ISIS, Kurdistan and the Geopolitical Stakes for the US and Britain in Syria and Iraq.

"The evidence is there for all to see what happens in the absence of cooperation. It leaves a political and military opening for extremists."- William Hague

With Washington said to be ready to intervene militarily along with Iran to roll back the threat posed to Bagdhad by the ISIS, it is vital to remember that the Obama administration has claimed it is prepared to use air strikes against it both in Syria and Iraq.

As ISIS has its main base in Raqqah, it owes its surge deep into Iraq through Mosul and Tikrit not merely to the continued chaos that has not gone away aftermath of the Iraq War but also due to the fact that the US and Britain have been tacitly backing fanatical Sunni jihadists in Syria.

That is why Obama and Hague focused solely on the failings of the Shi'ite government of al Maliki in Baghdad as a way of diverting attention away from the fact that ISIS were fighting with the Free Syria Army as recently as 2013, a force backed by Britain and the US as a means to overthrow President Assad.

ISIS was not only able to develop due to the way Sunni jihadists groups have become progressively more brutal in northern Syria. The group owed the bulk of its past funding to donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait where it was regarded in Iraq as a means to combat Shi'ite militias and Iran's influence.

Hagues' propaganda use of the flexible cant word 'extremist' means 'jihadists not under our control' or else not objectively on the side of Britain's Gulf allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which have been vying for influence in any post-Assad Syria by promoting the most effective .i.e. ruthless jihadists.

The absurdity of the geopolitical situation in Syria and Iraq is such that Britain and the US are effectively backing Al Qaida affiliated groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra by funnelling weapons to the FSA which only in the course of 2014 has been fighting against ISIS.

One reason is that whereas the FSA and ISIS had a common interest in fighting Kurdish separatists, ISIS wanted to surge into Iraq and the Kurdish separatists were prepared to do a deal with ISIS to allow them to march southwards and link up with Baathists opposed to the Shi'ites in Baghdad.

The reason is that Kurdish separatists in Syria and the autonomous region of Iraq wanted to seize Kirkuk which they consider the ancient ( and oil rich ) capital city of Kurdistan. By having ISIS put pressure on Baghdad and fight against the FSA they could increase their reach and power over their territory and oil

The US and Britain would be prepared to shore up al Maliki's Shi'ite government only upon certain conditions so it can continue to exert influence in Baghdad and to prevent Iran from increasing its role in Iraq through sending troops , signing lucrative arms deals and shipping weapons to Assad.

Hence the other reason-apart from the potential threat to the oil producing regions south of Baghdad- for military intervention by the US, with British intelligence assistance, is to reduce ISIS so as to effectively back up the FSA's struggle  and ensure the goal of 'regime change' in Damascus is furthered.

Generally, ISIS is an offshoot and product of the increased radicalisation and competition for control amongst Sunni jihadists and, as such, a product of Saudi and Qatari foreign policy backed by Britain and the US. But it is seen as a threat because it has allowed Assad to regain the military initiative.

Throughout 2014 Assad has been rolling back the FSA from positions around Damascus and the strategically vital land between the Syrian capital to the Mediterranean coast, the route through which arms are supplied to the government and that connects to Hizbollah's base in Lebanon.

ISIS poses a threat because it has divided the Sunni jihadists in Syria and allowed Assad and hence Russia-which backs Assad and has an interest in blocking Qatar's and Turkey's plan for a gas pipeline that would rival its supply to Europe-to gain the upper hand in the Middle East.

On the other hand, the fact that ISIS has been able to collude with the Kurdish militias to threaten the Iraqi capital provides an opportunity for Washington and London to make any military assistance conditional on moving away from Tehran ( that's what Hague really means by the 'need for cooperation' in Iraq ).

Ultimately, US and British foreign policy is about energy geopolitics and siding with key regional allies which provide them with oil ( as Saudi Arabia does to the US ) and with the large and increasing quantities gas which Qatar provides to Britain and France, thus allowing it to diversify supply away from Russia.

Syria: Same Issue, Different Question.

"I cannot foresee any circumstances in which we would go back to parliament again on the same question and the same issue," he said. "We can't go back asking the same question over and over. So no, I can't foresee such circumstances."

So opines Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister. Now he is blaming the 'cynical' and 'point scoring' Ed Miliband for having Labour vote against the government on the motion to involve Britain militarily in a US led missile strike against the Syrian regime.

I predicted yesterday that there would be a clamour for a second vote and that the new tack in 'public diplomacy' on Syria would take the form of the government blaming Miliband for diminishing Britain's global standing the better to box him into a position of having to support a new vote on a different question.

It doesn't seem as though that could include only chemical weapons. The question is what other pretexts could be cooked up to justify a military intervention that is wanted for geopolitical advantages and to advance strategic interests irrespective of whether Assad has chemical weapons or has actually used them,

For that is what Hague and Clegg are insinuating about another vote. Already Shadow Defence minister Jim Murphy and Ben Bradshaw are said to be voices in favour of a second vote according to the Daily Telegraph. They are positioning themselves for that should  more 'compelling evidence' come from Washington.

The 'public diplomacy' offensive now is to portray Miliband for having prevented the chance for Britain to have supported military intervention under any changed circumstances so that, if and when circumstances change, they can try to pressurise Miliband to get the party to vote for it the second time around.

It is both predictable and pathetic.

Syrian Crisis : Politicking and Positioning Over Britain's Role in Syria.

Get ready for a week of intense 'public diplomacy' from Washington as it steps up a gear with the accusations of Assad's use of chemical weapons, now said to have contained sarin gas, and siren voices in Britain clamouring for the case for military intervention to be framed in a new light by the government.

In Britain, William Hague said: "We were saying in our parliament that there would be a second vote at a later stage if we wanted to go ahead with military action. So that, of course, would have been rather similar to President Obama setting out this timetable in Congress now"

The hawks are already regathering for a second swooping attempt to drag Britain towards military intervention in Syria. Osborne is clearly trying to blame Labour for humiliating not only the government but also Britain because its diminished role as a 'global player'.

The 'public diplomacy' being put forth by Hague is that if Congress votes for military action they would be able to portray the Labour opposition in a bad light if Washington spins out a new line on Syria other than the specific one on chemical weapons which was defeated in the Parliamentary vote.

