|
Is Erdogan’s Mosul Escapade Blackmail For Another Qatar-Turkey Pipeline?
Update: Iraqi sources confirm to Elijah J. Magnier that Turkey is indeed blackmailing Baghdad to get a Qatar-Turkey pipeline. The blackmail also has a water resource component. I wrote on that here back in August. I recommend to read the above linked Magnier piece together with my speculations below.
—
The Turkish move to annex Mosul is further developing into a serious conflict. Iraq has demanded that Turkey removes its soldiers and heavy weapons from the "training base" near Mosul within 48 hours. It asserts that these were put there without asking or informing the sovereign Iraqi government.
Turkey first denied that any new troops arrived in Iraq. It then said that the troops were only a replacement of the existing training force. Then it claimed that the new troops were there to protect the training force:
Turkish sources say the reinforcement plans were discussed in detail with Brett McGurk, U.S. President Barack Obama’s counter-ISIL fight coordinator, during his latest visit to Ankara on Nov. 5-6. “The Americans are telling the truth,” one high-rank source said. “This is not a U.S.-led coalition operation, but we are informing them about every single detail. This is not a secret operation.”
The U.S. was informed but Iraq was not? That makes it look as if the U.S. is behind this. Brett McGurk has also said that this is not a "U.S.-led coalition" operation but is otherwise playing "neutral" on the issue.
But Reuters now stenographed some other Turkish source which suddenly claims that the tanks and artillery are part of the coalition:
Turkey said on Monday it would not withdraw hundreds of soldiers who arrived last week at a base in northern Iraq, despite being ordered by Baghdad to pull them out within 48 hours.
The sudden arrival of such a large and heavily armed Turkish contingent in a camp near the frontline in northern Iraq has added yet another controversial deployment to a war against Islamic State fighters that has drawn in most of the world's major powers.
Ankara says the troops are there as part of an international mission to train and equip Iraqi forces to fight against Islamic State. The Iraqi government says it never invited such a force, and will take its case to the United Nations if they are not pulled out.
The force to be trained is under control of a former Iraqi state governor who is, like the Kurdish ex-president Barzani, a Turkish tool:
The camp occupied by the Turkish troops is being used by a force called Hashid Watani, or national mobilization, made up of mainly Sunni Arab former Iraqi police and volunteers from Mosul.
It is seen as a counterweight to Shi'ite militias that have grown in clout elsewhere in Iraq with Iranian backing, and was formed by former Nineveh governor Atheel al-Nujaifi, who has close relations with Turkey. A small number of Turkish trainers were already there before the latest deployment.
The former policemen who ran away when the Islamic State took over Mosul are not and will not be a serious fighting force against their Islamic State brethren in Mosul. They are just a fig leave for the Turkish occupation.
There are rumors, not confirmed yet, that Turkey now uses the presence of its force to blackmail the Iraqi government. Turkey, it is said, wants agreement from Baghdad for a gas pipeline from Qatar through Iraq to Turkey.
Map via Fer G
The original plan was to have such a pipeline run through Syrian desert flatland to Turkey and on to Europe. The gas from Qatar would be sold there in competition with gas from Russia. President Assad had rejected that pipeline and preferred one from Iran through Iraq to the Syrian coast. Qatar and Iran collectively own a huge gas field in the Persian Gulf. Whoever gets his pipeline going first will have a big advantage in extracting from the field and selling its gas. The rejection of the original pipeline project was one reason why Qatar engaged heavily in the regime change project in Syria. The Plan B would have the pipeline go through the rather rough east Anatolia – more expensive than the Syria route but feasible. The U.S. supports the Qatar project. Anything that would make Europeans dependent on gas from a U.S. controlled regime is preferable to Europeans who do independent business with Russia.
Erdogan visited Qatar on December 1 for two days and the two countries signed a number of "strategic agreements". The Turkish troops moved to Mosul on December 4 and 5. This makes the pipeline extortion that Turkey is said to try with Iraq at least plausible.
But Iraq and its Prime Minister Abadi can not agree to the pipeline project. Its allies in Iran, Russia and Syria are all against the Qatar-Turkey-(U.S.) project and would see that as treason. Shia militia in Iraq, especially the Badr brigade, have threatened to destroy the Turkish force near Mosul. They would remove Abadi from his office if he would fold under the Turkish-Qatari-(U.S.) extortion scheme.
Possibly related to the Turkish escalation is today's attack on a Syrian government position near Deir Ezzour:
Syria's government said the U.S.-led military coalition has carried out a deadly airstrike on a Syrian army camp, but officials from the alliance said the report was false.
Syria said four coalition jets killed three soldiers and wounded 13 in the eastern Deir al-Zor province on Sunday evening, calling it an act of aggression, the first time it has made such an accusation.
