I do not intend to be any kind of conduit for the opinions of others--and will not. But Americans, and Objectivists, of course, are grappling with what to make of Iran, Syria, Egypt, and the whole shebang. So I post, once more, a communication from a friend of mine, born in Iran, reared and educated in the United States, now living in Europe, who, as you might imagine, has followed Middle East developments all his life and is impassioned in his views--also, measured, literate, wise, and informed. Naturally, readers will decide, in addition, if he is RIGHT. Well, I am in exactly the same position--trying to weigh it all--but I value my friend's input...
Here it is:
Deciphering what is going on in the M.E. is phenomenally challenging, but it remains basically the Great Game being played by a weird cast of characters:
Petroleum interests, which is not one monolithic force, but an array of different energy interests from the US to Russia to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other emirates and Iraq and Iran.
Zionists, who are themselves increasingly split on what they want to promote and accomplish
Arms suppliers, led by the US and Europe, but the Russians and the Chinese are also players
Al Qaeda, perhaps not a major player, but always exploiting opportunities, as in Syria today.
The fact that the USA dropped staunch allies, such as the shah, then Saddam and later Mubarak has left the Saudi and the Qatari dictators convinced that they had better become their own masters and look after their own interests without counting on US support any longer. The US has blown its image as a reliable supporter of friendly thugs. That is what emboldened them to go after Assad in Syria. Their provision of arms to Syrian rebels is what really got the Syrian civil war going. Getting rid of Assad is attractive to them because it both limits Iranian influence in the region and opens the possibility of marketing their oil and gas through pipelines that could pass through Syria (which Assad has blocked) to reach the Mediterranean either through Syria or Turkey. Conversely, that would stymie the Iranians from getting their own oil and gas through a pipeline through Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean, which both Iraq and Syria favor.
The zionists are split between those who that feel that the civil war in Syria both weakens Iranian influence and its ability to nurture its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon while also deflecting attention from their on-going expropriation of the Left Bank and the annihilation of Palestinians. Others fear that the situation in Syria might spin out of control and Assad might be replaced by jihadis who will then become a mortal enemy on their own border. Down deep, the zionists know that Iran is no real threat to them, because they could nuke Iran out of existence if it tried to do anything truly threatening to them, and it has never demonstrated any appetite for such. But if Assad falls, can they be sure who or what will replace him?
The Chinese and Russians are seeking their own expansion of influence and anything that stymies US interests is a positive development in their view. If they can sell some arms, so much the better. In China's case there is the added incentive of securing energy supplies.
In this mess, the US is trying to look after its own interests without getting too deeply committed militarily. Its position that Assad must go makes no sense in terms of US strategic interests. Assad is a brutal dictator, but so is everyone else in the neighborhood, and he is not likely to be succeeded by anything better. He was keeping a relatively stable country together before the Qataris and Saudis up-ended him, with tacit US support, and he was no real threat to anyone. I think the naive motive in doing that was to cut back Iranian influence. I call it naive because it left open the far more important question of what would replace Assad. The experience of the last 50 years is that each replacement is always worse than the predecessor.
Removing Assad only makes sense if you are trying to limit Iranian influence and if you know that he can be replaced by someone who can establish law and order in Syria and will be friendly to the US. Perhaps the US knows something we do not, but I find that prospect very unlikely. In fact, I believe the best hope for the US to create some real stability that will be friendly to its interests is through a rapprochement with Iran, which are very well-placed to mediate with Assad. However, expect the zionists, Saudis and Qataris to do everything in their power to scuttle any improvement in US relations with Iran. That would rob the zionists of their greatest lever for getting more and more treasure and arms out of the US, the ludicrous idea that they are under imminent and mortal threat from the crazy mullahs. The US military industrial complex would also hate it because it would reduce the use and demand for US arms, which are bought and used prodigiously by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other M.E. states
I believe that in this context the use of chemical weapons or the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon are fake concerns, which mask the real intentions and concerns of the players. The US has used the nuclear issue to saddle the Iranians with so many sanctions as to cripple the Iranian economy and oblige the regime to accept becoming a US constituent, ready to carry out orders from Washington. For that to succeed, it would appear that the US has the luxury of being able to bide its time as the sanctions do their work. Having the US attack Iran militarily does not make much sense under the circumstances, as it is hard to see what threat from the Iranians such an attack would eliminate. Why turn a large country into a sworn mortal enemy by attacking them, when time is on your side? The US knows that the Iranians do not have a nuclear weapons program. Every single intelligence assessment for the last ten years has confirmed that, and the entire Iranian nuclear program operates under the watch of the IAEA. Its public posture that it can no be sure that they Iranians don't have a nuclear weapons program is not sincere.
Of course, the same logic can be used to say why should the US attack Assad. However, Assad's status is currently far more tenuous than that of the mullahs. Plus, there is the narrative, true or not, that has been accepted by many, that Assad is worse than everyone else. Anyway, if Syria spins out of control, there is quite a bit of distance between the east coast and Damascus.
I also believe the US government is lying when it says it has incontrovertible proof that Assad's government and military launched the chemical attack on Aug. 21st. If they have it, they would lay out the proof, for everyone to see. They do not have it. It is a bluff, and, just as was the case with the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, major US media have not called the bluff by demanding they be shown the proof. Along these lines, see what Gareth Porter has uncovered, at: http://consortiumnews.com/2013....
The fact that Israeli and Saudi intelligence was drawn upon heavily in the 'US government assessment" (the queer term given by the Obama administration to the basis of its accusation, something that has never been seen before) is a warning not to trust this allegation. That the Saudi intelligence minister, Bandar Sultan, is associated with it, is further cause for alarm. He was the person who presided over the evacuation of Saudi nationals from the USA during the chaos that followed 9/11, when all civil aviation was grounded. He is one of the principal investors of the Carlyle Corporation, which did so well after 9/11, and whose share-holders include the Bush family.
All told, may whatever benign spirits that may exist have pity on the poor people of the middle east. With the crop of leaders that it currently has, and the outside forces that are fighting over it, I think t will take the combined energy of many Almightys to help them avoid catastrophe. When you step back and look at it from a distance, it is really hard to believe that, after all that has happened, the genocides of Europe, North and South America, the Wars of Religion, the Holocaust---the list is endless---here we are: Jews and Sunnis and Shias and Alawites and Christians spending their treasure on arms and destruction, spilling each other's blood, in the name of what? It is very depressing...