The main aim of US/UK foreign policy in Syria has been, and will remain, destroying Iran as an independent actor because it is the only regional player that can thwart Western geopolitical interests and the control over oil and gas both in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Israel is onside with that and has its own grudges
against Hizbollah in Lebanon and Syria and Iran while having no great
interest in seeing Assad replaced with a Sunni dominated regime with
Muslim Brotherhood activists in it unless it can be co-opted to serve
Ultimately, the reason the USA and Britain do
not want open negotiation over Syria is that the messianic policy of
'regime change' against Assad and, by extension, in its ally Iran is
also being pursued elsewhere to the east in Afghanistan as Iran is
hemmed in and encircled.
Hague's calculations are based on a
callous realpolitik being the servant of Utopian expectations that the
entire Middle East and Central Asia can be remodelled to fit 'Western'
energy needs and interests and 'promoting' democracy and human rights
into the bargain.
Iran is clearly targeted for 'regime change'
less because of any potential nuclear threat to the West but because it
would mean Iran could retain its independence and use its oil and gas
revenue to fund forces opposed to the US quest for hegemony in Central
By destroying the Assad regime to the West, Hague's policy
is mirroring US neoconservative thinking; that is, Iran's regional
influence would be curtailed, its ability to use Hizbollah as a proxy
force against Israel severely affected.
Hence, the support for
the Sunni guerillas is a counter to the Shia guerrillas of Hizbollah.
Hizbollah is Iran's proxy and the Sunni jihadists in Syria are to become
the West's proxies if Hague gets his way. Such a policy will only
ratchet up the death toll to potential Iraqi levels and spread the
conflict across borders.
In the US, Secretary of State John Kerry is only different from the neoconservatives of the Bush II administration and Britain
in thinking that the strategy of advancing US interests against Iran
may backfire should McCain's forthright support for arming the Syrian
insurgents be the choice.
Hague is a neoconservative. Though not a full member of the Henry Jackson Society, his speeches on 'counter-terrorism' has been lauded for unrepentant warmongers and cheerleaders for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan such as Con Coughlin in The Telegraph.
is the next 'domino' that needs to fall in the Axis Of Evil and the
invasion of Iraq of 2003 was meant to demonstrate that democracy and
freedom will work and radicalise opinion in its neighbour towards the
same end. If much bloodshed was caused, that's the price of freedom on
It must be remembered that the Foreign Secretary has
delusions of grandeur. Hague's middle name is 'Jefferson' and he was
groomed for politics only from an early age. The very 'statesman' act he
tediously tries to present is not only nauseating but contrary to the
effect his actions and words have had and will to continue to have.
"Half of you won't be here in 30 or 40 years' time"
Hague once said when he was 16 at the 1977 Conservative Party national
conference when warning of the long term impact of a Labour Government
under Jim Callaghan. The messianic tone and immaturity are still there
and this time he's responsible for British security and global peace.
there need to be calls for Hague to resign or be sacked when the impact
of his foreign policies could be as appalling as the consequences that
Iraq had and still has for Britain. Even if neither political parties
contain independent minded dissenters to 'the party line' because
stuffed with mediocrities, other have to call for it.