Ceea ce a fost până săptămâna trecută doar un subiect de discuţii politico-diplomatice sau o temă de reflecţii academice, pare să devină o sumbră realitate în teren. O miză de viaţă şi de moarte. Este din nou război în Orient, în teritoriile palestiniene.
După lecţiile amare ale „primăverii arabe” din 2011 şi eliberat de constrângerea politică a alegerilor prezidenţiale din Statele Unite, Israelul se arată hotărât să-şi definească rapid un nou profil şi o nouă relaţie de putere în raport cu lumea arabă, la rândul ei înnoită prin căderea unor longevivi dictatori din regiune. Campania din Gaza e doar începutul acestei noi orientări politico-militare, nu sfârşitul proiectului israelian, după cum a sugerat chiar ministrul Apărării, Ehud Barak. Nu mai e un secret pentru nimeni faptul că Israelul a fost profund nemulţumit de evoluţiile din zona MENA (Middle East and Northern Africa) şi a avertizat Washington-ul în mod repetat asupra pericolelor care pândesc în spatele unei aşa-zise „primăveri arabe”, lipsită însă de alternativa reală a democraţiei liberale şi de soluţii de guvernare, altele decât cele militare sau islamiste, singurele la îndemână pentru această etapă a dezvoltării politice locale. Scenariul cel mai sever, cel al ciocnirii civilizaţiilor de care vorbea în anii 90 Samuel Huntington, pare acum mai probabil ca oricând în Orientul Mijlociu, unde Israelul este o insulă a democraţiei şi dezvoltării moderne înconjurată de o mare arabă, în care Islamul cunoaşte o neaşteptată consolidare în ultimul deceniu, inclusiv sau în primul rând la nivelul generaţiei foarte tinere.
Ştim, de asemenea, că în Israel vor urma alegeri generale anticipate pe 22 ianuarie 2013, pentru al 19-lea Knesset. Unii comentatori, chiar occidentali, încearcă să acrediteze ideea că ofensiva „The Pillar of Defense” este o simplă strategie electorală a cabinetului Netanyahu. Ar fi, desigur, îngrozitor de cinic şi inacceptabil de simplist să asumăm o asemenea ipoteză, că acolo mor oameni pentru ca cineva să câştige alegerile. Dar o dimensiune politică a conflictului există, fără îndoială. Nu e vorba numai de o confruntare militară cu Hamas, nu e în joc numai eliminarea unor ţinte care au legătură cu terorismul, e vorba de o reaşezare a echilibrelor de securitate în zonă, după ce Israelul s-a văzut lipsit de minima siguranţă pe care i-o conferea regimul militar al lui Hosni Mubarak, controlat de americani, sau ameninţat de ascensiunea islamiştilor în Egipt, Libia, de influenţa Hezbollah în Liban, de războiul civil înfiorător din Siria, de incertitudinile politice legate de succesiunile la tron în Arabia Saudită sau în alte monarhii din Golf, nu în ultimul rând de deteriorarea relaţiilor cu Iranul şi, mai nou, cu Turcia. Faţă de toate aceste provocări din regiune, Israelul doreşte să arate că poate înfrunta singur sfidările duşmanilor, că poate să-şi joace cartea şi fără susţinerea militară directă a Americii, că este pregătit şi nu se teme de război. Faptul că premierul Recep Erdogan, liderul unei ţări puternice ca Turcia, membru al N.A.T.O. şi vechi aliat al Statelor Unite, declară că „Israelul va da socoteală” mai devreme sau mai târziu pentru ofensiva din Gaza este desigur un semnal politic îngrijorător pentru situaţia din Orient. Este, de asemenea, primul test politic internaţional major al preşedintelui reales Obama.
