Russia: NATO Planning For War On Syria

August 5, 2011

Dmitry Rogozin is the Russian envoy to NATO. He is outspoken and sometimes seems to exaggerate but he is never far from reality. See for example his early take on Libya.

When Rogozin says that NATO is making plans for attacking Syria, I believe him.

Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said Friday that the alliance is planning a military campaign against Syria to overthrow the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, local media reported.

In an interview with Russia's Izvestia daily newspaper, Rogozin said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also probably establishing a long-reaching goal of preparing an attack on Iran.

Rogozin said a statement Wednesday from the UN Security Council, which confirmed that the current situation in Syria had not yet called for NATO interference, meant that planning for a military campaign was underway.

"It could be a logical conclusion for those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa," Rogozin said.
…
The diplomat also warned that the "noose around Iran is tightening," saying Moscow is seriously concerned about "an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region."

While I still do not believe that a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent, the propaganda against Iran is ongoing with now officials(!) making stupid claims about Iranian collaboration with Al Qaeda. If a serious diversion is needed from a collapsing economy Washington might feel it needs a bigger war. Remember that it was only World War II that finally pulled the U.S. out of the first Great Depression.

Posted by b on August 5, 2011 at 09:34 UTC | Permalink

Comments

There is a mutual defense pact between Syria and Iran. An foreign attack on Syria means an attack on Iran. Internal affairs are a different matter. But NATO bombing or invading Syria means war unelss Syria and Iran abandon completely their alliance (unlikely as none will survive). And in reality most of the fight will be over Iraq (as Iran will have to make use of north-central Iraq as the supply line). In brief all hell will break lose and there will be a regional and may be a world level war as I doubt Russia and China will sit idle as the whole zone enters in conflict.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 5 2011 9:39 utc | 1

What about covert war? Does that count, b?
How many secret wars are we fighting?

U.S. special ops forces are being deployed in more and more nations — and the public has no idea

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 5 2011 13:17 utc | 2

“Remember that it was only World War II that finally pulled the U.S. out of the first Great Depression.”
Yes b, but there were also many rules in place to help all segments of the US society to share in the growth provided by the massive Federal spending. There is no depression for the upper strata of the US society. All these austerity programs being implemented around the globe, are meant to do one thing, shift the power and control(money)to the 1%ers, and away from masses.

Posted by: ben | Aug 5 2011 14:18 utc | 3

ThePaper basically said everything I was going to say. This is a son-of-a-bitch bad news story.
Some things that come into my head on this:
1) No way would Russia and China vote for this in the UN Security Council. So unlike Libya where they got the “responsibility to protect” resolution, here NATO would have to go in without a UN mandate.
2) This would drag the US and Iran into war no doubt. Aside from the defence pact Syria-Iran have, there is no chance that Iran would allow its supply lines to Hezbollah to be broken. If Israel knew that Hezbollah couldn’t restock its rockets and weapons obviously Netanyahu would attack them full on to break up Hezbollah. Irans best strenght is its alliances and proxy forces in the region. No way would Iran just sit back while Syria and Hezbollah were taken out by NATO.
3) Syria has the same ethnic mix that caused the civil war in Iraq. In Iraq it was Shiite 60% Sunni 20% (and Kurds 20%) but in Syria its almost reversed 75% Sunni 12% Shiite (Alawite). With the tensions still high and bitter between Sunni’s and Shiites the chances of the majority Sunni’s getting payback for Iraq seems very high and the regional players (Saudi-Iran) would back there sides again.
All in all this is a lethal situation. BTW I do believe that the Saudi’s are arming groups inside Syria to forment alot of this violence (naturally to create a Sunni state). I don’t defend the Syrian governments actions and massacres of peaceful protesters but it seems clear to me that the Syrian military death-toll is to high for this to be just a random uprising of civilians.