…
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported earlier that jets likely to be from the coalition hit part of the Saeqa military camp near the town of Ayyash in Deir al-Zor province, killing four Syrian army personnel.
But a U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States is certain that Russia was responsible for the deadly strike on the Syrian army camp .
The official flatly dismissed claims that U.S.-led coalition jets were responsible.
Brett McGurk, U.S. President Barack Obama's envoy to the coalition, also denied claims of coalition responsibility, saying on his Twitter account: "Reports of coalition involvement are false."
Damascus insists that four jets entered Syria from Al-Bukamal, Iraq and fired 9 missiles against al-Saeqa military base in Ayyash near Deir Ezzour.
The U.S. accuses Russia to have committed the strike. I very much doubt that. There have been accidental "friendly fire" strikes by the Russian air force against Syrian troops and against Hizbullah. But those accidents were always immediately admitted and investigated within the 4+1 alliance. The Russians say they did not do this strike and Damascus agrees.
But notice the weasel word in the U.S. statements: "U.S.-led coalition". The Turks in Mosul are not part of the "U.S.-led coalition" even if they first claimed to be. If the air strike in Syria today were not done by the "U.S.-led coalition" it could mean that some country committed these air strikes on its own without the strike being officially within the "U.S.-led coalition" framework. Could that country's name start with a Q?
The U.S. will know who really launched this strike. In both, the Turkish aggression on Iraq and the airstrike in Syria today and even with the earlier mountain ambush on the Russian jet, the U.S. is likely "leading from behind" the curtain. All these events are, like the now forming new alliance with Jihadis, part of Obama's bigger plans and designs for Syria and the Middle East.
jfl, I left the US and live in one of the most xenophobic nation on the planet so, yes, I feel relatively safe. I make no attempts to defend the US and firmly believe they are the largest threat to world peace. I say that as a veteran of 21 wars in my 40 years serving in/for the military (1971-2011).
I have spent my career dealing with the study of the weaponization of zoonotic diseases (defensive research for diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines as well as threat characterization) and am well aware of the ramifications of man’s impact on nature. I have been and continue to be an adherent of the zero population growth movement and applauded China for the one child policy. Personally, I believe this is the only thing than can actually work, at least in a peaceful fashion. The problem is that religions appear to trump all so only people in “civilized semi-Godless” nations have taken this to heed. There are alternatives such as forced sterilization of the majority of women, perhaps based on Eugenics, mandatory culling of non-productive members of society, etc. Oh yeah, that was tried before by Germany but unsuccessfully. The problem is people inherently believe all of this to be true yet won’t change their own lives, especially when it goes against their religions. They want big government to do something or science to create a solution.
As I said this is early but is developing exponentially. As things begin to resolve politically towards the ultra right wing, xenophobic, solution, and this is happening rapidly as we speak, you will see this escalate. Look at the Trump, Le Pen, German Right, Hungary, Czech Republic, etc. and you can easily see what I mean. ISIS is yet another manifestation of this and they are pushing for all out war in the ME on religious grounds believing this will result in the domination of the world with Islam. Nutty, as that may seem, it is brought about at least partially because of overpopulation and finite resources in the ME.
The thing that scares me the most was the position changes in the US who now believe a nuclear first strike can actually be won. Once all the ABM systems are in place then they may try this gambit. Or they are trying to force Russia into making the first move. Putin has made several nuclear threat comments recently, one yesterday, so this scenario seems to be moving to fruition. The fly in the ointment is the new Topol-M which apparently changes course which eliminates the threat of interception. Those US systems only worked in tests when the location of the targets were pre-determined so an “easy” demonstration. IMHO, it doesn’t work an better than the Patriot or Iron-Dome ABM’s. The other problem is Russia has apparently continued development of sophisticated jamming systems and battlefield EMP weaponry which perhaps has the US elite wondering how this might actually not work. But, they are well down the road now and I don’t think this can change course. They are also banking on China and India not siding with Russia which IMHO is foolish. So we see pressure from the US in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Serbia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, etc. The main thrusts appear to be Syria/Turkey and Ukraine but any of the others can boil over. Should another Russian jet get shot down or Russia help Syria by destroying the illegal Turkish base there, or shoot down a US flight which just bombed a Syrian Army base, then it can go downhill very quickly. If it happens simultaneously and the US does something stupid like trying to invade Crimea or even the Donbass it can go nuclear (tactical) fast.
So, unless these “leaders” are complete idiots what else might explain all of this? I believe it boils down to overpopulation and competition for finite resources which appear to be inversely proportional.
