oldephartte (oldephartte) wrote,

Would toppling the Assad Regime be beneficial to Syria ?

Would toppling the Assad Regime be beneficial to Syria and or the Middle East?

Adam Roach, Small Business Guy

Who takes over?

This question should be asked anytime that toppling a government gets brought up. Followed by the second pertinent question;

Will the people accept this new leader?

External preferences don’t always jive with the population.

“Beneficial” is an entirely subjective concept and the people who topple might have a very different concept than the people who live among the toppling.

Obama didn’t knock over Assad because there was no one to take over that was remotely beneficial to American interests that could also lead the nation. The Hawks had a guy but he was going to have to be twice as bad as Assad to retain control.

John McCain went over there three times To meet with various opposition leaders, he never developed a preference. Tulsi Gabbatd went over, with other Congressional teams and met with Assad among others. She’s currently getting hit politically for saying out loud what is apparently obvious, Assad is not the worst option.

When this really kicked off, Assad had reasonable control of the Coast and the Military. The second most powerful faction was Daesh (ISIS), Third was Hezbollah.

ISIS held the central, eastern high ground.

Hezbollah’s para Military Forces had the Southern rim and supported Assad’s Ba’athist Forces.

The Kurdish Militias held the Northeast corner. This group is reliable and capable but they are less interested in administering a unified Syria and putting them in charge would make Erdogan in Turkey have a conniption.

Two less powerful groups, one allied with Hamas, had various political seats and small functional militias. Nothing that could directly challenge Daesh though.

The anti Ba’athist groups that set off the civil war were actually ISIS sympathizers. The hold out wanted a Sh’ia centric version of ISIS and apparently not even Iran would fully back him. This guy wanted all infidels out of the country and that extended to Sunni Muslims, Yazhididis, Samaratins, Christians and the Kurds.

So the two most competent successors were Hezbollah, who is linked to Iran and we have long labeled as a terror group. Hezbollah in Syria however is a major political party with a fair many seats in the legislature. They also have paramilitary militias but typically only use them for city defense in their region when silly things crop up. Hezbollah and the Ba’athists coexist peacefully and have for two decades.

ISIS declared war on the West as soon as it popped up.

So, who takes over?

While this was going on the Hezbollah section of the Internet was rife with stories that the head of ISIS was actually a Mossad plant. The Ba’ath party officially declared him as a CIA plant meant to use Syrians to topple their own government.

Two of the smaller militias started fighting with each other over pasture access. The group that the State Department favored was on bad terms with the Kurds after they inadvertently attacked an Iraqi column with Peshmurga escorts. This was the group the Saudis were outfitting.

This was a ClusterFluck.

Russia favored Assad. Iran favored Hezbollah who signed off on Assad. The Saudi group screwed the pooch and different US factions were backing different dark horses. Turkey didn’t seem to care as long as it wasn’t the Kurds.

Nothing has substantively changed since then beyond Assad consolidating control and Daesh slipping down behind the Kurds into a localized militia footing.

The whole point of this was the routing of a pipeline from the Persian gulf, through Saudi Arabia and Jordan that would terminate at the Coast in Israel but then turn North along the Coast up through Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and then into Europe at the Bosporus. Syria and Lebanon are non compliant states for this little endeavor.

Meanwhile, Iran wants to run a pipe up through the Caucasus or the Caspian that will turn left at some point, probably Turkey.

The Russians prefer the Caspian route, so it doesn’t turn left until it runs north of the Black Sea. This route could also consolidate the pipe with an east west splitter since an eastern pipe running into China from Iran is basically inevitable one day.

There is big money in pipeline contracts but considering where these pipes are mapped out, should we even be involved? Chances are good US taxpayers will be paying to protect that Med Coast pipeline forever, since the Israelis and the Saudis can’t operate north of the Golan Heights without starting fights.

Honestly the damn thing ought to run straight up the Tigris and Euphrates River valley into Eastern Turkey. That means every state could feed it and protecting it would be infinitely easier since Iraq has settled down and could use the infrastructure project more than anyone else. This route however involves lower costs, common sense, fewer borders in transit and only Turkey is oil poor. Turkey wins no matter what just because of geography.

If Assad stays put, the Russians can leverage him for building and maintenance contracts. The US doesn’t want that. Assad can also shut down the line to screw with the Saudis, but Hezbollah can do that too in and from Lebanon so let’s jot pretend that this ends with Syria. Then we gotta do Lebanon and eventually Iran.

Who will be in charge? Will the people accept them?

Big Oil operators have gotten away with some crazy stuff over the years, mostly through bribes. There are just too many players in this part of the world for bribery, so force is the alternative. Force however is a natural cycle in the Levant and it tends to come back and bite you in the ass.
Sumner Ferris

NO. First the Syrian people did not come up with the pretext of REGIME CHANGE. It was born in CORPORATE AMERICA. As it often is. It has NOTHING to do with the pretext and everything to do with LIBERATING RESOURCES . As it always has. The pretext that the interests behind REGIME CHANGE in any nation is about “saving” people is a fraud. These interests to serve their interests kill enormous amounts of people to gain control rather than liberate. They have overthrown legitimate regimes to put dictators in power. They have fought AGAINST the people rather than for the people. These interests are not in any way concerned about the people. So it would not beneficial except to the money interests. Which is why THEY want REGIME CHANGE. Every REGIME change attempt has occurred to increase the wealth of those behind it. It is NOT INTENDED to be of benefit for the people. In fact it is a colonial conscript in which the people impacted have NEVER been Consulted. The pretext being THESE interests know what is best for OTHERS. And if the OTHERS disagree it will be decided FOR THEM. Part of this COLONIAL pretense is WE are PARENTS and the others mere children .Who NEED our guidance and discipline.They DO NOT.

Imran Razvi

Imran Razvi

It is strange that no one is asking the one fundamental question. Why are the foreign governments so interested in toppling a government of a sovereign nation? What right does a foreign country have in influencing who governs a country? Just because they do not like politics of a country, how do they justify interference in that country’s internal affairs?

Tags: foreign wars
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.