Who stands to benefit from a war with Syria?

In the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, who could possibly be in favour of a war with Syria? Of course there are members of the public and political elite who feel that we should attack or even oust the Assad regime out of sympathy for the Syrian population. I have tried to outline in previous blogs why I think this would in fact do more harm than good. The Iraq war was routinely condemned for being fought over oil, and similarly there are accusations of economic and geopolitical interests behind intervention in Syria. The aim of this blog post is not to put forward a conspiracy theory. It is inevitable that changes in world politics have winners and losers. This is an overview of the various different groups who stand to lose or gain in the event of a military intervention in Syria.

Although the US is the main backer of military intervention with Syria, the interests at stake are highly ambiguous. Although Barack Obama can't run again for election in 2016, he still wants his place in the history books and it is in his interests that he is succeeded by a Democrat. Despite his tough talk of a "red line" being crossed with the alleged use of chemical weapons and his threat of military intervention, Obama acknowledged in his address to the nation that war with Syria is not popular among the American public. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, nearly 60% of Americans oppose war with Syria. Of course, a short and successful war such as the Falkland Islands for Thatcher or Grenada for Reagan can be very popular and even win elections. But with the spectre of Iraq and Afghanistan in the background and the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, Obama knows war with Syria is difficult to sell to the public. 

In an article on Aljazeera entitled "will Syria's chemical weapons take down Assad - or Obama?", Mark Levine claims that Washington doesn't want with Syria at all, and has pushed itself into a corner through its own ineptitude. When Obama stated that he would put a vote on military intervention in Syria to Congress, it seemed like he was looking for a get out of jail free card. Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that Obama could still order a military intervention without Congress' approval, but a no-vote would also have made it easier for Obama to justify holding off.

But while Obama fears that Syria could become his Iraq, there are also other interests at stake in Washington. In her book "Empire of Capital" Ellen Wood points out that the US' superpower status depends increasingly on its military capacity. Economically the US is falling behind - the EU together is now a bigger economy, China is catching up fast, the Euro and Yuan are rivalling the once all-powerful Dollar and the US is heavily in debt. It is only in the military sphere that the US reigns supreme. Wood argues that interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now potentially Syria are necessary for the US to demonstrate its influence and maintain its superpower status. 

Hawks in Washington may believe that a show of force in Syria would show the Iranians that the US means business, thereby discouraging them from pursuing nuclear weapons. Of course, intervention in Syria could also make Iran feel more vulnerable, making it more resolved than ever to acquire nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia has been one of the main backers of the Free Syria Army, the rebel movement fighting against the Assad regime. Predominantly Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran have long been the two rival great powers in the Middle East. Intervention in Syria is an opportunity for Saudi Arabia to show its value as an ally to the US, and potentially to secure a fellow Sunni government in Syria, thereby striking a blow against  Iran.

In an article in the Asia Times Pepe Escobar claims that intervention in Syria "is all about control of natural resources and channels of distribution." This may sound somewhat hyperbolic, but it is clear that there are energy interests at stake. The biggest supplier of natural gas to the West is currently Russia, but Putin's government has been known to exert political pressure by increasing gas prices. It would therefore be beneficial to Western countries to reduce their dependency on Russian gas and to find another source. Qatar has enormous reserves of natural gas, but the question is how to access it. A pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Europe would need to cross either Israel, Lebanon or Syria in order to get to the Mediterranean. A friendly government in Damascus would be helpful. Of course, a military intervention that plunges Syria further into civil war and instability for the next decade would be counterproductive in achieving this goal. 

Syria's key ally at the UN has been Russia. Russia has had good relations with the Assad regime for many years, as Syria allows the Russian navy to use the port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea. Assad has been able to rely on support from Russia as he knows the military strategic interests which are at stake. Russia would veto a UN resolution to intervene in Syria and Putin has questioned the credibility of the claims that chemical weapons have been used, but at the same time Russia doesn't want to be seen to be supporting dictatorships around the world. The Russian brokered plan to put Syria's chemical weapons under UN control has therefore been a masterstroke of diplomacy, steering clear of war, protecting Assad and coming across as far more reasonable and peace-loving than the belligerent looking Obama administration. 

Just 36 hours ago a military strike on with Syria seemed imminent - today it looks like war may be averted. Yesterday civilians in Damascus thought that within weeks American bombs could be falling on them. They still can't rule out the possibility but now it seems less likely. None of the geopolitical interests which I have mentioned can explain the change in the stance of the Obama administration on their own, but it is clear that there are various agendas being played out behind the scenes. It is horrifying that in the 21st century human lives, in this case of the Syrian people, can still be treated with such indifference.