ISIS - Frankenstein or Bait?

ISIS, the Sunni Islamic militant force, is the birth child of a marriage between Saudi Arabia's regional ambition and the United States' geo-strategic interests. It's really that simple. It's ramifications are not quite so simple.

The Americans have always been aware that having Sunnis in charge of a country keeps the lid on things - to their benefit. It's been an ongoing theme now for almost 80 years. Saudi Arabia is the "world headquarters" for the Sunni sect. It has the strategic alliance with the US. It has the money because of that alliance, and it uses the money to arm itself and its Sunni allies. The same is true for Iran - with the exception of who is in charge since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the late 1990's. There is a common thread throughout this history. It cannot seriously be denied. It's obvious. The United States lies behind Saudi Arabia, and American controlled Sunni governments are kept in power to preserve that alliance.

In recent times, there are two classic examples of Sunni leaders that were brought down by US military power at the behest of Saudi Arabia - Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Both challenged Saudi Arabia's control of the Middle East, and both were overthrown with the decisive assistance, or actual military intervention of the US. Each publicly stated the US would never overthrow them, because to do so would mean Al Qaeda would take over. Both were wrong. It begs the question, why were both so convinced that the US would not overthrow them and let Al Qaeda, a Sunni militant movement, take over?

The answer lies in US "strategic interests", not just in the Middle East, but beyond. ISIS, the new version of Al Qaeda, is challenging for control of Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. In Yemen, ISIS is fighting the Shia Houthi, who have overthrown the Saudi-supported Sunni leader there. In Iraq and Syria, ISIS is aiming for full control of both countries, and the overthrow of their Shia leadership. ISIS is even attempting to destabilize Hezbollah (Shia) in Lebanon, and challenge Sunni Hamas over control in the Gaza strip. In effect and reality, ISIS is the foreign legion of Saudi Arabia and therefore the US.

Now, people will say that ISIS is a threat to the West. That simply is not true. ISIS is a threat to Shia governments in the Middle East, and too-moderate Sunni governments, but has no chance of harming Western civilization. Some will sight the deaths in Canada and Europe at the hands of ISIS as proof that our civilization is under threat, and draconian laws are necessary to stop them. That simply is not true. In fact, all ISIS did was activate two people, in the case of France three, to conduct targeted hits in Western countries that caused fury - but no national damage. It was not there, then it was there, and now it is not. A bogey man so too speak. Enough of a scare that people would get behind their military intervening in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Not enough to do any sort of damage whatsoever to the security of these Western countries. A slight of hand if you will.

It challenges the mind to think that the combined air might of Western countries could not reduce ISIS in Syria and Iraq into dust within a few weeks at most. It did so when ISIS went rogue and tried to take Iraqi Kurdistan in Iraq's north. ISIS was almost immediately stopped dead in its tracks. Of course, the Kurdish lands in northern Iraq have become almost a US protectorate - and US oil company haven. But, in the rest of Iraq, it seems the air campaign has almost no effect on ISIS operations.

Now, just yesterday the major Iraqi city of Ramadi has fallen to ISIS. And, today, thousands of Shia militia men are gathering to try and take it back. Ramadi is important for several reasons. Firstly, it is very close to Baghdad and provides a major base of operations for ISIS to attack Baghdad itself. Secondly, it is a major psychological blow to Iraq's Shia government and its people. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it is a direct threat to Iran. It is a threat that Iran will no longer be able to ignore. Hence, Iran's Minister of Defence arrived in Baghdad today for "talks". Iran's allies in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iraq are being seriously threatened by ISIS, on behalf of Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the US. Its back is now close to being up against the wall. If it fails to militarily intervene in Iraq decisively, and early enough, it risks having the ISIS hordes on its own border. If it does intervene now it risks a counter military intervention by Saudi Arabia in Iraq. It's all in the calculation. Unfortunately for the world, it appears now the calculations are pointing toward war with Iraq being the primary battleground.

So, is ISIS a Frankenstein created by Saudi Arabia, out of control, and allowed by the US, or is it bait to lure Iran into a decisive war and its ultimate defeat. One thing is certain, it's not both. ISIS is not a Frankenstein that once created has left the control of its master, and is rampaging across the Middle East out of control. No. ISIS is a tool to undermine Shia influence in the Middle East. To destroy it. To establish once and for all that Sunnis are to dominate power over all the Middle East, and especially the Shia. It's an ancient battle of the two Islamic sects. Each considers the other heretics. Each believes heretics must die. ISIS is a weapon. A weapon of mass destruction. An invitation to much greater mass destruction on a regional level, and then perhaps a global level. ISIS is bait to lure Iran into war, and then presumably Russia, China, India, etc. ISIS is also a weapon to lure the US into a war against Iran in the "defence" of Saudi Arabia. It's a playbook if you will for a world war.  ISIS is a weapon in the hands of men that don't want peace or stability in the world. In that way, ISIS is a menace to all of us.

  

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.