Why Syria? An Examination of the Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipeline

As Western military forces congregate in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea in anticipation of a “limited strike” on Syria, it is time to ask ourselves a simple question: Why?

by Jerry Robinson

In the summer of 2011, just weeks after civil war broke out in Syria, the Tehran Times released a report entitled, Iran, Iraq, Syria Sign Major Gas Pipeline Deal. The report provided details on Iranian plans to export its vast natural gas reserves to Europe through a pipeline that traverses both Iraq and Syria. This new Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline would reportedly be the largest gas pipeline in the Middle East and would span from Iran’s gas-rich South Pars field to the Mediterranean coastline in Lebanon, via Iraq and Syria.

But the pipeline won’t stop there.

The agreement calls for the construction of an underwater pipeline under the Mediterranean Sea stretching from Lebanon to Greece to deliver Iranian gas to energy-hungry European nations.

The 6,000 kilometer pipeline (that’s about 3700 miles for metrically-challenged Americans), which carries a massive $10 billion price tag, boasts an estimated pumping capacity of 100-120 million cubic feet of gas per day. The projected completion date is mid-2018.

As of this writing, the construction of this proposed pipeline has not begun and the question of who will finance the project has not been addressed. However, in July 2013, leaders from Syria, Iran, and Iraq met to sign a preliminary agreement on the pipeline with the hopes of finalizing the deal by the end of the year.

With around 120 miles of coast line, Syria’s geographic location on the Mediterranean Sea makes it an obvious export center for landlocked oil producers within the greater Middle East seeking to export their oil and gas reserves to European markets. And while Syria’s strategic location and warm water port on the Mediterranean may have been considered a national asset in times past, it is now a major liability amid the 21st century game of empire. Syria now sits near the center of a competing effort by Sunni Islamic kingdoms and Western nations to pump cheap Middle East gas supplies to Europe and beyond.

Syria is already part of a Western-ordained gas pipeline that spans from Egypt to Homs. This pipeline, known as the Arab Gas Pipeline, was originally planned to continue traveling north of Homs up into Turkey. From there, it can be piped into Europe. The major players of this Western approved pipeline include Saudi Arabia and Qatar, among other Gulf nations.

Syrian President Assad’s mistake was to reject the Arab Gas Pipeline in preference the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, also dubbed ‘The Islamic Pipeline.’ This proposed pipeline would obviously compete directly with the Arab Gas Pipeline’s goal of delivering Mideast natural gas to Europe.

Most Arabs view the Islamic Pipeline as a Shi’ite pipeline serving Shi’ite interests. After all, it originates in Shi’ite Iran, passes through Shi’ite Iraq, and flows into Shi’ite controlled Syria. Therefore, the Sunni-dominated Gulf nations have both an economic and religious reason for preventing the Islamic Pipeline from becoming a reality. So far, the Gulf nations have violently opposed Syria’s adoption of the Islamic Pipeline by arming opposition fighters within Syria in order to destabilize the nation. While the ultimate goal is to topple the Assad regime, these hopes appear to be diminishing as Assad remains strong and defiant in the face of recent opposition.

Despite his firm grip on power, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is opposed by many powerful actors within the Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, and perhaps most importantly, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda also strongly opposes the Assad government and has joined other rebel factions in an effort to overthrow Assad and to install a more “Saudi-friendly” (and therefore “Western-friendly”) government.

The Pressure is Mounting

This week, it appears that the long planned U.S.-led war in Syria may finally commence. For nearly two decades, Gulf nations, and their Western-based militaries have been plotting an overthrow of the Syrian government. The aim is clear: To topple the Assad family-controlled regime and replace it with a new “democratic” government that is friendly to Sunni/Saudi interests in the region.

To accomplish their mission, Western military forces will be required. Not just air power, but “boots on the ground.” This will, of course, require an appeal to the American people.

So, the “official” Western narrative against Syria goes something like this:

The Syrian government has abused basic human rights, maintains deep ties with rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea, and just recently launched a chemical weapons strike on hundreds of its own people. In addition to slaughtering its own citizens, the Assad regime is serving to destabilize an already unstable Middle East. Assad is bad for the “future” of the Middle East and therefore, he must go…

According to most reports, the U.S., Britain, and France are preparing for a strike against numerous key targets within Syria this week.

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, is calling for war and has recalled Parliament this week to discuss a military response against Syria.

French President, Francois Hollande, has increased its support for the Syrian rebels and has said that France is “ready to punish” whoever was responsible for the recent chemical weapons attack.

The Arab League has blamed the chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian government and is calling for United Nations intervention.

U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, has said that the evidence of a chemical weapons attack in Syria is “undeniable.”

After providing the White House with “all options for all contingencies,” U.S. Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has stated that U.S. forces are “ready” to launch a strike against Syria.

Of course, all of this is mere propaganda, as the U.S. has long planned to topple Syria.

First, consider these words from U.S. General Wesley Clark. Clark, who is clearly a globalist, admitted that the U.S. had already made the decision to invade Syria as early as 2001.

The West and its Middle East allies, led by Saudi Arabia, are keen on an entire regional overhaul.

Now, the U.S., France, and Britain are scolding the Syrian government for allegedly launching a chemical weapons strike against its own people. But so far, no hard evidence has emerged proving the Assad regime to a chemical weapons strike. Such things are hard to prove in the fog of war.

Meanwhile, both the Syrian and Russian governments have blamed the Syrian ‘rebels’ for launching the attack, calling it a false flag operation designed to be used as a pretext to war.

In addition to Russia, Iran has also firmly opposed intervention into Syria. Once you grasp the regional energy pipeline politics which dominate the region, Iran’s interests in Syria are obvious.

But what about Russia? Why are they choosing to side with Syria despite the massive propaganda push by the West?

Russia’s economy is predominantly based upon its enormous energy exports. Much of Europe is dependent upon Russian oil and gas, and this dependency is growing. Russia boasts the largest natural gas reserves in the world.

Which country has the second largest reserves?

Iran.

Iran, however, is internationally isolated with no current ability to export its vast energy supplies to Europe.

Russia has its eye on the potential profits of bringing Iranian oil and gas online for Europe. For this reason, (among a myriad of others) it has sought to solidify its relations with Iran. Of course, the most direct route for moving Iran’s energy supplies to Europe is right through the heart of Iraq and into Syria. So, it appears that Russia’s alliance with Syria has less to do with Syria and much more to do with the Iranian gas that may soon flow into Syria.

But remember, in the end, these conflicts in the Middle East are not about “spreading democracy” or “delivering aid to those in need.” Instead, they are about controlling the flow of energy resources within the region.

All else is secondary.

Comments are closed.