|
Behind the anti-terror alibi, the gas
war in the Levant
by Thierry Meyssan
Though everyone adheres to
Washington and its Gulf allies’ anti-terrorist
discourse, everyone understands that it is only a
rhetorical justification for a war that has other
purposes. The United States say they want to destroy
the Islamic Emirate which they created and which
performs for them the ethnic cleansing necessary to
its plan for the remodeling of the "Broader Middle
East". Stranger still, they say they want to fight
in Syria alongside the moderate opposition which is
composed of the same jihadists. Finally, they
destroyed Rakka buildings that had been evacuated
two days earlier by the Islamic Emirate. For Thierry
Meyssan, behind these apparent contradictions the
gas war continues.
Ignoring international law, the American president,
Barack Obama,
fine tunes his aerial bombing campaign in
Syria with his allies in the Gulf
(New York, September 23, 2014.
The US air campaign in Iraq and
Syria is puzzling: it is impossible to destroy a
terrorist group exclusively by air strikes. In Iraq,
the United States and the GCC coupled their actions
with those of Iraqi troops and Kurdish ground
forces. In Syria, they have no serious force to
fight against the Islamic Emirate. And even in this
case, "the bombings are not able to affect the
capacity of the Islamic Emirate or its operations in
other parts of Iraq or Syria," according to General
William Mayville, chief of operations at the US
Chiefs of Staff. [1]
Moreover,
and despite official declarations, the Islamic
Emirate is a creation of the United States and the
GCC, and it unflaggingly serves their interests:
• In May
2013, Senator John McCain came to Syria illegally to
meet the staff of the Free Syrian Army (moderate),
including Abu Youssef, also known as Abu Du’a, alias
Ibrahim al-Baghdadi, the current caliph Ibrahim
(Head of the extremists) [2].
• In
January 2014, Reuters revealed that President Obama
had called a secret session of Congress during which
it voted to fund and arm the "rebels" in Syria,
including those of the Islamic Emirate until
September 2014 [3].
It was indeed a secret session and not just behind
closed doors. The entire American press complied
with the censorship of this information.
• Proud
of this acknowledgement, Saudi state television
clamored the fact that the Islamic Emirate was
headed by Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal. [4]
•
Meanwhile the head of Israeli military intelligence,
General Aviv Kochavi, warned against a proliferation
of anti-Syrian fighters and found that members of
al-Qaida, including those of the Islamic Emirate
(which it had not yet divorced) were trained in
three camps in Turkey [under NATO control] located
in Şanlıurfa, Osmaniye and Karaman. [5]
• In May
2014, Saudi Arabia handed over new heavy weapons and
quantities of new Toyotas (purchased in Ukraine) to
the Islamic Emirate to invade Iraq. The transfer was
carried out by a special train chartered by the
Turkish secret services.
• On May
27, Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish
regional government in Iraq, went to Amman to
coordinate the invasion of Iraq between Iraqi Kurds
and the Islamic Emirate. An additional meeting was
held, also in Amman, with numerous Sunni partners on
June 1. [“PKK
revelations on ISIL attack and creation of
"Kurdistan"”,
Voltaire Network, 8 July 2014.]]
• In
early June, the Islamic Emirate and the Local
Government of Kurdistan went on the attack. The
Islamic Emirate, in accordance with its mission,
spread terror in order to accomplish the ethnic
cleansing that the US army had been unable to
achieve in 2003. Thus is realized, to use the
expression of the US Chiefs of Staff adopted in
2001, the remodeling the "Greater Middle East".
So there
is no reason for the United States to destroy the
Islamic Emirate, if not the publicized - and suspect
- death of three of their nationals, which cannot
justify the deluge of fire.
While it
is clear that the main target of the air campaign is
not the one that is announced, no one is able to say
precisely what it seeks to destroy. The most that
can be said is that the United States and its GCC
allies bombed empty buildings in Rakka - which had
been evacuated two days earlier by the Islamic
Emirate, and a dozen refineries in eastern Syria.
Bombing of a Syrian refinery by the US Air Force,
September 24, 2014. Refineries are among the most
expensive industrial investments.
So what
do these refineries signify in a war allegedly waged
against terrorism? According to the Pentagon, they
were controlled by the Islamic Emirate and brought
it much income.