If Washington cobbled together some sort of pretext for intervention based on 'humanitarian intervention' , or if other evidence of atrocities committed by the 'Assad regime' could be exploited to press the case in a 'new light', there could be noises about second vote, something Miliband has not ruled out.

The politicking going on in Britain now reflects both sides attempt to prove themselves better to lead Britain's role as a 'global player' and accusing each other of the failure to maintain its 'credibility' on the world stage. Hague knows Labour were not against military intervention in principle.

Hague is now insinuating that Miliband and Labour have played partisan politics and would destroy Britain's position if further evidence is found "Parliament has spoken. I don't think it is realistic to think that we can go back to parliament every week with the same question having received no for an answer'.

Of course, the government could go back to Parliament wit a differently worded question on the same issue should they be able to portray Labour as cynical should a blitz of propaganda come forth on Syria and the UN inspectors find 'something' that could be spun as part of a 'new' decisive case for military intervention.

Hague is already shifting tack to that position,

 "Parliament has spoken. I don't think it is realistic to think that we can go back to parliament every week with the same question having received no for an answer.

"Anybody looking objectively at this would see that, in order for parliament in any circumstances to come to a different conclusion, people would have to be more persuaded by the evidence. There is a great deal of evidence there but I'm not sure that the extra evidence that the United States presented would have made a difference to those doubting the evidence in the House of Commons.

"The Labour leadership would have to play a less partisan and less opportunistic role and be prepared to take yes for an answer in terms of the motions that we present to the House of Commons. We had taken on board all the points that they had made before the debate on Thursday. All those things would have to happen to get a different result in the House of Commons and I can't see any immediate possibility of that."

Moreover, Labour's position is not against Washington's on intervention. They were not against military intervention per se but against the case being made by Cameron for it. That is why Jim Fitzpatrick resigned from the shadow front bench because he was against intervention 'full stop'.

Labour have only learnt that there is a need for the case to be seen to be better and for the mistakes that it made in Iraq not to be repeated. But though Cameron used Iraq style techniques to spin Britain into intervention, Syria is not, in fact, the same as Iraq as military invasion was never on the cards.

Miliband is clever enough to know that and has tried to use the Syria Crisis to exorcise the spectre of Blair and pose as 'responsible'. Yet neither Miliband nor Alexander are against military intervention at some stage should the conditions they laid down on Thursday be subsequently met. Alexander stated today,

" The conditions we set down on Thursday apply on Sunday morning. But since then, of course, the prime minister has given his word to the British people that the UK will not participate in military action in Syria."

The implication is that the conditions for military intervention still apply but for the position of Cameron. It is a political manoeuvre to make his leadership look as though it could damage Britain's standing as a global player, the very basis for Osborne's attack on Labour.

Alexander is not stating that military intervention was conclusively ruled out. He is stating that the conditions for participation were not met and still have not by Sunday morning. This leaves the question open while boxing Cameron into a corner for having botched the case on Thursday.

Labour can now have both ways. If new 'compelling evidence' is provided ( as their condition two requested) and if the UN finds some evidence of chemical weapons use, then Miliband and Alexander could spin about and support military intervention with Washington later while criticising government incompetence.

This does not mean that Britain will definitely join the US in any operation against Assad's regime without another vote. But it means that if Washington and 'the international community' demands Assad be held to account for war crimes, Labour could vote for it if another vote were held.

Labour could then have it both ways, that it was Miliband who showed leadership and the best way to preserve the 'special relationship' while Cameron's irresponsible recklessness damaged Britain's credibility as a 'global player'. Alexander himself is a staunch and unquestioning Atlanticist.

Is nobody listening carefully to what these politicians are actually saying ?

Syria: No Military Intervention for Britain.

Barack Obama's plans for military strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorising military force.

What is good about this decision is that MPs did not vote the government's motion in support of military action in Syria even if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors. It is unlikely to stop Washington going ahead anyway and its a setback for its 'public diplomacy'

Washington would still be able to gather a 'coalition of the willing' in the form of the Arab League and, quite possibly, in the shape of the NATO powers. So long as Assad did not attack Turkey, it seems as though Britain is not going to be able to participate.

Cameron's and Hague's incompetence and cavalier approach has had an unexpected benefit. William Hague should now resign. But this was no victory for Miliband either as his amendment was not voted for as well. The MPs in Parliament from across the political divide have rejected military action.

Syria: On the Brink of Regionwide War

'World leaders have issued a string of bellicose statements in the last 24 hours, with Iran and Russia standing alongside the Assad regime against an emerging western alliance led by the US, UK, France and Australia. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Araqchi, intimated that Tehran would respond, should the west strike.'

It's difficult to see how the aggression of the West can be held in check now. They have the Arab League onside now so the oil and gas interests are safe, at least at present.Now the US, France and UK are casting around for the correct legalistic formula to justify a military strike as opposed to pursuing diplomacy.

However, if the conflict spills over from Syria into Saudi Arabia or Iran steps up its support for Hizbollah and Shia militias to combat an emboldened Free Syria Army, the war on the ground could intensify to the point where Iran is then threatened by Saudi Arabia and then what will the West do ?

The aim of the Western powers is ultimately to get regime change in Iran. But Russia is hardly going to stand idly by. And China has started to get a great deal of oil from Saudi Arabia in the last decade. Yet it has large interests in Iran and oil assets in Iraq as well.

This military intervention could be catastrophic. It is hardly going to remove Assad's regime and that is not the aim. The purpose is to 'degrade' his regime, Western leaders claim, to prevent him using WMDs with 'impunity' through the West acting with unilaterally in tangent with the rich Gulf States.

The idea is Assad is to yield to the pressure of this 21st century version of 'gunboat diplomacy' by negotiating a way out that allows the West to coalition a new regime in Syria that is not pro-Iranian and also strong enough to resist Al Qaida.

It is hard to see how that could be acheived. The West would face a strong regional power such as Iran more directly should it act to shore up Assad and should the sectarian struggle on the ground in Syria become even more intense. Shia agitation in Bahrain against the Sunni monarchy could flare up.

