Are we Going To War with Syria over a Natural Gas Pipeline?

 By Michael Snyder (with Jim Fetzer)

“WMR has learned from multiple intelligence sources in Washington, London, Beirut, and Paris, that Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan has paid off key members of the U.S. Senate and House leadership, as well as key ministers of the French government, with “incentive cash” to support an American and French “shock and awe” military strike on not only Syria but Hezbollah positions in Lebanon“–Wayne Madsen

obama-jokerAs Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has now publicly proclaimed, the Obama/Biden administration has been manipulating intelligence to justify an attack on Syria.

Vladimir Putin has taken the extraordinary step of asserting that Secretary of State John Kerry “has been lying” about the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Russia and China are increasing their military presence in the immediate vicinity and we appear to be on the verge of WWIII.

And members of Congress who have seen the “classified information” say it doesn’t prove anything, where the “rush to war” based on skewed intelligence is very similar to Iraq.

Wayne Madsen, moveover, has learned from multiple intelligence sources in Washington, London, Beirut, and Paris, that Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan has paid off key members of the U.S. Senate and House leadership, as well as key ministers of the French government, with “incentive cash” to support an American and French “shock and awe” military strike on not only Syria but Hezbollah positions in Lebanon:

Republican and Democratic members of the Senate and House leadership, including Senators Harry Reid, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Barbara Boxer, and Robert Menendez, as well as House Speaker John Boehner, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers, New York’s Peter King, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, and others have seen their campaign chests grow substantially as a result of Bandar’s financial largesse, according to our multiple sources.

If you ask why in the world Saudi Arabia would be so profoundly involved in promoting a war in Syria that it would bribe some of our nation’s highest officials, the answer may be that it wants to insure that a pipeline that would compete with its own preferred alternative which would pass through Syria is never built. If Michael Snyder has it right–and he appears to have “nailed it”–then all this rubbish about “international law” and the necessity to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons is nothing but political theater.

[youtube UR0NlgQUIds]

Obama and Kerry have been lying to the American people. The case against the Syria government is completely contrived. It appears that Prince Bandar provided the rebels with these weapons but no instructions about how to use them–and that the rebels were clumsy and gassed themselves. Syria has had the rebels on the run and a UN inspection team was about to arrive! We are being told nothing but one lie after another:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Everything that Kerry has said about knowing where they were fired from, knowing where they landed, and knowing who was responsible is rubbish, where the United States has become an international joke. Syria and Iran are the final stages in the Israeli plan to dismantle the modern Arab states (and then strike Persian Iran), but this may explain why Saudi Arabia has been playing a crucial role behind the scenes.

Is the United States going to War with Syria over a Natural Gas Pipeline?


by Michael Snyder

Pipeline-300x300Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.

If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

Common Knowledge

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009.

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious program to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

[youtube 65Q9oqFWTec]

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

The Nabucco Pipeline

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

[youtube pggqAIYy1Yk]

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

Saudi Arabia said “No!”

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian.

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipeline

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely.

[youtube MhyACj8c0Y0]

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroeum International

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

No reason for the US to become involved

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants.

[youtube pIH_eQLCWlE]

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?


Nusrah executes Syrian soldiers

Nusrah executes Syrian soldiers

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”.

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.

First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).

Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”

Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).

Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

[youtube _UkEi8JwEf0]

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out.

I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane “leaders” in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?

This article originally appeared at theeconomiccollapseblog.com.

Jim Fetzer

A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.

McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone.

The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. Notices

Posted by on September 7, 2013, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

22 Responses to "Are we Going To War with Syria over a Natural Gas Pipeline?"

  1. caribbeancritic  September 7, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    America is now showing it’s true colors! It is the enemy of every nation on this planet. ! What ever happens to Syria must be put on the USA in spades on steroids this Nation of warmonger fools must be wiped off the face of the earth before they do it to the rest of us!

  2. adil  September 7, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    I would say this article is misinformation. Let’s start with fact that Saud and Syria said no.

    Now why the hell would Qatar want regime change in Syria, which is much more difficult than a regime change in Saud?

    Finally, why knee jerk reaction to regime change? They can go back to Saud and renegotiate?

    The real reason is Israel. Period.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  September 7, 2013 at 7:23 pm

      If so, then they’re as stupid as they are hateful and belligerent…..one shot to Dimona and as Duff would say, ” the cafe society in Haifa will never be the same..”

  3. Bartered  September 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Its not just business, its removing all that is sacred for business, and considering the loss of life acceptable because “they” refused to leave and let the lines go through. This probably goes back as far as the industrial revolution, and blind acceptance of Middle East policy by OUR diplomats allows it to reach across the globe, or wherever Navy ships are sent. Keep adding to the list. Nice article.

  4. DaveE  September 7, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Oh, c’mon. This war is about FOUR things: 1.) Israel 2.) zionism and Jew Supremacy 3.) Making Old Testament prophecies of a world fully controlled by Jews come to pass 4.) Money, oil, gas and power for the Jewish bankers.

    Guess what these all have in common?

    Rand Paul is a sellout, too, he doesn’t even have the balls to call Kerry the dirty liar that it is. Amazing.

  5. Bravo  September 7, 2013 at 10:59 am

    Zero Hedge nailed it!

    And 12 very high-level former intelligence officials wrote the following memorandum to Obama today:

    “We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as ‘plausible denial’.”