The
answer is obviously false. When states under embargo
try to sell gas or oil on the international market,
they do not succeed. But the Islamic Emirate does,
despite resolutions 1373 (2001) and 2170 (2014) of
the Security Council. Publicly notorious, it steals
oil in Iraq and Syria, routing it by pipeline to the
Turkish port of Ceyhan, from where it is transported
to Israel by tankers of the Palmali Shipping &
Agency JSC, the Turkish-Azeri company of billionaire
Mubariz Gurbanoğlu. At the port of Ashkelon, Israeli
authorities provide false certificates of origin
from Eilat, then they are exported to the European
Union, which pretends to believe they’re Israeli.
Above
all, the same firm serving also to export gas and
oil stolen by the local government of Iraqi
Kurdistan, the United States and the GCC, if they
acted pursuant to resolutions 1373 (2001) and 2170
(2014) should also attack Iraqi Kurdistan. Instead,
they support it (not against the Islamic Emirate,
but against the central government in Baghdad). [6]
The
bombing of these facilities cannot be understood as
other than a desire to deprive Syria of its refining
capacity when peace returns.
It is
common knowledge that in this case, the United
States relies on members of the Gulf Cooperation
Council, and particularly Saudi Arabia. In this
regard, if it is clear that Saudi planes are not
taking off from their country, information published
by Iranian media according to which they are based
in Israel, is still not ruled out, but probable.
We have
often noted that one of the main aims of the war
against Syria is the control of its gigantic
reserves of natural gas and that of its territory by
which could either pass a pipeline from Iran or its
rival, Saudi Arabia from Qatar.
However,
since the resistance of Novorussia and support
provided by the Russian Federation, the European
Union is trying to overcome its dependence on
Russian gas. Hence the Iranian government’s idea to
offer its gas on this market, as announced by Deputy
Oil Minister Ali Majedi, August 9. [7]
For Iran it would be an alternative to the blocking
by the Islamic Emirate of Iraq’s road to Syria.
This
option, which defends Iran state interests, but
abandons the anti-imperialist struggle of President
Ahmadinejad, could be approved by Washington as part
of a broader agreement during the 5 + 1 negociations.
Iran would be willing to abandon its groundbreaking
research on a method for producing nuclear energy
able to free the third world from its dependence on
oil energy, while "Westerners" would lift their
sanctions.
However,
this changeover, if it is to occur, would
significantly alter regional equilibrium. It would
be hard to sell to Russia, which has just welcomed
Iran into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. In
addition, it would involve an investment of $ 8.5
billion to build 1,800 miles of pipeline and connect
production fields to the Nabucco system. Iranian gas
would transit through Azerbaijan and Turkey and
Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, to be distributed in
the European Union from Austria. This was confirmed
by Sheikh Hassan Rohani to President Hans Fischer,
on the sidelines of the General Assembly of the
United Nations. [8]
The
revival of the Nabucco system would be a boon to
Azerbaijan which could more easily export production
from its Shah Deniz gas field. Thus, Baku would also
move away from Moscow to be closer to Washington,
which would explain the sudden purchase of arms from
Israel.
From
the Syrian perspective, a shift in Iranian energy
policy is not necessarily a bad thing: most of the
enemies of Syria - except Israel - would have no
reason to continue the war. In addition, the removal
of Iran would strengthen the usefulness of Syria to
Russia. If the agreement were signed, Washington
would further pursue instability in the Sunni areas
of Iraq, to maintain a physical separation between
Tehran and Damascus, and certainly would support
Daesh in Deir ez-Zor, but leave the rest of the
Syria in peace.
Thierry Meyssan
[1]
“U.S.
Air Strikes Are Having a Limited Effect on ISIL”,
Ben Watson, Defense One, 11 August 2014.
[2]
“John
McCain, Conductor of the "Arab Spring" and the
Caliph
”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 18
August 2014.
[3]
“Congress
secretly approves U.S. weapons flow to ’moderate’
Syrian rebels”,
par Mark Hosenball, Reuters, 27 January 2014.
[4]
“Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant led by Prince Abdul
Rahman”,
Translation Alizée Ville, Voltaire Network, 4
February 2014.
[5]
“Israeli
general says al Qaeda’s Syria fighters set up in
Turkey”,
par Dan Williams, Reuters, 29 January 2014.
[6]
“Jihadism
and the Petroleum Industry”,
by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé,
Al-Watan (Syria), Voltaire Network, 23
June 2014.
[7]
«
Iran ready to supply energy to
Europe via Nabucco
», Irna, 9 August 2014.
[8]
«
Iran Ready to Supply Energy to
Europe
», Shana, 24 September 2014.
(Taken from Voltaire)
|