Moreover, Hizbollah acts as a state within a state in Lebanon and if it ratchets up the struggle to defend Assad in concert with Iran then Israel could be dragged in to the region wide conflict. That is why Assad's advisers are already making noises about retaliation against Israel.

We are standing on the precipice of an extremely dangerous region wide conflict that could even create an oil price shock and destabilise the world economy. Saudi Arabia is not firmly secure from any 'blowback' from Syria if it falls into a situation similar to Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Supposed statesmen such as Hague exemplify the continuity between the neoconservative strands of geopoltical thinking dominant in 2003 and still influential a decade later in 2013. Hague has learnt nothing from the Iraq War whatsoever

Nor does Hague seem to have recognised the obvious fact that Iran has been able and willing to intervene in Syria a lot more because the upshot of the Iraq War to remove the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein was to create a Shia led government in a country where 70% are Shi'ites.

The abstract and coldly fanatical geopolitical fantasies about hastening a showdown with Iran through Syria and Iraq ( 'regime change' )  is firmly a component part of neoconservative ideology. Hague believes this is his 'world historical' moment. It might be in ways he hardly expects, assuming civilisation continues.

Syria: Implementing Attacks.

Prime Minister David Cameron's decision to recall of Parliament is not going to stop any decision on military intervention in Syria happening. When Hague was contemplating giving direct military support to the anti-Assad insurgents in June he displayed the same insouciance he does now.

"We have a good record on going to the House of Commons for a vote. There would be a vote one way or another. I can't see any reason why it couldn't be before any such decision was implemented"

As I warned on June 11 2013 Hague took it as a given that it was a formality since the implication of his statement was that it would make no real difference anyway. He referred to a vote before a decision was implemented and not before one was actually made.

Hague knew full well that no vote either way was legally binding then no less than he knows that now with the prospect of cruise missile strikes against the Syrian government being launched. The propaganda machine is in full spin, the media is focusing on the 'implementation' of an attack.

The staunch neoconservative Michael Gove made it quite clear that Parliament is an irrelevance on this urgent matter of national importance.

 "I think the decision about how the government is going to respond to the horrendous humanitarian atrocities we have witnessed is one which is properly taken by the prime minister and the members of the national security council

 "I know the prime minister has said in the past he respects the right of the House of Commons to be kept up to date. I don't think there has been any foreign secretary who has been as assiduous in keeping the House of Commons up to date with not just what's been happening in Syria but with what's been happening elsewhere in the Middle East as William Hague.

So, I am absolutely confident the prime minister and the foreign secretary are the right people to be leading at this time and I think their response so far has been absolutely right in the face of what are horrendous crimes."

There are token nods from the US towards the UN inspectors finding the facts first but the momentum towards military action is in full swing in order to maintain Western 'credibility', the same position held by Madelaine Albright with regards the 78 bombardment of Serbia during the Kosovo Conflict in 1999.

But Syria is not Kosovo and the potential for the conflict to spin out of control as the result of military action far greater.

Syria: William Hague is Dissembling.

The facts are not out yet and UN inspectors have not yet had a chance to get to the site, presuming that they are going to be able to. This has not stopped William Hague coming out with similar innuendos used about Saddam Hussein before 2003 having 'something to hide' and his 'non-compliance'.

Likewise, Hague airily dismissed the notion put forth by Russian Foreign Ministry that the attack could have been a deliberate 'planned provocation' by 'the opposition',

"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria. I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."

Evidently, the conspiracy theories are often in force in times such as these, whether the supposed Daily Mail clippings that have suddenly resurfaced now about US intentions to supply Al Qaida with chemical weapons or George Galloway's Press TV rant about his 'theory' that it was Israel that 'gave' them to Al Qaida

Yet TV film footage, most of children suffering the effects of some gas or their dead corpses, is guaranteed to get the Western media and politicians spinning the line of 'something must be done' when the nature of the attacks and who did it is actually very far from clear.

Experts on chemical weapons such as Gwyn Winfield at CBRNe have made it quite plain that it is important to know, 'what percentage of those died from exposure to an unknown chemical' and that the facts are, in reality, rather 'difficult to pin down'. Winfield states ( Reflections on Ghouta 22 August 2013 ),

'The spread of these casualties/fatalities is important, without this information we are forced into the conclusion that the spread of attacks was at the maximum reported - which then presupposes a significant, organised force behind it

If this isn’t the case, and all the chemical casualties come from a single area (and it’s downwind path) then it makes it more likely that a smaller, potentially rogue faction, was behind it. This is certainly the Russian view, as espoused by RT and it is interesting that their comments about a rocket ties in exactly with the suggested analysis from Brown Moses on the munition used (though he makes no claims as to how many devices or who fired them).

Large amounts of munitions, many different sites, makes it more likely that it was a large, organised agency behind the firing; an isolated, small exposure (with a big ol’ ATP45 track behind it) would make it more likely that it is a splinter force.'

The idea that the there no questions as to whether Assad has launched a large chemical weapon attack on one area is pure propaganda. The situation is complicated in East Ghouta with the al Nusra Front being defeated there in early August.

William Hague's attempt to blame the attacks squarely on the Assad regime and to preempt any findings by UN inspectors is in continuity with the ploy used to justify the Iraq War in 2003 and was later found to be based on a tissue of lies and fabrications.

So, apart from which chemicals were used, the other question remains as open as it did when the story first broke on Wednesday-'Who gains?'

Syria: The Propaganda War and 'Shocking Escalation'

William Hague continues to deploy loaded language in relation an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime, the word regime being accurate but hardly more than the continuous misuse of the word 'rebels' instead of the more neutral term 'insurgents'

Hague calls it a 'shocking escalation of the use of chemical weapons'. which he then followed by calls for the need to "wake up to... its murderous and barbaric nature". "I hope this will wake up some who have supported the Assad regime, to realise its murderous and barbaric nature."

What is so ominous about this is that he has prejudged the situation by putting the blame firstly on the Assad regime full well knowing that the UN inspectors have not established the facts and that the chances of them being able to get to Ghouta to verify the claims can be preempted by propaganda.

Hague is merely compounding the mistakes he has already made in continually repeating 'Assad must go' from early on in the civil war and trying to make Assad's departure a precondition of any peace negotiations at a future Geneva Conference earlier in June 2013.