Pentru moment, reţinem declaraţia preşedintelui american făcută duminică, după aterizarea în Tailanda: „Este dreptul Israelului să se apere de rachetele trase asupra teritoriului său!” Pare o compensaţie diplomatică post-electorală, pregătită în prealabil, pentru anii de tăcere din primul mandat, pentru lipsa de inspiraţie sau de interes în politica externă, pentru neimplicarea şi ezitările administraţiei Obama şi ale Departamentului de Stat în raport cu crizele din Orientul Mijlociu şi, respectiv, faţă de ascensiunea islamiştilor la guvernare în câteva ţări din zona MENA. Se aşteaptă alte reacţii politico-diplomatice, după ce Liga Arabă a condamnat, previzibil, acţiunea Israelului. Uniunea Europeană ca actor în relaţiile internaţionale nu mai e demult o voce clară, autoritară şi ascultată, care să conteze pe scena politicii globale, chiar dacă Londra şi Parisul au reacţionat prompt în nume propriu, încercând să calmeze spiritele şi să nu încurajeze trecerea la faza următoare, ground invasion. Armistiţiul nu pare însă iminent, câtă vreme Tel Aviv a fost ţintit sâmbătă de o rachetă trasă din Gaza, probabil de fabricaţie iraniană (Fajr-5, cu rază de acţiune de 75 de km.), distrusă de sistemul interceptor israelian Iron Dome.
Israelul are de purtat o imensă bătălie strategică în aceşti ani, atât pentru a-şi garanta securitatea proprie şi regională, cât şi pentru recâştigarea simpatiei occidentale, a societăţii civile şi a opiniei publice din democraţiile nord-atlantice. Dacă pentru primul obiectiv avioanele, tancurile şi bateriile de rachete performante pot face ceva (deşi nici acest lucru nu e sigur), bătălia în planul imaginii va fi incomparabil mai complicată. Bombardamentele din aceste zile categoric nu solidarizează opinia publică internaţională cu Israelul, aşa cum nu a făcut-o ofensiva din 2008-2009, şi aproape obligă liderii politici occidentali (vezi declaraţia ministrului britanic de Externe, William Hague) şi organizaţiile cu vocaţie universală să facă un apel imediat la stoparea violenţei şi agresiunii împotriva civililor. Din această perspectivă, Israelul poate părea izolat. Nu are cum să aibă susţinători expliciţi ai unei invazii terestre anunţată ca posibilă, chiar dacă prima declaraţie a lui Barack Obama poate părea încurajatoare, fiind în principiu pro-Israel. Lobby-ul evreiesc din Statele Unite va fi, ca de obicei, copleşitor dar nimeni, niciun guvern din lume nu se poate declara în favoarea unor bombardamente care ucid civili şi copii, acest principiu este esenţial. Pe de altă parte, experienţele sinistre ale terorismului alimentat şi implementat de fundamentalismul islamic vor menţine multă vreme de acum înainte neîncrederea justificată a democraţiilor occidentale faţă de ascensiunea politică a islamismului şi faţă de capacitatea liderilor acestor mişcări de a fi parteneri responsabili în relaţiile internaţionale.
Probabil, confruntarea militară între Israel şi Hamas se va opri în decembrie. Este o opinie personală, chiar dacă acum semnalele sunt de continuare şi chiar de intensificare a campaniei. Oricum, se va opri înainte de votul din 22 ianuarie 2013 şi de inaugurarea noului mandat al lui Barack Obama, programată cu o zi înaintea alegerilor pentru Knesset. Vor rămâne însă o serie de dosare complicate care îşi aşteaptă soluţionarea: chestiunea statului palestinian, tranziţia în Siria (şi evoluţia politică viitoare de acolo, deocamdată imprevizibilă), relaţia explozivă cu Iranul (şi la Teheran va avea loc curând un transfer de putere într-o direcţie încă greu de anticipat), dialogul cu Egiptul condus de preşedintele Morsi, provenit din partidul Frăţiei Musulmane, (re)acomodarea cu Turcia guvernată de islamiştii moderaţi, devenită un fel de rising star în Orientul Mijlociu. Relaţia cu Turcia, până nu demult relativ bună, s-a deteriorat după uciderea unor cetăţeni turci în raidurile aeriene israeliene din 2010 împotriva unui convoi de vase cu pretinse ajutoare umanitare, care forţau spargerea blocadei maritime impuse de Israel în fâşia Gaza.
