Stratagems-1

Syria case
 
Stratagems with Leo Savin
 
 
September 15 the U.S. state department called its citizens that are now in Syria to immediately leave the country.  Moreover, the department of state reminded that according to sanctions, imposed by the White House on Syria, citizens of the U.S. are restricted to make any financial operations with representatives of Syrian government. At the same time, Syrian rebels created a “National Council”. On the background of a large-scale crisis in the Middle East it looks like a preparation of the West for a new aggression.
But the problem is that the Syrian question is more complicated, due to its connection with Iran, Lebanon and Israel. In relation to Lebanon Damascus still can coordinate the actions of Hezbollah, but if the regime of Assad will fall, no one can predict the possible scenario.
The treaty of mutual defense with Iran is also still a limiting factor for supporters of immediate aggression. Israel is very uninterested in the destabilization of the situation on its borders, because they know from their experience, that the weapons, pouring to Syria, will be used against its citizens, what has already happened after events in Libya.
Meanwhile, according to some sources, the money and weapons for overthrow of the regime come from neighboring countries: Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Witnesses say that by their own eyes they saw the volumes of Quran with 100$ bills embedded in it, and coffins for the dead, filled with ammunition.
Also cited are slogans of demonstrators, one of which is: “Alawites to coffin, Christians – to Beirut!”. Important is the fact that all unrest began in the periphery, what is not similar to the logic of other Arab riots, that began in capitals.
In this respect interesting is insider information about the operation “The Blue Jasmine”, held by Syrian intelligence agency, according to which in Syria were imprisoned agents of CIA, communication means and ciphers, which were used by provocateurs.
According to some reports, Germany is also involved in destabilization of the situation, that was one of initiators of sanctions against Syria. Germany tried to influence the situation in Syria in July, when for a month took over as a chairman of the UN Security Council, but to no avail.
In addition, Germans are trying to institutionalize the military intervention, for example professor Constance Shteltsenmuller, one of the authors of a study “Transatlantic Trends in 2011” recently stated, that under present conditions the operation in Libya is a normal phenomenon for NATO, and Germany, according t her words, made a mistake abstaining from voting in the Security Council, and then followed further failures.
That is, all is about return to “machtpolitik”, that is the usage of military force politics in the region. It is interesting, that exactly Germany became one of the few Western countries, that was ready to believe in massive economic transformations, then Bashar Assad only came to power. Earlier, the first head of non-Arab country, that officially visited new president of Syria and discussed with him problems of liberalization of economy and possibility of re-orientation of Syrian foreign policy and foreign economical course to the European Union and Germany, in particular, was the Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schroeder.
Germany launched a series of economic projects in Syria, but did it with extreme caution, taking to regard that according to German experts oil reserves in Syria decrease, unemployment grows, population’s incomes decrease and bureaucracy increases on the background of integration of refugees from Iraq.
However, from geopolitical point of view, the interest of Germany in the Middle East generally is connected with attempts of Berlin in domination in continental Europe, of which repeatedly warned intelligence-analytical centre “Stratfor”, and the economic crisis has further increased the desire of Germany to become the leading force in Europe. Earlier Germany has blocked attempts of France to create a Mediterranean Union, that’s why the visit of David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy in Libya must be seen exactly in this optics of confrontation of European states. Britain maintains its classic strategy supporting the weak side in EU – currently France, that tries to revenge over Germany and tests Washington for the possibility of conducting an independent policy, to once more re-strengthen its presence in Africa.
Debates in European Parliament on the situation in Libya confirms the fact that corporate interests of Britain and France, particularly, the repartition of energy sources sphere, influenced political decisions of these countries in relation to Libyan rebels.
The whole situation is being heated by the question of recognition of Palestine in UN, as stated earlier.
The U.S. categorically oppose the recognition, but the EU tries to smooth the problem through Catherine Ashton intends to propose Palestine to expand its credentials in UN without full membership in the organization. Potential problems can be connected also with the norms of international law.
If Palestine will be recognized, that thousands of Israelis, who served in army and participated in reservist training camps, while visiting the CIS countries can face the threat of extradition, because Palestinians will be able to request extradition of any person, who served in army of Israel, on charges of crimes against humanity.
Such possible prospect is reflected in the report about legal consequences of recognition of Palestinian State, commissioned by the request of National Security Council of Israel.
Meanwhile, the government of Turkey uses the situation to spread its influence in the region. Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with muted strings toured the Arab countries where revolutions took place – Egypt and Tunisia. He also appealed to the League of Arab States, that proposed Ankara for the post of new leader of the Arab world, and claimed sea geopolitical pretensions, noting that “no one has the right to solely use the Mediterranean Sea”, adding that there will stand military warships and frigates.
 
Erdogan demonstratively said to former partners in Washington, that will support intentions of Palestine, thought the analysis of the previous actions clearly shows, that Turkish regime is connected with globalists of the U.S.
Erdogan himself is a co-chairman of the project “Great Middle East”, that was initiated by the U.S., and the foreign relations minister Ahmet Davutoglu – member of the European filiation of the Council of Foreign Relations.
 
Turkish repressions against patriotic and anti-imperialist forces also confirm, that actions and rhetoric of the current regime are contrary to each other.
 
The U.S. in its turn, in respect of deterioration of relations with Israel, misunderstanding of Turkish ambitions and another estimation of using NATO force against Libya because of Iraqi and Afghan campaigns, seems can only destabilize situation and smash enemies and competitors against each other, as Washington did on the eve of the First and Second World Wars, on the basis of economic sanctions and diplomatic decisions only in regard of own interests and far-sighted police of the global domination.
 
So, perhaps, the shake in the Middle East is a small prelude to the Third World War, and if the logic of history will repeat, the U.S. will become winners once again, that will push the regional forces’ heads together, that in their turn are going through a period of regional-political ambitiousness, causing excessive strategic appetite.