When Hague refers to 'those who have supported the regime' he is referring to Iran and Russia. With Fabius threatening "a reaction that could take the form of a reaction with force ”, they are dangerously ratcheting up the prospect of violence. For the target of this threat is ultimately Iran.

The fact is though, there is nothing that either France or Britain could do without US approval. The danger is that they are putting Washington is a position where Obama's 'credibility' is on the line after he made it clear in 2012 that the use of chemical weapons would cross a 'red line'.

Even if this were a chemical weapons attack, there is little the West could do to remove Assad that would not make the situation on the ground worse. Arming the FSA would only increase the potential for arms falling into the hands of Al Qaida who would then try to capture these weapons themselves.

It is not completely implausible that the attack was not caused by nerve gas but by riot control agent unleashed by the FSA as a last ditch attempt to get Western intervention. By all accounts prior to this attack they were being rolled back by Assad's armies and Hizbollah.

The International Business Times reported a short time ago,

'Gwyn Winfield, editorial director at CBRNe World, a magazine specialising in chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive weapons, told IBTimes UK that it is difficult to identify an agent by the signs and symptoms alone.

"We can say there is some form of chemical used. But until we take blood samples, samples of the soil and the water in the area we can't say that a chemical agent has been used," he said.

"It can be a riot control agent, like in the recent Egyptian case of the tear gas used in the back of a van that killed 36 prisoners. We have the same symptoms in the children and casualties."

Winfield said he finds it "suspicious" that in the week UN inspectors enter the country with the acquiescence of Assad, the Government welcomes them with a chemical weapons missile barrage.

"It is not impossible that some faction in the Free Syrian Army did it to get attention or maybe it was an accident by an inexperienced operator who may have not realised what he was doing."

The security expert said there are numerous cases of riot agent used in a lethal way, for example in confined spaces and not to disperse a crowd.

He added that the idea that the FSA is single and unified is "a myth," because "there are different factions and something like that could be a win/win for them: launch the attack and raise amount of profile of their cause by the UN."

Winfield said that more than 570 victims, if confirmed, are a lot of people in a not densely populated area. "It means the attack targeted a large area and it is not an isolated incident. If there are 570 fatalities it would suggest that evidence of what it is will not be hard to find."

This seems a pretty fair summation of the situation.

Further Thoughts

The fact Hague is prejudging this alleged use of chemical weapons to be just that and proof of previous claims that were not independently verified is packed tightly into the soundbite 'shocking escalation' which presupposes the Assad regime had already been using it

Words matter. 'Escalation' was an essentially Cold War term used in relation to a war between two nuclear powers with 'weapons of mass destruction'. Hague is using is to mean an increase from a previous level of destruction by Assad against 'rebel held' areas using 'WMDs'.

The entire point of any strategy to contain conflict and good diplomacy is to prevent 'escalation' because it implies a potentially unstoppable process or what has been called an 'irrational escalation of commitment' , as in when gamblers make poor decisions or businesses 'throw good money after bad'.

Hague has been committing himself to playing for the highest stakes from early on ( 'Assad must go' ), he seems irrationally fixated on promoting a foreign policy that could not be attained by anything other than arming the 'rebels' and so intensifying the conflict.

As any weapons that could be supplied directly to the insurgents against Assad would necessarily fall into the hands of Al Qaida fighters itching to get their hands on chemical weapons ( or so it has been supposed by some reports and intelligence briefings ). It's possible this is another 'pretext' to arm the 'right rebels'.

This whole episode still seems too convenient; the FSA was in retreat, and the UN inspectors entered Syria a week before Assad is accused by the FSA that a chemical weapons attack has killed 1,400 exactly a year after President Obama claimed this would cross a 'red line'.

After being seen to be weak and 'indecisive' on the Egyptian coup by those such as domestic opponents as John McCain,the danger is that Washington will be forced to go further than it might otherwise have done by the hawkish and rather sinister rhetoric of Hague and Fabius.

If this alleged chemical weapons attack turns out not to have been one or not the work of Assad, as is very possible, then certainly Hague must resign from his position. Yet the amount of choreography between Hague and Fabius very may have already involved Washington as it 'ponders the options'

And this is a chilling thought.

Syria : The Hague and Fabius Duet.

The usual propaganda mechanisms are being cranked up fast as the momentum of a drive towards war proceeds in accordance with the usual formats. This time it is a blend of the 2003 Iraq War one ( Chemical Weapons) and the 2011 Libyan War version ( Dictator Out of Control ).

First, Britain via Hague pops up rather sprightly and acts a public diplomatic mouthpiece by squarely blaming the Assad regime without giving the UN weapons inspectors time to get to the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack. That's the Iraq Format.

Secondly, then Fabius of France ratchets up the pressure by claiming that even if "no ground troops' will be used" but states “There would have to be reaction with force in Syria from the international community”. That is the Libyan Format. So far the political choreography is as predictable as it could be.

By "international community" it is meant that Britain, France and, lastly, the USA who Hague and Fabius hope will give them green light for either supplying arms to "the rebels" or perhaps even using air power. Expect to hear the phrase 'all the options are on the table" a lot in the next few days.

Syria: The Drive Towards War

Written 11 hours ago.

William Hague was on the BBC a few minutes ago laying the blame for the chemical weapons attack squarely with 'the Assad regime'. No other foreign policy figure has publicly come out with that yet to my knowledge. This attempt to preempt diplomacy between the US and Russia is ominous.

Given that nobody knows the exact facts. Yet this complete fanatic, who was at the forefront of lifting the EU arms embargo to Syria, should refrain from uttering such statements before other diplomats and statesmen convene to discuss it at emergency meetings of the United Nations following inspections of the attack site.

Hague seems to be trying to ramp up the rhetoric in order to prove that his policy of 'Assad Must Go' has been vindicated. Yet that reckless diplomacy helped draw in Iran and make the civil war worse. He is a cretin and should certainly be sacked if it is proved that the Assad regime did not order it.

It's likely the US and Russia will ignore him anyway and Hague is not going to sway Washington to get involved if its vital interests are not at stake. But this crisis now seems to be a lot about 'credibility'. He bears some responsibility for having made this crisis potentially intractable

The fact that Hague lacks any on any extremely dangerous foreign policy issue, while trying so desperately to pretend he doe,s is contemptible and a menace to world peace.