La ceas de cumpănă, lumea priveşte încă o dată spre America. Ce soluţie va putea genera administraţia Obama? Există oare o soluţie pe termen scurt sau mediu pentru pace şi dezvoltare în nefericitul Orient Mijlociu? Cât de departe poate să meargă Israelul? Poate fi eliminat terorismul? Cât de sigură mai este lumea în care trăim? Câţi civili inocenţi şi copii vor mai muri în acest never-ending conflict? Pot eşua politica şi diplomaţia internaţională într-un război de proporţii, într-un clash of civilizations sau rămânem cu speranţa că e vorba de escaladări de scurtă durată, aşa cum au mai fost în trecut, de deterrence şi manevre politice? Sunt interogaţii grave, cu consecinţe de viaţă şi de moarte, cărora cei care au privilegiul dar şi povara uriaşă a deciziilor politico-militare cruciale trebuie să le găsească un răspuns.
Un articol Contributors.ro , un site pe care vi-l recomand cu foarte multa caldura, mai ales pentru articolele sale de geopolitica, de o foarte buna calitate.
Contributors.ro, este acum si pe blogroll-ul RoMilitary
Syria, Turkey, Israel and a Greater Middle East Energy War
By F. William Engdahl * 10 October 2012
On October 3, 2012 the Turkish military launched repeated mortar shellings inside Syrian territory. The
military action, which was used by the Turkish military, conveniently, to establish a ten-kilometer wide
no-man’s land “buffer zone” inside Syria, was in response to the alleged killing by Syrian armed forces
of several Turkish civilians along the border. There is widespread speculation that the one Syrian
mortar that killed five Turkish civilians well might have been fired by Turkish-backed opposition forces
intent on giving Turkey a pretext to move militarily, in military intelligence jargon, a ‘false flag’
operation.1
Turkey’s Muslim Brotherhood-friendly Foreign Minister, the inscrutable Ahmet Davutoglu, is the
government’s main architect of Turkey’s self-defeating strategy of toppling its former ally Bashar Al-
Assad in Syria.2
According to one report since 2006 under the government of Islamist Sunni Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan and his pro-Brotherhood AKP party, Turkey has become a new center for the Global
Muslim Brotherhood.3 A well-informed Istanbul source relates the report that before the last Turkish
elections, Erdogan’s AKP received a “donation” of $10 billion from the Saudi monarchy, the heart of
world jihadist Salafism under the strict fundamentalist cloak of Wahabism. 4 Since the 1950’s when the
CIA brought leading members in exile of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia there has
been a fusion between the Saudi brand of Wahabism and the aggressive jihadist fundamentalism of
the Brotherhood.5
The Turkish response to the single Syrian mortar shell, which was met with an immediate Syrian
apology for the incident, borders on a full-scale war between two nations which until last year were
historically, culturally, economically and even in religious terms, closest of allies.
That war danger is ever more serious. Turkey is a full member of NATO whose charter explicitly states,
an attack against one NATO state is an attack against all. The fact that nuclear-armed Russia and
China both have made defense of the Syrian Bashar al-Assad regime a strategic priority puts the
specter of a World War closer than most of us would like to imagine.
In a December 2011 analysis of the competing forces in the region, former CIA analyst Philip Giraldi
made the following prescient observation:
NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict, with Turkey taking the lead as U.S.
proxy. Ankara’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has openly admitted that his country is prepared
to invade as soon as there is agreement among the Western allies to do so. The intervention would be
based on humanitarian principles, to defend the civilian population based on the “responsibility to
protect” doctrine that was invoked to justify Libya. Turkish sources suggest that intervention would
start with creation of a buffer zone along the Turkish-Syrian border and then be expanded. Aleppo,
Syria’s largest and most cosmopolitan city, would be the crown jewel targeted by liberation forces.
Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian
border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the
Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained
soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free
Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers
are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing
communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid
concentrations of Syrian soldiers. 6
Little noted was the fact that at the same day as Turkey launched her over-proportional response in
the form of a military attack on Syrian territory, one which was still ongoing as of this writing, the
Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) undertook what was apparently an action to divert Syria’s attention from
Turkey and to create the horror scenario of a two-front war just as Germany faced in two world wars.
The IDF made a significant troop buildup on the strategic Golan Heights bordering the two countries,
which, since Israel took it in the 1967 war, has been an area of no tension.7
The unfolding new phase of direct foreign military intervention by Turkey, supported de facto by
Israel’s right-wing Netanyahu regime, curiously enough follows to the letter a scenario outlined by a
prominent Washington neo-conservative Think Tank, The Brookings Institution. In their March 2012
strategy white paper, Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings geo-political
strategists laid forth a plan to misuse so-called humanitarian concern over civilian deaths, as in Libya
in 2011, to justify an aggressive military intervention into Syria, something not done before this.8
The Brookings report states the following scenario:
Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces
from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Assad regime of a multi-front
war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being
fed a steady diet of arms and training.9
This seems to be precisely what is unfolding in the early days of October 2012. The authors of the
Brookings report are tied to some of the more prominent neo-conservative warhawks behind the Bush-
Cheney war on Iraq. Their sponsor, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, includes current foreign
policy advisers to Republican right-wing candidate Mitt Romney, the open favorite candidate of Israel’s
Netanyahu.
The Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy which issued the report, is the creation of a major
donation from Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media billionaire who also owns the huge German Pro7
media giant. Haim Saban is open about his aim to promote specific Israeli interests with his
philanthropy. The New York Times once called Saban, “a tireless cheerleader for Israel.” Saban told the
same newspaper in an interview in 2004, „I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” 10
The scholars at Saban as well as its board have a clear neo-conservative and Likud party bias. They
include, past or present, Shlomo Yanai, former head of military planning, Israel Defense Forces; Martin
Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel and founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near
East Policy (WINEP), a major Likud policy lobby in Washington. Visiting fellows have included Avi
Dicter, former head of Israel’s Shin Bet; Yosef Kupperwasser, former Head, Research Department,
Israeli Defense Force’s Directorate of Military Intelligence. Resident scholars also include Bruce Riedel,
a 30 year CIA Middle East expert and Obama Afghan adviser; 11 Kenneth Pollack, another former CIA
Middle East expert who was indicted in an Israel espionage scandal when he was a national security
official with the Bush Administration. 12
Why would Israel want to get rid of the “enemy she knows,” Bashar al-Assad, for a regime controlled
by the Muslim Brotherhood? Then Israel’s security would seemingly be threatened by the emergence of
hard-line Muslim Brotherhood regimes in Egypt to her south and Syria to her North, perhaps soon also
in Jordan.
The geopolitical dimension
The significant question to be asked at this point is what could bind Israel, Turkey, Qatar in a form of
unholy alliance on the one side, and Assad’s Syria, Iran, Russia and China on the other side, in such
deadly confrontation over the political future of Syria? One answer is energy geopolitics.
What has yet to be fully appreciated in geopolitical assessments of the Middle East is the dramatically
rising importance of the control of natural gas to the future of not only Middle East gas producing
countries, but also of the EU and Eurasia including Russia as producer and China as consumer.
Natural gas is rapidly becoming the “clean energy” of choice to replace coal and nuclear electric
generation across the European Union, most especially since Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear
after the Fukushima disaster. Gas is regarded as far more “environmentally friendly” in terms of its socalled
“carbon footprint.” The only realistic way EU governments, from Germany to France to Italy to
Spain, will be able to meet EU mandated CO2 reduction targets by 2020 is a major shift to burning gas
instead of coal. Gas reduces CO2 emissions by 50-60% over coal.13 Given that the economic cost of
using gas instead of wind or other alternative energy forms is dramatically lower, gas is rapidly
becoming the energy of demand for the EU, the biggest emerging gas market in the world.
