Friday, August 30, 2013

Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?

Michael Snyder
Activist Post

Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly.  Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means "to whose benefit?"  The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war.  If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah.  The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting.

They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime.  Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military.  If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other.  In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.

There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well.  For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe.  That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.

So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?

Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.

Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a "limited military strike" and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.

The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.

Could that happen?


Let's hope so.

But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.

That is about the last thing that we need right now.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing "serious reservations" about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post...
The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers. 
Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.
For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.

If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.

If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control.  But they would be even worse than Assad.  They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.

So why in the world should the United States get involved?

This war would not be good for Israel either.  I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.

Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria.  If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond.

And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.

And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict.  And right now Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.

If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.

So all of those "pro-Israel" websites out there that are getting excited about war with Syria should think twice.  If you really are "pro-Israel", you should not want this war.  It would not be good for Israel.

If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace.  This war would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel.  Even if Assad is overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even more anti-Israel than Assad was.

War is hell.  Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one.  Why would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled or Syrian blood spilled?

If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it.  Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels.  At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this...
It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.
And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country.  The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad...
Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests. 
Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.
And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of "defense readiness" from "five" to "two" in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen...
Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday. 
The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad's government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people. 
Saudi Arabia's defense readiness has been raised to "two" from "five", a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. "One" is the highest level of alert.
And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?

According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis...
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia. 
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.
And this is a guy that isn't just fresh out of journalism school.  As Paul Joseph Watson noted, "Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News."

The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak's bombshell findings...
The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them. 
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta. 
As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” 
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.” 
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution. 
Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria. 
“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated. 
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.
Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them.  Zero Hedge published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President Vladimir Putin...
Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.” 
It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that "threatens the security" of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses "in the face of the Syrian regime." Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that. 
But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:
As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt's future. 
The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.” 
At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.
Are you starting to get the picture?

The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.

And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.

According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.

And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria...
Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.
But Obama has already made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of putting this before Congress.

He is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress or the American people stop him.

Let's just hope that he doesn't start World War III in the process.

This article first appeared here at the Economic Collapse Blog.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

After the ensuing chaos following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, remember Condi Rice's words about "birthing pangs" [of the new middle east]?

It wasn't the Saudi's who came up with the Greater Middle East Project. That's the handiwork of the of Brzezinski, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, et al.

The Saudi Royals are desperate to hang onto their power and will always do the bidding of TPTB. They probably don't even really hold to any particular branch of Islam, it is just their framework for control. Their days are numbered. The writing is already on the wall. Even the NY Times has been running articles on their blog sections questioning whether the U.S. should be tolerating their style of social control. Now the general public is getting a whiff that the Saudis are funding Islamist radicals - Al Qaeda, our supposed nemesis in the Global War on Terror. What a farce and what dinosaurs the Saudis and their handlers are becoming.

Anonymous said...

My question is: How many Syrians died in our Civil War?

Anonymous said...

Impeach Obama

stevor said...

It's the Rothschild banksters who benefit from ALL wars. In particular, the downing of Syria would be an extra prize because Syria is one of two countries that the banksters don't control through the "central bank".

desultoryheroics said...

Just like 9/11 and the Gulf Wars, a number of interests have to benefit for them to pull it off successfully. The Saudis may very well be one faction, but I think the private central banks stand to gain even more. Also involved is the national security state who wins a jackpot with each war and to a lesser extant the current administration. Though bombing Syria is bound to be unpopular with the American people and the world, they may be counting on the power of the corporate media to spin a false narrative while they reap political benefits such as the War Power Act, legislation like the Patriot Act, and less attention towards scandals like domestic spying.

Anonymous said...

There is one very very important piece of information the author hasnt reported on. First of all, very good article detailing the convoluded nature of who is funding who and who benefits. The Saudi's initiated the escalation of the conflict in 2011 after it was reported that Iraq signed onto the Syria-Iraq-Iran pipeline that is reported to transport Iranian oil through Iraq and Syria, possibly Lebanon, under the Meditteranean Sea, into Europe, not only bolstering Iran's influence in the Middle East but also cutting off the rising International Power that is Qatar, who shares some parts of these oil fields with Iran.
These oil fields are the largest known in the world. So the Saudi's, currently the energy kings,have a huge stake in this.
Additionally, another point the author failed to take into account is the discovery of the Leviathan oil field in the Meditteranean off the shore of Israel.

Taking those points together, the Israeli regime certainly has a vested interest in toppling Assad's. Israel hasn't had energy like that since the 1940s, and want to set themselves up to be an energy powerhouse to come. This cannot happen if Assad's oil pipeline is completed, which it cannot be during the fighting.

Overall, good article. I hope readers check these links to get a more complete picture of the geopolical maneuverings of Israel in this conflict, as these points were glossed over in the article. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

It will be good for the former queen of the Netherland Draco Beatrix the Mother of All Evil of the Royal family Never Enough. She is the key shareholder of Royal Dutch Shell. Do I need to say more ?! Have a good day !
Caesar Lion Cachet

Anonymous said...

The author uses an interview with Bashar al-Assad to make his case against Saudi Arabia, but leaves out Bashar telling us Israel is helping the terrorists.

