Why Britain's Foreign Policy on Syria is About Targeting Iran.

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 their interests.

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 Asia.

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.

Syria 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 the march.

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.

Clearly, 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.