Syria: The Impact of the Chemical Weapons Attack on Ghouta

With today's claims of chemical weapon attacks by Assad's regime on Ghouta near Damascus, the danger is  an instantaneous flurry of media coverage in which the rush to judgement benefits those statesmen wanting to harness it to support their realpolitik agenda under the cover of humanitarian concern.

It is obvious that the FSA would want to ramp up the claims of chemical weapons use in order to get Western intervention to overthrow Assad. But it is not impossible that Al Qaida could get its hands on chemical weapon. If it were to use them for an attack, they would hope to draw in the West.

Assad's regime would have had to be seemingly insane to use chemical weapons just days after the UN inspectors arrived in Syria because the US and Britain were bound to want to use this as a pretext to demand the inspectors have access and, if they cannot, this can act as a sign of his 'non-compliance'.

However, the fact is that even if Assad had rained down nerve gas on Ghouta, the West has no means of controlling events in Syria. If it sends huge supplies of weapons to the 'rebels', the chances are that they will fall into the hands of Al Qaida and help them 'liberate' chemical weapon stocks.

The bleak fact is that Syria is in such a situation that states, such as Britain with statesmen such as Hague at the forefront especially, are going to have to recognise that they cannot affect the outcome of this brutal civil war having been partly responsible for it in demanding 'Assad must go'.

Britain's diplomacy has been catastrophic. By backing the 'rebels' and refusing to engage in diplomacy with Iran, and so stay onside with Turkey and Iran's Persian Gulf rival in Saudi Arabia, Hague has blundered into a position where the oil rich kingdom is now calling the shots in Egypt.

In effect, this means widening already existing divisions among 'the rebels', as those backed by Qatar and Turkey belong to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood are hardly going to want to fight alongside those backed by Saudi Arabia and who are less inclined to want the ballot box in any post-Assad Syria.

The only possible motive the Assad regime could have had in using chemical weapons ( assuming this attack is its work ) was to show that if the US and Western nations could allow the Egyptian military to repress the Muslim Brotherhood by 'eliminating them' then he could do something similar.

If that is so, it is hard to think what the Assad regime could think it was going to achieve, other than to show that he is still a force to be negotiated. In the absence of any realistic alternative to ending the civil war and with Iran and its Lebanese based proxy in Hizbollah backing him, he might have tried to play his hand this way.

Egypt: European and US Energy Security.

"There may be years of turbulence in Egypt and other countries going through this profound debate about the nature of democracy and the role of religion in their society

What's happening now in the Middle East is the most important event so far of the 21st century, even compared to the financial crisis we've been through in terms of its impact on world affairs and I think it will take years and maybe even decades to play out".

"It is the government of Egypt, I don't think I can answer it better than that. In foreign policy terms these are the people we deal with in power in Egypt; it's not for us to take sides." British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Monday 19 August 2013

Shooting dead protesters in the streets is a peculiar way of advancing a 'profound debate' about the nature of Egypt's future as a democracy. It would have been more interesting to hear if Hague thinks the $1.3 billion the US gives annually should be cut or not. Or, indeed, aid from the EU.

Even Senator John McCain has come out to call the military takeover a coup and condemn President Obama for not cutting the $1.3 billion in aid to the Egyptian military. Therefore, what politicians say on the military coup can not be taken at face value.

What matters is the fact that the West depends on the Egyptian military to enforce the 1979 Camp David Treaty between Egypt and Israel because this underpins the entire foreign policy strategy of the US in the Middle East ( one shared almost wholly by Britain ).

The reason Hague is not 'taking sides' ( as he clearly has in Syria because the 'rebels' are supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey ) is not only British arms deals with Egypt, which amout to $90 million, but the fact the West depends on the Egyptian military to uphold 'stability'.

It is only the fact that the Egyptian army is proving to be a law unto itself and snubbing Western concerns about the embarrassing scale of the brutality being meted out in the streets of Egyptian cities that the EU is now talking about halting the $5bn in aid it gives.

Given the fact that the Egyptian army and Tamarod have claimed they do not depend on Western aid anyway and that Egypt received $12 billion from the Gulf States after the coup the question is what really is at stake for the West rather than predictable accusations of double standards.

In the case of the US, the $1.3 billion provided for the Egyptian military to buy US weapons is very much about keeping the military-industrial complex content. For the EU, each member state has its own relationship and interests with Egypt. Italy and the Czech Republic are notable arms suppliers to Egypt.

Yet a common interest all the Western powers have is with the security of Egypt as a transit nation for oil and gas via the Sumed pipeline and the Suez Canal. . The EIA states 'In 2012, about 7% of all seaborne traded oil and 13% of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Despite the goal of 'energy independence, the US still imports LNG from Egypt and Qatar, though not a great deal and this has been declining recently. It also imports from another state embroiled in turmoil after the Arab Spring of 2011 which is Yemen, now menaced by Al Qaida terrorism and US drone strikes.

But with Qatar's and Oman's exports of LNG via the Suez Canal forming a growing importance to EU states, including Britain but especialy states such as Spain and Italy, the security and stability of Egypt is going to be considered vital to economic recovery after the the 2008 crash.

One intractable problem in Egypt is that it still exporting gas when it is clear that it needs it for domestic purposes. One reason Britain prioritises security and may well not oppose a military regime is the interests companies such as the BG Group ( British Gas ) is responsible for a third of all gas produced in Egypt.

In May 2013 BG Group indicated that it wanted to increase drilling operations in Egypt. These are the 'trade interests' Hague had in mind when he first started reacting to the crisis in Egypt that followed the coup. With North Sea gas depleting rapidly, 'energy security' has become a main foreign policy aim.

The Egyptian military knew it could carry out the coup with the West caught over the oil and gas barrel because of their overdependence upon it and that 'instability' and the spread of violence across the Maghreb and Middle East could cause an oil price shock that could destroy Western economic recovery.

Syria: Proxy War and Battleground in a Global Jihad

On whether the US, UK and France will directly arm the Free Syria Army, not only is the more 'extreme' wing fragmenting and going over to militant jihadist splinter groups but the foreign fighters, seeing Syria as a national battleground in a global jihad, are in fierce combat with the FSA.

