Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul of Beacon Equity Research predicts that the coming conflict with Syria will be the trigger event that takes down the U.S. dollar. A military response to Syria and Iran would likely draw in Russia and China, he warns, and the result would be a conflagration the world has not witnessed since the Second World War.
“Cold War-like comments made at the ‘Friends of Syria’ conference in Paris by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toward Russia and China strongly suggest that a showdown between the former Cold War rivals, now to include China, is on.” he writes. “The prize: oil – and by implications the future of the U.S. petrodollar standard and the American way of life.”
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton excoriates China and Russia.
On Friday, during a meeting with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Friends of the Syrian People (an umbrella organization created by Nicholas Sarkozy), Clinton demanded China and Russia pay a price for not supporting military action against Syria and its leader, Bashar al-Assad. Russia and China are “holding up progress and blockading it,” she insisted.
The Syrian opposition used the meeting in Paris to call for a “no-fly zone” in Syria, a move Russia opposes.A similar no-fly zone in Libya last year announced by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, was used to attack the north African country with Tomahawk cruise missiles and target air defense facilities, tanks, and artillery.
In November, Paul Joseph Watson wrote that the “same Al-Qaeda terrorists who fought U.S. troops in Iraq and helped NATO overthrow Colonel Gaddafi are now being airlifted into Syria to aid rebels there in toppling President Bashar al-Assad.”
Also in November, Milliyet, a major Turkish newspaper, reported that France had sent its military trainers to Turkey and Lebanon to aid the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA). The FSA is supported by the British intelligence asset the Muslim Brotherhood and the al-Qaeda infested National Transitional Council in Libya.
In order for the coordinated attack to work in deposing al-Assad and arranging a government amenable to the bankster elite, Russia and China will require persuasion to drop their opnot allowed
“The U.S. Secretary of State went on to accuse Russia, China and Iran of supporting Syria’s Assad regime economically and militarily, and called upon other nations to comply with UN sanctions levied upon Syria – sanctions which would also include refusing oil shipments from Syria’s vital economic support and trusted ally, Iran. But for continued sanctions against Syria to be effective, “much will remain dependent on persuading the two reluctant powers [Russia and China] to pressure Assad into action [of peaceful regime change in Syria],” according to Canada’s CBCNews.”
“Though, Russia and China have already agreed to a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war, signing off on the Security Council plan drafted by former-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it’s more likely that Moscow and Beijing are playing politics of cooperation to buy more time for the Assad regime. Russia and China do not want regime change in yet another Middle Eastern country for a host of economic and political reasons, of which, the primary one is to stop the U.S. from controlling the region’s oil supplies to Russia’s ally and co-founding member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), China.”
Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul cites authors John Barry and Dan Ephron, who highlighted in 2004 during the height of neocon control of the Pentagon the central role of Syria in the effort to destabilize and topple disfavored regimes in the Middle East.
“Syria and Iran have been targets of interest of the U.S. for quite some time, as Washington under the George W. Bush Administration had known that a day would come when the U.S. and China would bang heads for precious crude supplies in the Middle East,” writes de Kevelioc de Bailleul.
“Whether it’s the Obama Administration or another neocon U.S. president in control of the executive branch, the petrodollar standard must be defended in the Middle East. The Iranian/Syrian alliance has stood in the way of total U.S. dominance in the region, but now the matter has become urgent following Iran’s announcement in Feb. 2012, that it has broken ranks in the petrodollar scheme. It now will not accept the dollar as payment for Persian oil.”
Pentagon wargame plans, Barry and Ephron note, would go badly for the United States. “The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating,” they write for Newsweek.
Despite the risk of finally toppling the hegemony of the U.S. dollar and destroying dominance of the petrodollar, Obama and Clinton (and, if selected, Romney and his virulent clan of neocons) are determined to push forward with an endgame involving Syria (the fifteenth largest military in the world; 325,000 active troops) and Iran (the ninth largest military at 523,000 active troops).
“Either the U.S. dollar temporarily withstands an all-out war against the most formidable foes since the Germany-Japan-Italy axis of WWII, or it doesn’t,” Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul concludes. “But in the end, odds heavily favor an abandonment of the dollar as the world’s premier reserve currency; it’s just become too much trouble for too many nations, now. The conditioning of the U.S. population to expect a heavy-handed government continues unchecked and unchallenged by the Congress, because internally Washington knows the dollar’s days are numbered – and it could be as close as the day of next scheduled military conflict in the Middle East.”
Bye-Bye Syria: The Globalist Destruction of a Nation State
Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
July 10, 2012
With all the rhetoric and talk of democratic reform in Syria, the Syrian opposition’s message is now clear: “No negotiations. We want power now.” Sounds more like a radical dictatorship in the making.
Yet, this is the very opposition being backed by the western powers led by Hillary Clinton and her ‘Friends of Syria’ steering group, an opposition that is currently killing, burning, and looting their way through to Damascus, with Syria looking more and more likely to eventually go the way of Libya.