Huge gas resource discoveries in Israel, in Qatar and in Syria combined with the emergence of the EU
as the world’s potentially largest natural gas consumer, combine to create the seeds of the present
geopolitical clash over the Assad regime.
Syria-Iran-Iraq Gas pipeline
In July 2011, as the NATO and Gulf states’ destabilization operations against Assad in Syria were in full
swing, the governments of Syria, Iran and Iraq signed an historic gas pipeline energy agreement which
went largely unnoticed amid CNN reports of the Syrian unrest. The pipeline, envisioned to cost $10
billion and take three years to complete, would run from the Iranian Port Assalouyeh near the South
Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf, to Damascus in Syria via Iraq territory. Iran ultimately plans then to
extend the pipeline from Damascus to Lebanon’s Mediterranean port where it would be delivered to EU
markets. Syria would buy Iranian gas along with a current Iraqi agreement to buy Iranian gas from
Iran’s part of South Pars field.
South Pars, whose gas reserves lie in a huge field that is divided between Qatar and Iran in the Gulf, is
believed to be the world’s largest single gas field. 14 De facto it would be a Shi’ite gas pipeline from
Shi’ite Iran via Shi’ite-majority Iraq onto Shi’ite-friendly Alawite Al-Assad’s Syria.
Adding to the geopolitical drama is the fact that the South Pars gas find lies smack in the middle of the
territorial divide in the Persian Gulf between Shi’ite Iran and the Sunni Salafist Qatar. Qatar also just
happens to be a command hub for the Pentagon’s US Central Command, headquarters of United States
Air Forces Central, No. 83 Expeditionary Air Group RAF, and the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing of the
USAF. In brief Qatar, in addition to owning and hosting the anti-Al-Assad TV station Al-Jazeera, which
beams anti-Syria propaganda across the Arab world, Qatar is tightly linked to the US and NATO
military presence in the Gulf.
Qatar apparently has other plans with their share of the South Pars field than joining up with Iran,
Syria and Iraq to pool efforts. Qatar has no interest in the success of the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline,
which would be entirely independent of Qatar or Turkey transit routes to the opening EU markets. In
fact it is doing everything possible to sabotage it, up to and including arming Syria’s rag-tag
“opposition” fighters, many of them Jihadists sent in from other countries including Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan and Libya.
Further adding to Qatar’s determination to destroy the Syria-Iran-Iraq gas cooperation is the discovery
in August 2011 by Syrian exploration companies of a huge new gas field in Qara near the border with
Lebanon and near to the Russian-leased Naval port of Tarsus on the Syrian Mediterranean.15 Any
export of Syrian or Iranian gas to the EU would go through the Russian-tied port of Tarsus. According
to informed Algerian sources, the new Syrian gas discoveries, though the Damascus government is
downplaying it, are believed to equal or exceed those of Qatar.
As Asia Times’ knowledgeable analyst Pepe Escobar pointed out in a recent piece, Qatar’s scheme calls
for export of its huge gas reserves via Jordan’s Gulf of Aqaba, a country where a Muslim Brotherhood
threat to the dictatorship of the King is also threatening. The Emir of Qatar has apparently cut a deal
with the Muslim Brotherhood in which he backs their international expansion in return for a pact of
peace at home in Qatar. A Muslim Brotherhood regime in Jordan and also in Syria, backed by Qatar,
would change the entire geopolitics of the world gas market suddenly and decisively in Qatar’s favor
and to the disadvantage of Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. 16 That would also be a staggering negative
blow to China.
As Escobar points out, “it’s clear what Qatar is aiming at: to kill the US$10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria gas
pipeline, a deal that was clinched even as the Syria uprising was already underway. Here we see Qatar
in direct competition with both Iran (as a producer) and Syria (as a destination), and to a lesser
extent, Iraq (as a transit country). It’s useful to remember that Tehran and Baghdad are adamantly
against regime change in Damascus.” He adds, “if there’s regime change in Syria – helped by the
Qatari-proposed invasion – things get much easier in Pipelineistan terms. A more than probable Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) post-Assad regime would more than welcome a Qatari pipeline. And that would
make an extension to Turkey much easier.” 17
The Israeli Gas dilemma
Further complicating the entire picture is the recent discovery of huge offshore Israeli natural gas
resources.