Nice try though.
"President al-Assad: If this was the case, why is it then that when we strike the terrorists at the frontier, Israel strikes at our forces to alleviate the pressure off of them? Why, when we blockade them into an area does Israel let them through their barricades so they can come round and re-attack from another direction? Why has Israel carried out direct strikes against the Syrian Army on more than one occasion in recent months? So clearly this perception is inaccurate. It is Israel who has publically declared its cooperation with these terrorists and treated them in Israeli hospitals.

If these terrorist groups were indeed hostile to Israel and hysterical even on the mention of the word as you mention, why have they fought the Soviet Union, Syria and Egypt, whilst never carrying out a single strike against Israel? Who originally created these terrorist groups? These groups were initially created in the early 80’s by the United States and the West, with Saudi funding, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So logically speaking, how could such groups manufactured by the US and the West ever strike Israel"

Mike, Syria is the stepping stone for Iran, quit trying to play dumb, but the truth is that with Syria out of the way, Israel can attack Lebanon again, that is why they support the terrorists in Syria.

You seem to think the far right militant zionists in the Israeli government actually care about it's people. Just like the American government?

You seem to be unaware that Americans pay more for Israel's military, then Israelis do. Lots of lucrative contracts to be had for Israeli/Saudi bottom feeders.

Israeli License to Cheney-Linked Energy Firm on Golan Heights Raises Eyebrows

In any case, for the adults in the room, this was the discussion on CrossTalk a couple days ago, as well as the bogus "sunni-shia" divide being projected by the perception managers and their useful idiots.


Syrian sequel (Pepe Escobar vs. Stephen Schlesinger)

Would American direct intervention in Syria be about justice? Can its purpose be clearly defined? Is this a way to send a message to Iran? And has President Obama backed himself into a corner this time? CrossTalking with Pepe Escobar and Stephen Schlesinger.

Before the holy wars commence, lets all put our bibles, torahs, and korans down for a moment, and see what objective reality, not faith, has to offer.

Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Qatar: Pipelineistan at work

"IP, as a key umbilical (steel) cord, makes a mockery of the artificial – US-encouraged – Sunni-Shia divide."

Anonymous said...

If the US fire any missile into Syria, then we citizens of the World should go to the bank and withdraw all our cash from the banking system. As we all know the NWO controls the banks, everyone screw the big boys...Of course if you are debt free

Anonymous said...

What is missing from this discussion is the role of Barack Obama. Ask the question: why is Obama planning on destroying the Assad government? If you look at his ongoing religious crusade in the Middle East of toppling all the secular governments and installing Islamic regimes, you start to see a more clear outline of why he is adamant in attacking Assad. It would be interesting to have someone pull a Snowden and reveal what communications have taken place between B. Obama and the king of Saudi Arabia, the guy Obama bowed to. Obama is a born and educated Muslim. That can't be changed, and it is every muslims duty to spread Islam throughout the world.

Ummer F said...

Your wrong when you say that Is-not-so-rael is not going to benefit from this (especially as the Saudis are crypto jews).

Is-not-so-rael wants to have the extremists come attack it and it will show the world that it has all the high tech technology that was taken away from Teslas legacy.

Anonymous said...

I read through the comments quickly to see if anyone came up with the correct answer.

The first commenter eluded to it strongly while stevor said... nailed it!

My hats off to you sir, and hope you will teach others the truth.

Fact is, more and more people are seeing the FACT that the Rothschild Family and their banker minions are behind 80 percent of the worlds trouble all for the sake of PROFIT.

These people are stricken with the disease of GREED.

Even when they have it all it still won't be enough. It's a hole that cannot be filled but them not being in their right mind can't see that. They will eventually destroy all around them including themselves in their blind greed.

If the world focused on this one obstacle.
This blight on mankind and all things good, we could eliminate 80 percent of our problems with one solution.

buelahman said...

It would not be good for Israel


Anonymous said...

Daily Newscast of Syrian TV,31/08/2013

Anonymous said...

Thanks to the commenter who mentioned the Syria-Iraq-Iran pipeline. This makes it all the more clear as to why the NWO's Saudi snakes have been exceptionally active in supporting the Syrian death squads. Factoring in the new pipeline; the energy boom in the U.S. and soon elsewhere from new extraction methods; and the potential of new energy technologies, the Saudi Royals are facing the prospect of a significant decline in income and power in the near future.

When establishment mouthpiece CNN is reporting that the Saudis are funding Al Qaeda, we can surmise that the Saudi Royals are being used one last time in the effort to destabilize countries not under central bankster control. Likely, after the Syrian debacle, all bets are off as Saudi elites will be widely outed as terrorist instigators and fall under the jackboot of their masters as convenient scapegoats for the portion of the public that still refuses to see the bigger picture.

Anonymous said...

Great analysis on Corbett today:

Anonymous said...

Nobody can benefit from RADIOACTIVITY that will spread all aroung the world after DEPLETED URANIUM BOMBS were used.
Satanists do not need any reason or benefit for to destroy the beauty of the world

joshzz said...

Hopefully if Syria is attacked, Russia will launch missiles at Saudi Arabia and also precise weapon firings at Global Bankers.

Post a Comment