powers of one kind or another have attempted to impose order on these divisions by imposing "countries" on them, with strong dictatorships to keep those two branches in some sort of working order. The cruelty necessary to do so was never at question, only the result. Order no matter what. That became increasingly necessary after oil was discovered.

The "deal" if you will was blown apart by George W. Bush in Desert Storm II when he invaded and conquered Iraq. Essentially, he let the genie out of the bottle. When his father forced Hussien out of Kuwait, he stopped the invasion before toppling Hussien. As an ex-director of the CIA, Bush senior knew that Hussien was all that held Iraq together, and giving the people there democracy was akin to lighting the house on fire. His son chose differently.

What happened in Iraq was as predictable as the sun rising and setting. The majority Shia won the elections. The minority Sunni, who had controlled Iraq via Hussien, turned on the Americans causing them 4000 plus deaths. The Shia hated the US even more than the Sunnis and happily watched and assisted as the US became embroiled. It wasn't until the US decided to buy off the Sunnis, literally, by paying insurgents a salary via "awakening" councils, that the heat went off them in Iraq. But, it never went out between the Sunnis and Shia. In fact, it opened the door for Shia Iran next door to gain vast influence in Iraq that it never had before.

The US invasion also had the affect of driving Iran (Shia) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni) into the fore front. Since that time, the two have been engaged in a not so covert war to dominate the region for their religious branch. Not for oil, but rather for the bragging rights that their half of the Muslim religion was righteous, and prevailed over the other... as was destined. Both countries have massively armed themselves. One fed by the US (Saudi) and the other by its own industry and Russia (Shia). Iran supported groups in the region that supported the Shia like Hezbollah, etc. Saudi supported the other side. Same goes for every "country" in the Middle East. I use quotations on country, because countries are a mainly European/Western imposition on the area. The Middle East is better described as Tribes. That is their nature, their history, and their loyalty - even today.

The US added some gas to the fire when it and NATO, by abusing the UN enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in Libya, toppled another dictator and opened the area to religious tribalism. The same can be said for the covert, not at the time overt, US involvement supporting anti-Assad rebels in Syria. Assad equals Shia (Iran) and the rebels including ISIS equal the Sunni (Saudi). What the US has been doing is undoing the system of order and control it either helped or unilaterally imposed on the religious tribes of the Middle East. In other words, it is hauling truckloads of the driest wood you can find, soaking it in petrol, and throwing the flame on top. A rather curious dance of creating the conditions for competing extremism, and then deeming itself to be at war with it.

The latest Middle East "country" to implode on the US is Yemen. Situated at the mouth of the Gulf, Yemen is very geo-politically important. The Houthis have taken power there after overthrowing, you guessed it, the Saudi (Sunni) dictatorship. The Houthis are of the Zaidi branch of, you guessed it, Shia. As I write this post, the United Nations security Council has been called to a meeting to discuss the Houthis takeover of Yemen. Simultaneously, the US has just announced it is sending 4000 plus troops to its base in Kuwait. Whatever happens, you can be sure that either Saudi Arabia, or the US, or both will invade Yemen at any time now. And so it goes.

What is at fault for all the chaos in the Middle East? That depends on how you rationalize it. However, there are some truths that remain so no matter the rationalization. The Middle east is a land of tribes that hold their religion, Shia, Sunni, or Jewish, more dear than any other thing. It is who they are, and it is the source for all they are - including politics. Values there are not based on democracy, or any kind of "free society". For them, in many ways, democracy and freedom are counter to what is expected of them by their religions. Human freedom, if followed to its logical conclusion, would go against the teachings of the Koran, and that is as offensive to them as watching people be decapitated is to us. But, the US and other Western nations never seem to learn that lesson. Our governments continue to try and impose the "white man's burden" on them. Even though it has no chance of ever succeeding. We stir the pot, and then cry foul that the pot never ceases to stop boiling.

Now, though, the US has raised the heat in the Middle East so drastically that the ominous tales of Armageddon come to mind. The bear vs the eagle. The great war in the Middle East that consumes millions. Scary stuff. Very scary stuff. But ask yourself: what is the logical conclusion to the fires burning in Syria, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and now Yemen? It has to all be going somewhere - such is the nature of our human condition. So where? The Shia and the Sunni aren't going to happily toddle off to their particular corners and allow one side or the other to freely reign over them, The US, Russia, China, etc are not about to walk away and leave what they perceive to be their pawns toppled from the board. Where are all of these competing interests leading us? To one big explosion of violence or to one big reconciliation? If the US government wasn't the "power" on earth that they seem to be, I would say we have a chance of creating some sort of respectful co-existence in the Middle East. Whether that be by attrition or agreement. However, if the US remains free to dance in the china shop, well, let's just say people should start reading their Bibles' story of Armageddon. It's a story about lighting the Middle East on fire.  