The Tamar natural gas field off the coast of northern Israel is expected to begin yielding gas for
Israel’s use in late 2012. The game-changer was a dramatic discovery in late 2010 of an enormous
natural gas field offshore of Israel in what geologists call the Levant or Levantine Basin. In October
2010 Israel discovered a massive “super-giant” gas field offshore in what it declares is its Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ). 18
The find is some 84 miles west of the Haifa port and three miles deep. They named it Leviathan after
the Biblical sea monster. Three Israeli energy companies in cooperation with the Houston Texas Noble
Energy announced initial estimates that the field contained 16 trillion cubic feet of gas—making it the
world’s biggest deep-water gas find in a decade, adding more discredit to “peak oil” theories that the
planet is about to see dramatic and permanent shortages of oil, gas and coal. To put the number in
perspective, that one gas field, Leviathan, would hold enough reserves to supply Israel’s gas needs for
100 years.19
Energy self-sufficiency had eluded the state of Israel since its founding in 1948. Abundant oil and gas
exploration had repeatedly been undertaken with meager result. Unlike its energy-rich Arab neighbors,
Israel seemed out of luck. Then in 2009 Israel’s Texas exploration partner, Noble Energy, discovered
the Tamar field in the Levantine Basin some 50 miles west of Israel’s port of Haifa with an estimated
8.3 tcf (trillion cubic feet) of highest quality natural gas. Tamar was the world’s largest gas discovery
in 2009.
Israel discovered huge gas in Levantine Basin with Noble Energy. Source: Noble Energy map
At the time, total Israeli gas reserves were estimated at only 1.5 tcf. Government estimates were that
Israel’s sole operating field, Yam Tethys, which supplies about 70 percent of the country’s natural gas,
would be depleted within three years.
With Tamar, prospects began to look considerably better. Then, just a year after Tamar, the same
consortium led by Noble Energy struck the largest gas find in its decades-long history at Leviathan in
the same Levantine geological basin. Present estimates are that the Leviathan field holds at least 17
tcf of gas. Israel went from a gas famine to feast in a matter of months.20
Now Israel faces a strategic and very dangerous dilemma. Naturally Israel is none too excited to see
al-Assad’s Syria, linked to Israel’s arch foe Iran and Iraq and Lebanon, out-compete an Israeli gas
export to the EU markets. This could explain why Israel’s Netanyahu government has been messing
inside Syria in the anti-al-Assad forces. However, a Muslim Brotherhood rule in Syria led by the
organization around Mohammad Shaqfah would confront Israel with far more hostile neighbors now
that the Muslim Brotherhood coup by Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi has put a hostile regime on
Israel’s southern border.
It is no secret that there is enmity bordering on hate between Netanyahu and the Obama
Administration. The Obama White House and US State Department openly back the Muslim
Brotherhood regime changes in the Middle East. Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Turkey’s Davutoglu in
August this year was reportedly aimed at pushing Turkey to escalate its military intervention into
Syria, but without direct US support owing to US election politics of wanting to avoid involvement in a
new Middle East debacle.21
State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin has been accused by several Republican
Congress Representatives of ties to organizations controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Dalia
Mogahed, Obama’s appointee to the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,
also a member of the US advisory council of the Department of Homeland Security, is openly linked to
the Muslim Brotherhood and an open foe of Israel as well as calling for the toppling of Syria’s al-Assad.
22 Obama’s Washington definitely seems to be backing the Muslim Brotherhood horse in the race for
control of the gas flows of the Middle East.
