unfuckwithable.ca

It wasn’t diplomacy, or a failure of diplomacy - this was geopolitics (or geopolitical economics, to be more specific), plain and simple.  First, some background:

Back in the 1980s and 1990s when Iraq was a global social pariah, they were able to move their embargoed oil through Syria via tanker ships and excess pipeline capacity.  Western intelligence agencies ran multiple ongoing operations to try to catch them in the act, but could never establish enough evidence to present to the United Nations.  (Ironically, the threshold is much lower now thanks to the whole Iraq War thing.)

Now that Iran is facing an EU ban on oil imports and draconian U.S. sanctions on dealings with its central bank, they’re going to take a page out of Iraq’s playbook.  Even though most Iranian oil is sold to Russia and China (and a few other countries) anyway - and hardly any to the EU or North America - energy prices will rise due to the added instability in the commodities markets, even though the actual supply of oil won’t change (thanks Saudi Arabia).  Prices will go up, Russia and China will still have access to Iranian oil, and Syria will make a few points on each barrel for providing the thinnest layer of plausible deniability ever.  Additionally, the Syrian regime will receive protection from Russia and China against any resolutions for their part in this, because Russia and China couldn’t give less of a fuck about human rights violations.  So, in the end, Syria is free to continue bombing the shit out of its people and Iran can skirt EU/U.S. sanctions.

Libya, for those who want to make those comparisons, was in a totally different geopolitical situation.  They supplied more oil to the EU (especially Italy) and had been moving closer to normalizing relations with the West since 2003.  Thus, why would Russia and China spend any political capital on saving that regime?  Now we have a “free” Libya (and a more “democratic” Arab world), except for the inconvenient fact that democracy isn’t perfect and Islamist parties will have a much greater say if not majority power in the region.  This has been the unmentioned worst fear of regional security and intelligence analysts for the past few decades, except it’s no longer a theoretical debate but a reality we’ll all get to deal with.  It’s the next logical step in this disastrous War on Terror and the West’s on and off support for the region’s various dictators.  (See: Blowback)

To use the old adage, my enemy’s enemy is my friend.  This is how the Middle East works.  Forget all that uninspired bullshit by Huntington you read in your intro to comparative politics class, because it isn’t relevant now and wasn’t really relevant in the first place.

Yes, the Syrian regime has gone too far and it’s right to be angry over these developments.  That is the correct human emotional response.  However, I’d be more concerned about the exponentially increasing military tension between Iran and Israel (and by extension the U.S. and NATO).  The Pasdaran is highly-trained in asymmetrical warfare and according to geospatial imagery, recently finished several naval bases along the Strait of Hormuz; take a guess at who’s supplying their matériel.  They can close those shipping lanes at any time - they know it, and the West knows it.  Result?  An instant increase in energy prices of 25% or much more.  And since these are international waters also bordering United States allies, it would be considered an act of war (especially if a rogue Pasdaran officer decided to fire upon allied naval assets, which is a pretty likely scenario).

The international community has an imperative moral duty to focus its attention and pressure on the Syrian regime right now.  It also has a duty to pressure Russia and China to give up the Iranian oil ghost, however close to impossible that will be (if Saudi Arabia wants to create some international goodwill, here’s how).  But, maybe most importantly, it has a duty to keep its eyes on those vital shipping lanes and exactly what the Iranian government is planning.

In some ways, the Cold War was a much easier problem to contain and control - there were rules to the game.  Here, there are none.

Reblogged from my article in Le Monde.