The reason the Syrian Civil was has been exacerbated, as argued by Oxford University's Dr Mark Almond, is that from the outset the UK and USA demanded "Assad Must Go" without thinking about the consequences and chaos that could cause.
The reason Russia and Chia are have
blocked all US decisions in the security council is that the Western
powers lied about only imposing a "no fly zone" to protect the civilians
as opposed to backing the insurgents into overthrowing Gaddafi.
they proceeded to funnel arms and material aid to factions in the
Libyan opposition to Gaddafi whose brutality was often as bad as the
Libyan regime.Now the new government in Liya, some of whom defected from
Gaddafi, some of who are close to the US is facing a 'Second
The point being here that the Western Powers
continued interference and refusal to negotiate diplomatic solutions to
complicated problems merely "ups the ante" and makes regional wars that
could have been contained into even worse and wider conflgrations ( as
with Libya's conflict spilling into Mali).
As Syria, unlike Libya,
has no massive oil reserves, it's unlike a ground intervention willl
occur. Yet the same tactic of arming "the right insurgents", has
continuously led to the absurdity of "blowback" as British born
jihadists jet off to Turkey fight proxy wars then return angry and
In Syria the impasse has been partly cause by the
catastrophic diplomacy of so-called Western "statesmen" and the failure
to put pressure on the Saudi regime to stop arming and channelling
billions of dollars to the Syrian insurgents.
With Russia and
China unable to trust a duplitous US and UK, still trying to train the
"right sunni insurgents" on the ground within Syria, a negotiated
settlement that much include Assad is receding. Evidently, Assad is
poeerful enough to resist the Sunni insurgents.
And the the way
Gaddafi was brutally murdered without a trial, gives Assad every reason
to not concede an inch unless the insurgents lay down their arms. And
the insurgents have rejected every UN request for a negotiated
The announcement from Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel
that the USA is seriously considering directly arming the insurgents is a
stratwegy that is akin to insanity. If they arm the sunni insurgents,
the US will inflame the sunni and shia divide across the Middle East.
will step up its provision of arms as might Russia. A civil war could
spread across the region leading to a collapse in oil production and
global economic chaos. As in many rentier regimes from Bahrain to Saudi
Arabia, sunni elites actively repress shia Muslims.
bombing of Hezbollah's positions proves that, though it will claim self
defence, that the ultimate game plan is "regime change" not only in
Syria but in Iran too which uses Hezbollah as a proxy in its attempt to
maintain regional power and influence.
Stepping up the war by
arming the insurgents is part of a plan to destroy Iranian influence to
the west. Just as the Afghanistan War remains crucially concerned with
securing the TAPI Pipeline as the alternative to the preferred
Iranian-Pakistan rival and so destroying Iran's revenue from gas
The target is clear: this is all part of the New Great
Game for hegemony over the Middle East in the Middle East and Central
Asia in which Iran is the main obstacle. The conflict is driven by
energy geopolitics and US over dependence upon oil in these dangerous
and volatile lands.
The urgent need is to find alternatives to
oil and gas in Central Asia and the Middle East and restructure the
economy so that high octane consumerism is replaced with a saner and
more sustainable use of finite natural resources. The alternative is war, chaos and economic collapse