'Months of uneasy calm between jihadists and the mainstream Syrian opposition spilled into fierce fighting in Aleppo on Saturday, days after a senior Free Syria army commander was assassinated by a jihadi group...The fighting was in Bustan al-Qasr in the south-east of the divided city.

The battle underscored the fast-splintering nature of the Syrian opposition, which made sweeping military gains across much of northern Syria last year, but has been unable to advance from its key strongholds in Aleppo and elsewhere since January.'

The danger is that the US, UK and France will try to use any advance in Al Qaida inspired jihadists as even more of a pretext to arm the 'right' rebels in order to prevent 'another Afghanistan' on the borders of Turkey. Arming the insurgents would, however, be more likely to create just that.

The plan to arm Sunni Islamists, whether 'moderate or 'extreme', is worse than useless and the only way forward is to bring Iran into diplomatic negotiations instead of asserting as a precondition the demand that Assad must step down.It simply is not realistic and can only only prolong the bloodshed.

The West needs to drop the neo-Cold War style poses against Iran merely to please Saudi Arabia and Israel. The chaos in Syria could spread into Lebanon and Iraq and ultimately even blowback into Jordan and Saudi Arabia itself. Then the strategic interests it wants to uphold at any cost will be destroyed anyway.

It is also ominous that Al Qaida in Syria is acting as a recruiting base for UK born jihadists.

'Al-Qaida elements fighting with rebels in Syria constitute the most serious terrorist threat to Britain, and if they were to get their hands on Syria's chemical weapons the consequences could be catastrophic, according to British spymasters.'

The latest annual report of the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC) claims that "Al Qaida linked elements" are trying to gain chemical weapons. If so, that would surely mean that the safest course of action is not to arm the Sunni insurgents but to engage in diplomacy with assad.

"There is a risk of extremist elements in Syria taking advantage of the permissive environment to develop external attack plans, including against western targets. Large numbers of radicalised individuals have been attracted to the country, including significant numbers from the UK and Europe."

The question is why the government has seemingly allowed that to happen and is not using their surveillance apparatus to arrest these people. If it does not know who these jihadists are and cannot arrest them then the British government needs to drop its insane plans to arm Sunni insurgents.

The risk of blowback will affect all those in the region from Turkey and Saudi Arabia who backed Sunni fundamentalists in accordance with shoddy realpolitik calculations and fear of Iran. That includes he US and UK and it now must promote peace negotiations that include Iran and do not insist 'Assad must go'.

This is yet another example of how Britain's strategic 'lethal embrace' of Saudi Arabia and overdependence upon oil is mortally endangering the securiry of Britain and its population. Greater terrorism is the price to be paid for a high octane lifestyle and we need to grasp that fact urgently..

When is an 'Extremist' Extreme Enough or Not?

Perhaps, given William Hague's supposed aversion for 'extremism', he thinks events in Eygpt are tending towards 'extremism' or whether 'extremism' is what the 'extremists' he deigns to be 'extreme' are different to those who are not to be thought of 'extreme' because his government and he supposes it convenient.

The latest from Eygpt is this,

The Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, has appointed a member of the hardline Islamist group Gamaa Islamiya to the governorship of Luxor – a tourist city in which militants associated with the group killed 58 tourists in 1997. The symbolism of the appointment has enraged Egypt's sidelined non-Islamist opposition, who see it as further evidence that Morsi is unconcerned about the country's increasing polarisation.

Morsi is supportive of the Sunni Islamist insurgents in Syria. They cannot be 'extremists' then. Otherwise, William Hague would tell us. Indeed, maybe even ex London Mayor Ken Livingstone would now care to considers whether Qaradawi's hate fuelled sermons against the Shia insurgents are the sort of thing he likes.

Political Lying and Syria.

The only conclusion to be drawn from William Hague's consistent 'public diplomacy', on the British government being able to safely supply the 'right rebels' with weapons that won't fall into the 'wrong' hands, is that he is either divorced from reality or is willingly taking colossal risks.

"We are currently sending equipment that saves lives and who are we sending that to? Well, we are sending it to those more moderate, more sensible elements of the opposition. Obviously, we're not sending it to extremist groups, to groups that we're very concerned about, that could become a terrorist threat.

"The equipment we have supplied so far is not arms, but we have no evidence that that has fallen into the wrong hands in any sense and we have been supplying it for some time, so bear that in mind,"

Hague may well have 'no evidence' that so-called ''non lethal aid' has not fallen into the 'wrong hands' in Syria because , as with the allegations that rebel factions used sarin gas neither he nor the US administration is interested in looking for it.

This is what is so dangerous about the mindset that Hague seems to be trapped in. The rigid and abstract geopolitical thinking is clearly in continuity with the US neoconservatives and that was based on the faith based idea that with will power and 'resolve' the 'West' can win through.

In that sense, 'public diplomacy' is essentially the requisite propaganda based on a mendacious use of oil spin and words. In a brutal civil war, there is no guarantee that arms will not be traded to financially well backed 'extremists' by those receiving arms from Britain and the US.

The CIA, as numerous New York Times reports going back into 2012 prove, have been funnelling 'lethal aid' to insurgents in Syria-including second hand ex-Yugoslavian arms from Croatia. Satellite information has been used to guide the insurgents.

Given that arms from the ex-Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have been traded globally since the 1990s, it is utterly madness to assume that in the chaos in Syria both some of Assad's stock of weapons and any weapons from the West would not be sold by those wanting to make money.

Hague's stance is based clearly adhering to what he anticipates the Washington line was going to be and acting as an advocate in the UK for a full' shoulder to shoulder' stance with the US. There seems little independence in British foreign policy.

Yet there have been no real political warnings yet nor debate which mentions the facts about why arms have and will inevitably fall into the 'wrong' hands if they are supplied. No criticism from politicians looking at logical flaws in the case for intervention.

The useless Nick Clegg is not opposed to sending arms to Syria as it clear from what he actually states,

"At this point we're not providing arms. If we wanted to, we would do it. We clearly don't think it is the right thing to do now or else we would have decided to do it....We need to work in concert with our allies but we do not need to do the identical thing."

Nothing Clegg said rules out the fact that if the US decides it will arms the insurgents that Clegg would not 'work in concert' while pretending Britain was making independent decisions. Something ruled out when he says "the idea that we can provide a unilateral British solution to this is fanciful.

