‘Doomsday scenario’ if Syria fails

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/unr ... story.html

BEIRUT — The toppling of the presidents in Tunisia and Egypt precipitated a tumult of revolutionary fervor that promises to transform the Middle East, but the potential collapse of the Syrian regime could wreak havoc of a very different kind.

In Syria, the fall of President Bashar al-Assad would unleash a cataclysm of chaos, sectarian strife and extremism that spreads far beyond its borders, threatening not only the entrenched rulers already battling to hold at bay a clamor for democratic change but also the entire balance of power in the volatile region, analysts and experts say.

If the regime collapses you will have civil war and it will spread throughout the region,” engulfing Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and beyond, said Hilal Khashan, professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. “A collapse of the Syrian regime is a doomsday scenario for the entire Middle East.”

Analyst Rami Khouri describes Syria as the Middle East equivalent of a bank that’s too big to be allowed to fail. “The spillover effect would be too horrible to contemplate,” he wrote in a commentary in Beirut’s Daily Star.

“The specter of sectarian-based chaos within a post-Assad Syria that could spread to other parts of the Middle East is frightening to many people.”

In Syria, the army is so tightly bound to Assad’s Alawite clan that the fall of the regime would almost certainly lead to its disintegration, setting the stage for an Iraq-style implosion in which the state collapses, a majority seeks to exact revenge on a minority and regional powers pile in to assert their own interests, said Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma, who writes the blog Syria Comment.

“Syria is the cockpit of the Middle East, and a struggle for control of Syria would be ignited,” he said.

On balance I would say that Assad will survive... but if he doesn't all bets are off. If the contagion of civil war spreads to the rest of the Arab world, than expect to see a massive plunge in oil production.

[UndercoverElephant]

...massive plunge in oil production.

This is why America's huge arsenal of nuclear weapons is effectively useless. The last thing they need is a massive plunge in oil production, but this is the inevitable outcome of instability in the middle east - and the greater the instability, the deeper and longer will be the plunge.

[Lord Beria3]

...massive plunge in oil production.

This is why America's huge arsenal of nuclear weapons is effectively useless. The last thing they need is a massive plunge in oil production, but this is the inevitable outcome of instability in the middle east - and the greater the instability, the deeper and longer will be the plunge.

Agreed. Although maybe in the short term a unilateral seizure of the oil fields/pipelines/refineries could give the Americans a advantage, assuming that they used sufficient force to wipe out any resistance.

[the_lyniezian]

...massive plunge in oil production.

This is why America's huge arsenal of nuclear weapons is effectively useless. The last thing they need is a massive plunge in oil production, but this is the inevitable outcome of instability in the middle east - and the greater the instability, the deeper and longer will be the plunge.

Nuclear weapons are good for nothing but as a deterrant, for reasons of MAD- i.e. to stop the major powers from going to war with one another and totally annihilating them. I don't see how you actually expect them to be of any use in real warfare otherwise anyway, since no-one really wants to use them, they are that devastating.

[UndercoverElephant]

...massive plunge in oil production.

This is why America's huge arsenal of nuclear weapons is effectively useless. The last thing they need is a massive plunge in oil production, but this is the inevitable outcome of instability in the middle east - and the greater the instability, the deeper and longer will be the plunge.

Agreed. Although maybe in the short term a unilateral seizure of the oil fields/pipelines/refineries could give the Americans a advantage, assuming that they used sufficient force to wipe out any resistance.

Impossible. You cannot reliably get oil from an onshore oilfield to a sea terminal if the terrain is occupied by people who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to sabotage your operation. Not without placing an armed guard every 50 metres on both sides of the pipeline - and maybe not even then.

[Lord Beria3]

If you used a neutron bomb on the villages/towns bordering a pipeline than you could wipe out all human life on the route of the pipeline.

That is one way of ensuring stability. Anather would be to expel/murder all local workers and replace them with foreign (non-Muslim) workers working on the oil pipelines etc

These are pretty horrific measures but they are an exanple of what the Americans could do if the gloves went off.

[kenneal - lagger]

These are pretty horrific measures but they are an exanple of what the Americans could do if the gloves went off.

They've done it before. Ask the North American Indians.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you used a neutron bomb on the villages/towns bordering a pipeline [then]...that is one way of ensuring stability. Anather would be to expel/murder all local workers and replace them with foreign (non-Muslim) workers working on the oil pipelines....

You think this would lead to stability????

[UndercoverElephant]

These are pretty horrific measures but they are an exanple of what the Americans could do if the gloves went off.

They've done it before. Ask the North American Indians.

The more gung-ho Americans might think like this, but the situation is not the same. The Americans were invading Indian land and taking it for themselves. They do not want to invade the oil countries of the middle east, and they could not successfully occupy that territory even if they wanted to. They just want the oil.

[Lord Beria3]

Well, think about it, only the locals would organise resistance, foreign workers would be reliable. If the oil fields/pipelines are in the desert, its a relatively easy task to exterminate any human life across a security area around any pipelines using neutron bombs.

In the short-term this may lead to the conditions in which the US could ensure sufficient oil production to be exported directly to the USA.

Long-term, hell, even medium term, I doubt it would work. It maybe that the Washington elite only care about getting enough oil to the homeland to avoid collapse in America... the long-term can look after itself.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, think about it, only the locals would organise resistance, foreign workers would be reliable.

Are you kidding? Half the muslims (left) on the planet would be organising resistance. No American would be safe anywhere, even in America.

[Lord Beria3]

Well, think about it, only the locals would organise resistance, foreign workers would be reliable.

Are you kidding? Half the muslims (left) on the planet would be organising resistance. No American would be safe anywhere, even in America.

True, but America would be in martial law. I wouldn't be surprised that for 'security reasons' that all American-Muslims would be rounded up and put in concentration camps, like what happened to the Japonese in America during WW2.

Regarding the rest of the Middle East, i agree, this is where the plan would fall apart, as the forces of chaos across the ME would overwhelm Americas militarily occupied Gulf area (where all the oil is).

This is not a new idea...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TSU407A.html

In 1973, the Nixon administration described a plan of attack against Saudi Arabia to seize its oil fields in a classified Joint Intelligence Report entitled “UK Eyes Alpha”. British MI5 and MI6 were informed, and under British National Archive rules the document was declassified in December of 2003. The oil embargo had been over for only three weeks but “Eyes Alpha” suggested that the “US could guarantee sufficient oil supplies for themselves and their allies by taking the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf State of Abu Dhabi”. It followed that “pre-emptive” action would be considered, and that two brigades could seize the Saudi oilfields and one brigade each could take Kuwait and Abu Dhabi.

In February of 1975 the London Sunday Times revealed information from a leaked and classified US Department of Defense plan. The plan, drawn up by the Pentagon, was code named “Dhahran Option Four” and provided for an invasion of the world’s largest oil reserves, namely Saudi Arabia.

Further, in August of 1975, a report entitled, “Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study”, was produced for the Committee on Foreign Relations. In this report, the CRS stated that potential targets for the US included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria. “Analysis indicates … [that military forces of OPEC countries were] quantitatively and qualitatively inferior [and] could be swiftly crushed.”

Defeating the conventional forces would be no problem for the Americans, stopping terrorism and the sabotage is an entirely different matter.

[postie]

......what the Americans could do if the gloves went off.

Ah, they've been learning from the shoe-bomber and the pants-bomber

[RenewableCandy]

I can't believe the Pants Bomber...what a subriquet(sp?) to have to live with. It's like that joke about the failed suicide-bomber on his 85th mission.

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110504 ... ac60f90743

Fascinating article on the history of Syria.