The War of the Pipelines: Russia vs US

The escalation of the Syrian conflict is about many things, but chemical warfare is not one of them. Primarily, the "proxy war" in Syria is about geo-economic control. Those that have, those that want to keep it, and those that want it. It's pretty much the same game that has played out through out history. The only real difference is the capacity of many sides to end humanity in the process - which makes the responsible use of the game's rules essential.

The Russians have the natural gas monopoly over Europe. They have a strategic and economic advantage they want to keep. It allows them to exercise extreme influence over countries that used to belong to the USSR or the Eastern Bloc - like Poland, the Ukraine and others. It gives them a strong hand in negotiating with other western European countries like Germany in particular. The Americans are in a different situation. Their geo-political interests are in weakening Russia and China's economic strength thereby maintaining their own international influence and control. They regularly "duke it out" in minor conflicts all over the world - most recently in Africa and of long standing the Middle East. Critically, in this international game of chess, they never make it between themselves - until now.

The region encompassing Syria, Iraq, and Turkey has historically been the land bridge between West and the East. That makes it strategically important to control, or at least deny to the other side. Qatar has a giant reserve of natural gas (at least 30 trillion cubic feet) that it wants to export by pipeline to Europe. The Saudi's want to do the same. In 2009 President Assad of Syria refused to sign a pipeline agreement to build a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey. Turkey's established goal is to be the centre of all pipelines between Europe and the Saudi area. Assad's established goal is the same for Syria. Assad is in control of Syria. Russia is in control of Assad. Russia doesn't want to lose control of the European gas market. It's using Assad to make sure any such proposal remains just that - a proposal. Instead, Assad signed onto an Iran, Iraq, Syria pipeline proposal. Iran is a minor natural gas producer and imports most of its gas from Russia. Such a pipeline then tends to be a regional pipeline that doesn't threaten Russia's position in Europe.

However, using that old slogan, it is not in the "national interests" of the US, or its Saudi allies, or even its Israeli allies, to allow this to happen. It’s also not in the interests of Russia, or its Iranian allies, or its Syrian allies to allow the Saudi-US challenge to be successful.

In fact it is so crucial to both the US, and some of its European and middle-eastern allies that an insurgency was propagated on Syria - to replace Assad's government. Here, so far, it has been Saudi Arabia vs. Iran as each camp’s local powers use their pawns to duke it out. Iran using its Shia alliances including the Alawites of Syria, Hezbollah of Lebanon, and Iranian forces. Saudi using its Sunni allies in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and even Lebanon. In addition, Saudi has brought in Al-Qaeda forces and even Chechens that it finances. To underscore that point, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan met with President Putin. He used a carrot/stick approach with him. On the one hand he was willing to offer Russia $15 billion in military contracts, and a new partnership in natural gas exports. On the other hand he made it clear that the "new Syrian" government would be under Saudi control and he controlled the Chechens meaning he could create peace for the Russian Olympics – or presumably the reverse. Putin was naturally infuriated by the stick approach, and the challenge to Russian influence and control in Syria and the European market. He turned it down.

Now we are left with the inevitable result of this poke in the chest game - war or humiliation. There is no more middle ground. One superpower or the other is going to lose and the result will effect the world. Already we have seen the US bring massive naval and air assets into the region. Today it was reported the US Sixth Fleet carrier task force is moving in to join the five to six ships already there, not including subs. Britain and France also have large air and naval presences there. Now we learn Russia is sending 12 ships into the region to join the fleet already there, and today a spy ship was added to the number. That does not include the air assets of Saudi or Israel, nor does it include the ballistic missile forces of Iran or Syria.

The US build makes a mockery of the US position that they are simply going to launch 100-200 cruise missiles into Syria. Their missile frigates already in place could manage that. No, it appears the US is going in to take control of the situation by destroying Syria's air defence forces, bombing Syrian military units, imposing a no-fly zone, and changing the regime just like Libya. No question. Nowhere near the force built up is required for a limited strike. In the last several months the US has also placed Patriot anti-missile batteries surrounding Syria in Jordan, Israel, and Turkey. The mission, obviously pre-planned, is to control Syrian airspace and destroy the regime militarily. As the Saudi prince said, Saudi Arabia will control the new government in Syria, and it looks as though the Saudi armed and funded militants on the ground in Syria are meant to be that force.

All this may just make most in the West roll their eyes and say "oh the US is thumping out another dictator, and who cares?" This time is different though. This time Russia sees its vital interests not just being threatened, but actually in danger of being destroyed. That us why Russia's navy are stepping in, and that is why things have never been more dangerous. The proxy war has had its mask removed; the players are now facing each other in a fight that could be disastrous for the world. Neither is prepared to back down for the same reason - national interest. It's fashionable to say religions cause wars, but in reality it is "national interests" as defined by those that define. In this case the national interests are pipelines and control. The suffering of the Syrian people has absolutely nothing to do with it.