 Well, obviously it isn't a 'solution' and Clegg knows it's not an option anyway which is why he can say what he is saying because it amounts to nothing specific. He just wants to pretend that he supports an independent line on Syria while not criticising the action outright or really opposing it.

Political opponents ought to have had Cameron and Hague on the ropes, attacking their logic and questioning their use of language. Instead what we have is mere grandstanding, posturing and positioning of views simply to try and use the concern over intervention of Syria to promote themselves.

Hague, however, remains the most seasoned practitioner of political lying when he states,

"It's also not easy to take a decision to allow people to be killed who are faced by much superior arms and who may be driven to radicalism and extremism by being placed in the situation, so it's a classic dilemma."

The logic here is that if Britain does not supply arms to the unspecified 'good rebels' to use against the superior arms of Assad, then they will be driven to radicalisation and "extremism" This is an admission that the 'rebels' he would be prepared to arm will turn against us if we do not back them.

"There certainly are extremists. The complexity of this situation is there's more than two sides and there is an opposition.

There is no need for the word 'and' after admitting there is 'more than two sides' because many that are fighting as part of the opposition to Assad are 'extremists' if by that it is mean Sunni fundamentalist fanatics who want outright domination and victory and no peaceful solution.

Hague keeps arbitrarily using the word 'extremist' in a Humpty Dumpty way to mean what he wants them to mean. The word is used in the meaningless manner described by Orwell in Politics and the English Language.As is clear when he insinuates he has met leaders who are not 'extremists'

'I've had many meetings with opposition leaders who are not that type of opposition leader, who are sincere – in my view and the view of John Kerry and many other western foreign ministers – about their commitment to a future democracy in Syria, to dealing with the stockpiles of chemical weapons, to making sure that minorities are properly represented and not persecuted in Syria...Their commitment to that is sincere so we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking everybody on every side is an extremist. There are a lot of good Syrians, I can assure you."

The fact is that 'extremists' can be sincere to the point of being fanatical and can say what they want Hague to hear. Hague needs to reveal which opposition leaders he has met and which he thinks are the 'sincere' leaders. Otherwise, the public has to take his word for it. And they cannot.

Given that Hague has repeatedly acted in bad faith about negotiations at Geneva being dependent upon the ability of the 'good rebels' to win militarily, it is clear that the leaders he has in mind are those such as General Idriss who rejected talks and called for the US to provide weapons to his forces.

Idriss of the Supreme Military Commandhas admitted several times that he cannot create a unified force despite numerous attempts to do so as only a small part of the 'rebel forces' are trained soldiers. So Al Qaida and radical Sunni fundamentalist forces can easily take control on the ground.

The only solution is to start negotiations at a Geneva Conference with Russia and Iran included to avoid the war developing any further. The fighting is now a grudge match with sectarian overtones and only fanatical jihadists will exploit the chaos. This is the only realistic option.

Why the Syrian Crisis is so Dangerous to World Peace.

Hague has all but made up his mind that the Syrian Sunni fundamentalist insurgents will be armed if he and the Foreign Office can claim it is in Britain's interests to do so. As only 80 MPs have expressed concern that it should be put to a Commons vote, it is clear Hague thinks it is merely a formality.

"We have a good record on going to the House of Commons for a vote. There would be a vote one way or another. I can't see any reason why it couldn't be before any such decision was implemented"

Note that Hague is not open to the possibility of the decision not being implemented. He insinuates there is no reason why it could not be voted for 'one way or another' but that could mean they can vote only after Hague has made the decision. Parliament then has to rubber stamp it.

The same hypocrisy is evident in Hague's high handed attitude towards peace negotiations. If it looks as though, with the fall of Qusair and the Syrian government gaining on the ground militarily, that the Geneva Conference will be continually pushed back because the outcome cannot be dictated.

This is essentially what Hague means when he states,

"It makes it less likely that the regime will make enough concessions in such negotiations, and it makes it harder to get the opposition to come to the negotiations,"

There have been numerous opportunities to open negotiation to try and bring about a ceasefire but Hague does not want them. The objective is, at any cost,  to get regime change no matter how many Syrian civilians die in the carnage. Any 'peace' conference is meant to be a means to that end.

As Peter Oborne has put it,

'Mr Cameron wants to escalate the fighting by arranging military support to the rebels. He told Parliament on Monday that he hopes this will “tip the balance” in their favour. Iran – in reality an essential part of any solution – will not be welcome at the negotiating table, and in Mr Cameron’s mind there is no future for Assad, which probably means that the war will drag on and on'.

Iran, of course, is not part of the solution because the aim of regime change in Syria is to rollback Iranian influence in the Middle East and to side with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, a NATO power, in removing Assad through using Sunni fundamentalist proxy forces.

The messianic drive to intervene in Syria is much about backing Saudi Arabia and protecting the oil supply, the 'balance of power' and, of course by extension, those lucrative arms deals worth billions of pounds to British Aerospace.

The pretence that it is about saving lives is pure propaganda as almost every humanitarian aid agency has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and negotiations for a transition of power to be arranged. Keeping the war going actually can benefit Saudi Arabia as domestic fanatics can be exported there.

The so-called 'rebel' militias often do not have much in common with one another. The Saudi sponsored proxies are Wahhabi militias and Turkey is backing militias of the sunni Muslim Brotherhood which Riyadh has an an aversion to because of tensions between in it and Wahhabi Islam

Meanwhile, as is the case with Afghanistan, rich Saudis have provided funds to Al Qaeda-affiliated groups and in Syria that means Jabhat Al-Nusra. If Salafi jihadists overthrow Assad's regime the prospect would be further bloodshed and the next target would be Jordan.

Hague's policy of being prepared to arm sunni militias as a counter to Hizbollah and Assad's forces is a repeat of the realpolitik decision to back the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, one that had long term disastrous consequences in creating 'blowback' in the form of Al Qaida in the first place.

The magnitude of the crisis in Syria, and Hague's absurd foreign policy response to it, are outcomes of longer term failures to move towards greater energy independence and the dangers of being dependent upon a dysfunctional Saudi Arabian regime that has sponsored terrorism for years.