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Aug 5 2011 14:42 utc | 4

I’m having difficulty seeing a potential lasting stimulative effect to an expanded war would be for the US. Oil is not the same cost as it was way back then, nor do we build much of our supplies that Rosie the Riveter once did, or do we seem at all interested in having a manufacturing sector that kept us in highly employed/self sufficient and exporting after the war. China, Germany and Japan etc, would resupply/rebuild most of what we destroy, wouldn’t they?
It seems like war/endless chaos for the sake of defense spending and ever rising oil prices is the “win” position now for those who want to wage it. Remember the price of oil during Clinton air enforced deadly Iraq sanctions… while stimulative, those days seem to be over. Stimulus now, HA! not for most Americans.. gas is 3.5 times or more than before we conducted Iraq post 9-11… certainly not as something that would pull us out of depression … or keep us prosperous if we ever stop.
Plus, where do all the ground troops come from, if a real conquering is going to be attempted? Italy, France, US, UK, Germany? I don’t think so… much war criminality as these populations put up with, a massive draft wont be one of them, imo. Not unless these governments exacerbate the depressive economy (starve their people into draft submission first). if that is the case… our time lines are way off.
Heck, us nato can’t even conquer Libya. I’m beginning to wonder if Ronnie Raygun really beat Grenada.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Aug 5 2011 20:40 utc | 5

Well, if there were a war on Syria, which was taken on to Iran, the increased costs would give Obama more excuses to cut SocSec and Medicare! He might view that as a positive.
But, somehow, I don’t see him getting a real boost in the polls for starting yet another war.
However, reelection may not be one of his highest priorities — or that high a priority for his Monied Powers That Be backers who wanted him to get Hillary out of the way. My theory is that the Wall Street Gang Banksters did not trust Hillary to put their needs as her highest priority. In foreign affairs I feared she would be pushed to be more of a hawk, but I do believe on demestic matters she would have been better than Obama.
I’m not sure his backers would want another war either, but I could be way wrong on that.
I know the arguments, so feel free to not get into that, OK. Or do, as commenters wish….

Posted by: jawbone | Aug 5 2011 22:51 utc | 6

I wonder if the die-hard Obama backers even noticed that the US is in seven wars (or scores of wars if you count the covert ones).
IN the past month, the US (or it’s Nato stoogies) have killed innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Columbia.

Posted by: Susan | Aug 6 2011 1:58 utc | 7

Unc$,
Your contributions are always interesting, sometimes enlightening and occasionally pertinently stupendous. And rarely go unnoticed.
Thanks,
Juannie

Posted by: juannie | Aug 6 2011 2:40 utc | 8

“While I still do not believe that a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent…”
Me either.
There are 4 pre-qualifiers for launching a US-NATO fake war. In no particular order they are:
(a) Can we keep US-NATO casualties low enough to avoid negative public opinion at home?
(b) Can the target defend its airspace during the initial attack?
(c) Can the target retaliate by destroying infrastructure in the homeland of the aggressor?
(d) Does the target have allies willing to come to its aid?
(c) keeps Russia and China safe.
(a) & (b) keep Iran safe. Iran is surrounded by conveniently dense clusters of US-NATO troops within striking distance of current Iranian missile technology.
(d) is a Rumsfeldian known unknown.
I think it’s important to put US ‘attack plans’ into a generic perspective. The US has plans for attacks on Russia and China. Leaving aside the feasibility of US plans, there are probably fewer than a dozen countries for which the US does not have an attack plan.
On the subject of Russian desires and intentions, there is a persuasively lucid, relatively unambiguous, statement of Russian Foreign Policy preserved on the Kremlin website in the form of the transcript of a 2009 CNN interview with Dmitry Medvedev, which is worth reading – carefully.
http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/1622

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6 2011 4:52 utc | 9

‘officials(!) making stupid claims about Iranian collaboration with Al Qaeda.’
well the US and NATO are collaborating with Alqaeda in their war on Libya, and they and the MSM seem not terribly worried!

Posted by: brian | Aug 8 2011 3:54 utc | 10

Back to Main