    • DaveE  September 7, 2013 at 1:42 pm

      A MUST READ link. Thanks.

    • Charlotte NC Bill  September 7, 2013 at 7:28 pm

      But what now? Obama can either a. admit that he’s been lying…or been the “victim” of bad intell…or b. kill scores of innocent people and maybe domino us into WW III and $9/gal gas…Which will it be?

  6. Codoh  September 7, 2013 at 9:39 am

    Yesterday late night I came across an article on facebook. To sum it up, some Russian newsportal was surprised that Romania was in the line to participate – if asked – in a Syrian intervention even without UN authorization. I quickly checked if the proposed Nabucco pipeline would run across Romania. Of course it would….

  7. Cold Wind  September 7, 2013 at 9:28 am

    Should war break out, and war is a very non-linear thing, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are unlikely to be around to “enjoy” the fruits of any pipeline. An embedded calculation in the West Syrian “strategy” is that Russia and China don’t have the balls to strike back (our fruitcake from Arizona, McCain guarantees it). I suspect (sadly) they are in for a big, big surprise.

  8. captain obvious  September 7, 2013 at 9:20 am

    1st video.. Hagel near the end:
    “oh I’m not aware of that and its probably classified and I have no obligation to the American people”
    “haha I just gave you my answer I dont have to declassify s#it have a nice day”.
    as if he has no idea? isnt that just maybe a confession of INCOMPETENCE as secretary of defense?
    -whatafuggenschmuck! top it off with a Syria strike having ZERO to do with national defense.

    listen again to the 1st half minute “does Syria and Hezbolla have the capacity to launch a counter-attack against US forces, israel, and US embassies?” only means they ATTACK FIRST, then these SOB’s call a counter-attack “terrorism”, not something completely justifiable retaliation or self defense,
    so who are these SOB’s?!!
    they call themselves “leaders”?!!

    “duhhh of the 189 countries that signed against chemical weapons that Syria just happened not to”
    -oh nevermind Izrahell didnt sign that or the NPT, or that they lit off a nuke near Damascus, or that they bombed Palestinians with raining white phosphorous killing several hundreds of people…
    -oh nevermind all the DEPLETED URANIUM spilled allover the Middle East that causes cancers, birth defects, deaths.. FAR more long lasting and horrible than some “sarin gas” could ever compete with.

    • DaveE  September 7, 2013 at 11:48 am

      Talk about an arrogant, treacherous piece of s&^t. Another treasonous zionist agent in our government. I hope they all meet the skinny end of a firing squad.

    • captain obvious  September 8, 2013 at 9:28 am

      DaveE you probably saw my comment in another article that I like darts much better.
      100 bucks a dart times 200 darts a day is 20k per corrupt busted politician, 7.3m per year each!
      1000 of em might go a long way in restoring an economy. “just following orders” didnt wash very well in Nuremberg after WW2, can we add CIA-FBI-DHS-NSA-TSA-IRS-FDA-USDA to the target list?
      if they’re foreign let em throw darts too for double the price? PPV cable TV channel?

  9. markurban  September 7, 2013 at 8:52 am

    Your colleague Shrimpton has put out another screed that, among other things, avers that Assad was responsible for the August 21, 2013 chemical attack. Funny thing is that I was the first comment on that article and the staff at VT first published my comment and then pulled it.

    All I said was that if Assad actually did the attack, he should be removed for being f……g stupid and then I posted a link to a Youtube video in which Wesley Clark talks about the 7 middle east countries that were slated for regime change back in late 2001 (Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran) If that is what warrants a comment being removed, then perhaps there is something going on at VT I am not aware of.

    • captain obvious  September 7, 2013 at 11:50 am

      shrimp is a nutbag, needs to GO.

  10. Chandler  September 7, 2013 at 7:53 am

    Oh, it is obvious our concern for our fellow humans is very selective, so it must be the pipeline. When people who are expendable and irrelevant slaughter each other in lands where there is no possibility of profit, we so delicately turn our head. The Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s massacres, for example, did not provoke our mighty Christian conscience, or ignite our heroic military did it? Of course Mr. Fetzer in this region there is not pipeline and/or oil.

    So, the answer to your question is probably “yes” knowing the background and resume of the spineless an corrupt activities of the last 23 years of presidents.

    It was under GHW Bush that this contry began being used and his springboard to the new world order. An order that offers more worldwide fear and danger than the one before it. “The law of the jungle,” as Poppy referred to it.

    I am always amazed at this little pencil-necked fellow sitting there looking out at me, and I am sure down his nose also, reassuring me they would be successful in establishing the nwo. I knew right then he was a traitor to this country, but did not know he had anything to do with the assassination of his nemesis, and man he was so jealous of, JFK.

    So, with Oblunder, we now have Bush’s rule of law, but without the United Nations “peacekeeping forces, “wherever they are in this skirmish, enforcing the “rule of law, and not the law of the jungle.”

    What a joke this man Bush was, and this nwo carnival and their clown Oblunder.

  11. jglassel.  September 7, 2013 at 7:32 am


    This can be done Monday morning, before the war debate begins.

    Please lobby your Congress Critters!

    • DaveE  September 7, 2013 at 1:44 pm

      Can we bypass the impeachment headache and go straight to the treason trial?

  12. sandyhooked  September 7, 2013 at 8:43 am

    We re-elect them?

  13. robert  September 10, 2013 at 6:33 am

    Very funny retort, unfortunately true.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login