Yet the Syrian crisis is now bring events to a climactic head on clash of interests between Saudi Arabia and Iran as another catastrophic result of the Iraq War which created similar warfare on sectarian lines. The price of stability there was to tacitly allow Shia militias to crush Sunni insurgents and pursue ethnic cleansing.

That strategy led to an Iraq dominated by Maliki who looks favourably towards Tehran and willing to contemplate a new axis of power between Iran, Iraq and Syria. Along with potential lucrative pipeline deals to connect the South Pars gas field to the Mediterranean, a new lethal front in the New Great Game opened up.

The Syrian Conflict has created a potentially intractable crisis that could presage a region wide war. Saudi Arabia could face 'blowback' should Syria become like Afghanistan. The disruption to oil supplies would then compound global economic stagnation and lead to instability of the sort not seen since the 1930s.

Syria could be the Tipping Point for All Out Regional War in the Middle East

Syria really could be the tipping point where the civil war develops into a regionwide conflict intensified by sectarian enmities. So it adds to the instability caused by the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well as surpassing the catastrophic bloodshed and carnage that happened as the power of the state disintegrated there and left a power vacuum

Yet the civil war in Syria could be more potentially lethal than Iraq as all the regional powers have turned the conflict into a proxy war. This will inevitably affect Britain because of its overdependence upon Saudi Arabia for oil supplies and to prop up the 'balance of power' in the Middle East against the main threat to Western interests in the shape of Iran.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague's preparedness to back Syrian insurgents is interconnected with these strategic interests. Turkey, which is backing Muslim Brotherhood militias from the north  is a NATO power that, along with Saudi Arabia, is concerned with the growing influence of Iran in Syria where it has acted to shore up Assad's Alawite shia regime.

The absurdity is that in Iraq the US and UK tacitly allowed shia militias to defeat the sunni ones that were fighting them for control over Iraq in the sectarian war that arose after Saddam's state was removed by force ('regime change'). Ethnic cleansing was involved in that and the US and UK looked the other way as the price of defeating them.

As a result of that the Shia Iraqis are now dominant, in partnership with the Kurds, and under Maliki have moved closer towards Tehran. Many willing shia jihadists are arriving in Syria from Baghdad. This a clear long term outcome of Tony Blair's disastrous foreign policy and one that is set to get worse as the Syrian conflict looks likely to spill over into Iraq and Lebanon.

In this sense, there is a definite continuity between Blair and Hague that is routinely ignored by political pundits desperately trying to pretend there is some fundamental difference between the New Conseratives and New Labour. There is none because when Cameron speaks of an 'existential threat' from jihadists he really also means one to our oil supply.

There is a difference in tactics involved in backing Syrian insurgents as opposed to military intervention and not in the intent. The ultimate 'game plan' is to destroy Iran because it is the only regional power that can challenge the US's militaristic endgame of removing it as an independent state capable of resisting designs to control the oil and gas of both the Middle East and Central Asia.

Three months before Hagues's decision to show his preparedness to arm the 'rebels', i.e sunni fundamentalists, by getting the EU embargo removed, Baghdad approved of plans for a Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipeline from the South Pars Gas Field which Iran shares with Qatar. These realpolitik considerations are foremost in the foreign policy towards Syria.

Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia started to arm the Sunni fundamentalists from the outset of the Syrian civil war to forestall the rise of Iranian influence so that the UK now has to stand by this corrupt despotic rentier regime to uphold its oil interests in the Middle East, as well as lucrative arms deals amounting to millions of dollars and pounds.
 
Therefore, the UK and France, and possibly the US in future, want to redress the balance of power by arming sunni insurgents as a counter to the rise of shia predominance they promoted in Iraq ! The same tired pretexts are already being wheeled out as 'Public Diplomacy'-'chemical weapons', 'humanitarian intervention' 'fighting extremism', 'terror threats' etc.

The fact is that  in backing unreservedly Saudi Arabia, the US and Britain is supporting a country that actually funds terrorists elsewhere, including Al Qaida, as well the Taliban in Afghanistan against whom British soldiers have been fighting and dying for twelve years now. The war in Afghanistan is crucially about securing the TAPI pipeline as an alternative to Iran's pipeline to Pakistan.

It is truly Orwellian as regards the ideological schizophrenia, doublethink, and changes of the official line. It's clear shoddy realpolitik has always underlain the purported humanitarian rhetoric about both Iraq and Syria. British people must wake up and think about the problem of oil consumption and dependence unless we want to lose the democracy we have taken for granted for so long.

For the foreign policy will only lead to greater volatility, increasing terror attacks and the increase in state power in Britain over people's lives; the price for thinking that 'business as usual' in such dangerous lands that spawn terrorists and fanatics is something that cannot be questioned or that some terror threat is somehow not connected to it.

William Hague Imagines a World of Terrorism and Extremism.

I'm still looking for the source of William Hague's alleged claim he was concerned with Chinese inroads in the Middle East. After all, tne reason to invade Iraq in 2003 was the ambition to control the second largest oil reserves in the world.

As that has backfired and led to a Shia dominated government in Iraq that supported Syria more and was moving closer to Tehran ( as well as China starting to get more oil concessions than the USA ) , Syria could be all the more important.

Hague talked about the geopolitical stakes thus in 2011,

"If these countries turn into stable democracies, open economies, imagine the benefits that will bring to the stability of the world.

But imagine if it went wrong. Imagine if, actually, extremism, terrorism were promoted. Imagine the financial consequences as well as the human and moral consequences of this going wrong.

This going wrong in the Middle East, the area that produces so much of the world's oil and gas, that contains so many tensions in the world, would have financial consequences that would make the last three years seem the mere prelude to much greater difficulties. That is why the stakes are so high.".

Essentially, stripped of the call upon people to 'imagine' his envisaged future, the stakes are control over the oil and gas of the Middle East and the utter failure of Britain to do anything in the area of trying to ensure energy dependence from these dangerous and volatile lands.

By advancing annd promoting the almost clinically insane policy of arming the Sunni insurgents in Syria, and ensuring the growth of Al Qaida style violence and terrorism, Hague is promoting terrorism and 'extremism'. By any standards his pressure, along with that of France, to end the arms embargo on Syria is extreme.