And the Russian role
Washington is walking a temporary tightrope hoping to weaken al-Assad fatally while not appearing
directly involved. Russia for its part is playing a life and death game for the future of its most effective
geopolitical lever—its role as the leading natural gas supplier to the EU. This year Russia’s state-owned
Gazprom began delivery of Russian gas to northern Germany via Nord Stream gas pipeline under the
Baltic Sea from a port near St. Petersburg. Strategically vital now for the future role of Russia as an EU
gas supplier, is its ability to play a strategic role in exploiting the new-found gas reserves of its former
Cold war client state, Syria. Moscow has long been engaged in promoting its South Stream gas pipeline
into Europe as an alternative to the Washington Nabucco pipeline which was designed to leave Moscow
out in the cold. 23
Already Gazprom is the largest natural gas supplier to the EU. Gazprom with Nord Stream and other
lines plans to increase its gas supply to Europe this year by 12% to 155 billion cubic meters. It now
controls 25% of the total European gas market and aims to reach 30% with completion of South
Stream and other projects.
Rainer Seele, chairman of Germany’s Wintershall, the Gazprom partner in Nord Stream, suggested the
geopolitical thinking behind the decision to join South Stream: „In the global race against Asian
countries for raw materials, South Stream, like Nord Stream, will ensure access to energy resources
which are vital to our economy.” But rather than Asia, the real focus of South Stream lies to the West.
The ongoing battle between Russia’s South Stream and the Washington-backed Nabucco is intensely
geopolitical. The winner will hold a major advantage in the future political terrain of Europe.24
Now a major new option of Syria as a major source for Russian-managed gas flows to the EU has
emerged. If al-Assad survives, Russia will be in the position as savior to play a decisive role in
developing and exploiting the Syrian gas. Israel, where Russia also has major cards to play, could
theoretically shift to back a Russian-Syrian-Iraqi-Iran gas consortium were Israel and Iran to reach
some modus vivendi on the nuclear and other issues, not impossible were the political constellation in
Israel to change after the coming elections. Turkey, which is presently in a deep internal battle
between Davutoglu and President Gül on the one side and Erdogan on the other, is dependent on
Russia’s Gazprom for some 40% of gas to its industry. Were Davutoglu and his faction to lose, Turkey
could play a far more constructive role in the region as transit country for Syrian and Iranian gas.
The battle for the future control of Syria is at the heart of this enormous geopolitical war and tug of
war. Its resolution will have enormous consequences for either world peace or endless war and conflict
and slaughter. NATO member Turkey is playing with fire as is Qatar’s Emir, along with Israel’s
Netanyahu and NATO members France and USA. Natural gas is the flammable ingredient that is fueling
this insane scramble for energy in the region.
Endnotes:
1
Reuters, Turkish artillery strikes on Syria continue for second day: Several Syrian soldiers killed
in overnight attack; Turkey launched artillery strikes after mortar bomb fired from Syria killed five
Turkish civilians, October 4, 2012. Accessed in http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/turkishartillery-
strikes-on-syria-continue-for-second-day-1.468142
2 Hüsnü Mahalli, Davutoglu Betting on the Fall of Assad, Al Akhbar English, August 7, 2012, accessed in
http://english.al-akhbar.com.
3 Steven G. Merley, Turkey, the Global Muslim Brotherhood, and the Gaza Flotilla, Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs, 2011, accessed in http://www.jcpa.org/text/Turkey_Muslim_Brotherhood.pdf. See also for
more ties between Erdogan’s Turkish AKP and the Musllim Brotherhood, GlobalMB, Syrian Ambassador
Names Associate Of Turkish Prime Minister As Muslim Brotherhood Leader, May 25, 2011, accessed in
http://globalmbreport.org/?p=4496
4 The figure of $10 billion was relayed in a private discussion with the author by a Turkish businessman
and political figure who asked to remain anonymous. Indian diplomats, including H.E. Gajendra Singh,
former Ambassador to Ankara, have independently confirmed Saudi funding of the Turkish AKP.
Presumably like most $10 billion cash grants, it came with heavy strings attached from Riyhad.
5 F. William Engdahl, Salafism+CIA: The winning formula to destabilize Russia, the Middle East,
Voltairenet.org, 13 September, 2012