The Syrian opposition, in the form of the Syrian National Council (SNC) were in Moscow today, lobbying to change Russia’s mind on Syria – lobbying for Russian support in removing the current Syrian regime. “No dialogue with Bashar al Assad and the ruling regime,” in effect demanding action before any talks of a new government can take place.
Critics describe this trip as pre-posturing, or going through the motions in order to creative a narrative for Washington to utilize later on. The narrative in this case is to make Washington’s SNC look legitimate and appear able to open diplomatic relations with major players in advance of their stealing power in Syria.
At the same time, Kofi Annan is in Tehran, essentially to convince the Islamic Republic to lend its influence in convincing Syria’s current government to step down – a stance Tehran is unlikely to take, but could be swayed in return for leverage with the UN in the wake of western economic sanctions and the threat of war.
Whether Iran cooperates in this instance is one matter, but for the UN organization, this trip achieves the very same element as the SNC’s trip to Moscow – it reinforces the western narrative that enemies of Bashar al Assad are pursuing a ‘diplomatic solution’ to a deteriorating situation in Syria – a situation which was originally seeded and further inflamed by the Western and Gulf ally-backed proxy guerrilla armies in Syria. The original cause of the violence in Syria – Washington and London and their Gulf allies – leap forward and presents itself as the solution – classic Hegelian dialectic.
Despite the fact that he more or less enabled the illegal and neo-colonial US-led wars and occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, former UN head and globalist agent Kofi Annan is still regarded in the media as a trusted ‘international negotiator’. Although his recent proposal of ‘negotiations without preconditions’, namely those preconditions vehemently laid down by the US, UK, and the Syrian opposition – ‘immediate regime change, no negotiations and total power in government.’
Geneva: Designed to Fail
Annan’s role today is no different than it was 10 years ago – to create a narrative of a concerned international community – and to buy time for the West’s agenda to take shape. In other words, sustaining a public illusion of international bilateral negotiations long enough until the US and its allies have all necessary chess pieces in position to achieve their own geopolitical and economic ends in the region.
Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan concluding remarks at the Meeting of Action Group on Syria last week in Geneva show rhetoric that can only exist in a political vacuum, and not connected at all to reality. Annan goes through the motions by stating last week, “I called this meeting in Geneva at this critical stage in the crisis to bring the international community and the countries with influence together – to take concrete action… everyone here is gravely alarmed at the situation in Syria. We strongly condemn the continued and escalating killing, destruction and human rights abuses.”
At no point has the UN Special Envoy ever directly acknowledged that the main driver of violence and so-called human rights abuses – and even ethnic and religious cleansing in Syria – are a result of US-UK-Saudi-Qatar-backed radical Sunni force known as the ‘Free Syria Army’ and al Qaida rebel factions operating within Syria.
Sadly for Syrians, the western powers will ultimately achieve their plan of regime change by default. Although more laborious and subtle in its execution, the sustained international illusion of dialogue and diplomacy between western allied regime change proponents and Syria and its allies will eventually end in the same way that western Iraqi pre-posturing did in 2002 – forgotten and ultimately irrelevant, because Washington and London’s agendas remain steady throughout.
Now it is a waiting game. Given enough time and external economic and military pressure applied, eventually, the nation state of Syria will implode from within – and the Western globalist power elite know this.
A NATO humanitarian intervention would certainly be easier for Washington, but in the absence of a Libya-style ‘No Fly Zone,’ the west’s strategy is simply:
Buy enough time until the plan of destabilization is successful and there is a collapse of law and order within Syria.
The Balkanization of Syria
In order to ensure regional destabilization and the presence of the ‘international community’ – and more importantly for the western allied military and economic forces – the elimination of a strong secular nation-state in the Middle East, the process of Balkanization must occur in Syria.
In similar fashion to the French Mandate of Syria in 1921, western power brokers will aim to divide Syria along both ethnic and religious lines. The Assad regime has managed over the decades to maintain relative ethnic and religious harmony between Sunnis, Shi’ites, Alawites, Druze, Christians, and even Jews (there are currently some 1,200 Jews in Damascus and are traditionally protected from persecution by Syria’s ruling government) in Syria.
Sunni Muslims represent somewhat of a majority through central Syria and are presently the preferred ally of western powers seeking to divide influence and dissolve the nation state of Syria. They also comprise the majority of foreign and domestic guerrilla fighters being deployed throughout the country by planners in Washington and London. They will also have received the full backing of Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar whose interest is to spread Sunni influence in Syria.
Alawites represent a minority of Syrians, but are aligned with the traditional political power base of the current ruling regime in Syria. Western planners seek to drive them out of Damascus and towards the northwest of the country.
The ethnic Kurds to the northeast are also key in the break-up of Syria, not least because they are part of a larger regional population which stretches north into Turkey and east into Iraq. This group has been used as both a political and military wedge and bargaining tool by Washington and London throughout history, and their significance will become more so once the maps are redrawn again this time.
Remaining Shi’ites cannot be allowed to hold any collective influence in Syria because of their affiliation with both Hezbollah and Iran, and therefore will be best left scattered throughout the region.