Posted by: Old Microbiologist | Dec 9 2015 12:12 utc | 140
The two main theories as to the origins of the Syrian war, according to people here, appear to be:
1) The “duelling pipelines to Europe” theory (this one is probably the most oft-repeated theory in the alternative media).
2) The “war to support the petrodollar” theory.
While I was in the bath, I was thinking about all of the possible reasons for stoking the war, from the Western perspective. I had a few ideas that I’ve not seen shared here, also I’ve seen a lot of great posts by Psychohistorian, talking up the international finance angle.
Firstly, I don’t think the petrodollar can be saved, and by extension, the US dollar in its current form cannot be saved either; the question is what will replace the USD as dominant reserve currency, who will control it and what form the new currency will take. Will the new currency be credit or not credit? Fiat or something else?
If the war in the middle east goes on for a long time, without a clear winner, there will be no gas pipeline to Turkey from Qatar *or* Iran. Russia can continue building new pipelines along the northern route, however, which even the US-dominated EU leaders would be forced to go along with.
The petrodollar standard would be completely broken, leading to a big drop in the dollar’s foreign exchange value. Even so, it’s not in China’s and Russia’s interest for a total defeat of the Western financial empire, including a subsequent total collapse of civilisation in North America and Europe (for so many obvious reasons that it’s not worth pointing them all out).
Instead, the “new Bretton Woods conference” to iron out the details of the new financial system would be named after some Asian city, but life would go on under a new administration. The Chinese would be able to dictate the terms of the new financial system, but they’d still want to prop up the Western countries, just as the US did for the defeated nations in the Western sphere of influence, following the end of World War II.
Assuming an overall US geostrategic defeat, the dollar would surely suffer a devaluation, but the extent of the devaluation would depend upon how many real, tangible assets the US can put on the table, during the negotiations for the global currency reset. Maybe precious metals will play a part, but if it turns out that the US doesn’t have much gold left, natural gas works too (like gold, gas still has potential worth, if you have rights to the ground in which it lies dormant).
Any reasonably stable store of value can serve as collateral, so it would be helpful to the US cause if the Western oligarchs could grab as many hard assets as possible, before they’re forced to sit down at the table to negotiate a conditional surrender. Basically, what I’m saying is that the desperate US actions in the Middle East can still make sense, even if the US side realised that defeat was inevitable. The big question would be whether the US could hang onto their influence in various strategically important regions, rather than being evicted as the Soviet Union was in Eastern Europe.
Another thing: if the US dollar has lost a great deal of its foreign exchange value, after the petrodollar system has gone away for good, the Americans wouldn’t be able to continue financing their armies of occupation. US troops would probably have to leave Europe. Assuming that the conflict in Syria and Iraq is not resolved decisively in favour of either side, the Western attempt to prevent the EU’s long-term convergence of interests with Russia would have failed.
China and Russia have recently announced that they will work towards linking the new Silk Road Economic Belt with the Eurasian Economic Union; eventually there will be a single free trade zone from Moscow to Beijing. What is to stop Europe from joining up with the combined Sino-Eussian Eurasian free trade area, if the American troops have gone home and Europe is still reliant on Russia for her natural gas needs?
When people discuss a “new intermarium” online, it tends to be in the context of a Western military containment of Russia, but why not also look at it from the trade perspective? The currently proposed routes for China’s new Silk Road Economic Belt/Maritime Silk Road head straight through ISIS territory, and past the Gulf of Aden (off the coast of Yemen); is it a coincidence that two proxy wars between the US/EU and China/Russia are being waged in precisely those two parts of the world?
Perhaps another facet of the US strategy is to basically build a wall from the Baltic Sea to the Gulf of Aden, to interfere with the Chinese trade strategy. All of the countries along the extended intermarium are being forced into conflict with Russia; even if the EU wanted to join a pan-Eurasian free trade area, there would be this wall of Russophobic countries imposing tarriffs on the Eastern side, at the very least. I don’t think the aforementioned strategy is a particularly viable one, in the event of a Chinese-led “new Bretton Woods”, but I just want to point out that although the US strategy appears to be a kind of winner-takes-all insanity, I’m sure there’s also a strategy for managing a US decline, to create the most favourable conditions to continue playing the long game.
Let’s not forget that if the narrative written in the history books is accurate, Russia has gone from defeated superpower to possibly being on the verge of defeating the so-called “hyperpower”, which is the same force that defeated the Soviet Union! Even after the cold war ended, Russia remained a *nuclear* superpower, which is something that would also be true for the USA, win or lose. The US always has the (extremely provocative) option of storing nuclear weapons in any allied territory that they absolutely cannot afford to lose.
Posted by: Victori-ana | Dec 11 2015 23:18 utc | 155
|