Similarly, the Christian population of Syria are of little use to western planners and are currently being persecuted and driven out of towns by western-backed radical Sunni rebels in cities like Hama.
The Druze are another important minority sect nested in the southern region of Syria. Druze have been used by Israeli interests past and present, to divide and rule over various sub-regions, and even serve within the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). If Syria is successfully divided by the west, it is unlikely that the Syrian Druze will defend the remaining portions of the fresh water-rich Golan Heights not currently occupied by Israel, meaning it could very well fall into Israeli hands. Those areas are presently ‘held in escrow’ by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 350 of 1974 which called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Syria.
The situation along this Israel-Syria sector has remained quiet with no serious incidents since its implementation, but that could change should the west destabilize and Balkanize the current nation of Syria. The mandate of UNDOF has been renewed every six months since 1974, with the most recent renewal until June 30, 2012. If Syria as we know it today ceases to exist, then this agreement is in danger of being voided.
Spillover into Lebanon
Lebanon is similar to Syria in that it has maintained a secular shape to its government and many residents of Lebanon identify with their multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation-state.
But trouble in Syria will almost inevitably mean trouble in Lebanon. Syria, among other things, is a major trading partner with Lebanon and also provides Lebanon with electricity and other staple resources.
For war planners in Washington, Tel Aviv, and London, however, Lebanon mainly represents a shelter for what constitutes a ‘terror organization’ in western eyes – the Shi’ite-oriented Hezbollah. Just as the IRA made the political transition via its Sinn Fein political body, Hezbollah has made the transition from militia to politics in Lebanon. To date, its intricate organization of militias throughout Southern Lebanon remain as the only real barrier between Lebanon and its aggressive neighbor to the south, Israel.
Israel, although quiet on Syria to date, has a significant interest in the current situation.
In the 2006 conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, the IDF was eventually sent home as walking wounded, but Israel managed to bomb and destroy a significant amount of Lebanese infrastructure as ‘collective punishment’ to the nation of Lebanon for hosting Hezbollah in the country – but also to block Syria from delivering much needed aid to their Lebanese allies. Israeli strikes were followed by Hezbollah rocket reprisal attacks into Israel.
If regime change is achieved by the west in Syria, Hezbollah’s greatest local ally will have been effectively eliminated, potentially opening the door again into Lebanon. The potential for destabilization in Lebanon is significant. Many old wounds still exist between the country’s Marionite Christian, Muslim, and Druze populations – resulting in an incredibly fractured political landscape. If the west chooses to exaggerate and inflame these traditional differences in Lebanon, it could result in a rapid destabilization process in Lebanon which could reach fever pitch, not in a matter of months – but weeks.
Whether it’s by internal destabilization or by military confrontation, the elimination of Syria and the neutralization of Lebanon’s Hezbollah means that Israel’s real potential foes in the region will have disappeared overnight – opening the door for itself and its ally the United States to engage in a joint-unilateral military strike against Iran.
‘Russia Gas’ versus ‘Qatari Gas’
Increasingly today, natural gas has become one of the most important commodities in determining regional power. The European Union currently imports 50% of its energy and with an increased dependence on natural gas, the EU has fallen victim during various periods to the suspension of the natural gas supplies from Russia. A major gas pipeline project has since been planned to counter this trend, and the pipeline will originate in Qatar via Saudi Arabia and Syria.
This little known fact is one major reason why Russia is taking the current situation in Syria very seriously – because the outcome will affect its own geopolitical standing within greater Europe.
Qatar is a country with rich natural gas reserves that can ensure source diversity in natural gas supply for the EU – the latter has been seeking to reduce its dependence on Russia. Streamlining Syria and Turkey as the final mile to Europe is of paramount interest to the US and its NATO allies. It is a major piece of a larger puzzle of economic and political consolidation.
Also of great interest to the international banks, corporations, and the IMF, are all of Syria’s state-owned assets and resources, including its national power grid and two Syrian auto manufacturers.
Its state-owned bank will also disappear within weeks, likely replaced by a new, debt-ridden private entity.
Before the west’s infiltration of Syria in 2011, the country was in the black and enjoying steady economic growth that beat China in terms of percentage – all during a period of recession in the west. With Western sanctions and destabilization, all that has changed, and following any future globalist asset-stripping, as was the case with Libya, Syria will be plunged deep in the red for the foreseeable future.
Baiting World War III
Military engagement, followed by the potential destruction of an independent Iranian military and industrial economy would be a favored outcome for Washington, NATO, and Gulf state allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but for the rest of the planet it could pull in other regional powers like Russia, Pakistan, and China which risks triggering off a wider World War III type theatre of conflict.
The result of such an escalation could risk a nuclear conflagration, but will almost surely result at very least in the choking of certain essential supplies to the west, possible inflation, followed by a protracted, global economic depression – a recipe for domestic unrest all over the globe.
In this Hegelian dream, and as it was following both WWI and WWII, the world will be clamoring for a brand new, more effective global government, along with a one world single currency, and last but not least – a global military force to prevent future wars.
These are the clear and present risks in this 21st century global game of dominoes.
