Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Dayuhan]

Is it beyond your ability to comprehend that loads of such PRBS - whether related to inner- or foreign policy of Syria since something like 70 years - loads of such PRBS about oil and gas reserves of Syria, about that country being 'unimportant' for oil/gas flow, loads of such PRBS about insurgency in Syria, about presence and influence of 'Islamist extremists' in Syria, about the nature of the Assadist regime, etc., etc., etc. are creating such images of that country like yours: 'not important', 'not our problem' etc.?

Take a deep beath. Recite your mantra, if required. Achieve calm. Now remind yourself: you set out to demonstrate that the US has vital or even pressing national interests at stake in Syria. So far, that effort is an epic fail. Try again if you will, but please try harder.

Despite the desperate ravings of the conspiracy theory crowd, nothing happening in Syria is "all about oil". Syria's proven reserves are unexceptional and most production is consumed domestically. There might be some potential for exploration, but nowhere near enough to constitute a meaningful national interest for the US or a reason for getting involved in the war.

Syria is also not all that important to oil or gas transit, certainly not important enough to justify involvement in a civil war. If Syria drops out of the pipeline grid, oil and gas will still flow. They just won't flow through Syria, and of course they don't have to: there are plenty of other options. There is no proposed pipeline route through Syria that couldn't be replaced by an alternate route if needed. Nothing there worth getting involved in a war over. Not even close.

If we're looking for any vital or pressing US interest, we can safely eliminate hydrocarbon reserves or transit as issues.

You're complaining I have no clue about this or that, while it's you who so obviously has absolutely no trace of clue at least about importance of the area known as 'Syria' for 300+ millions of Arabs (plus 50 million Shi'a Iranians and then various others)?!?

The question on the table is whether it's sufficiently important to Americans to justify involvement in a civil war. Its importance to Arabs is quite peripheral to that question.

back in the 1950s it was certain - much smaller and far less influential - corporation named 'United Fruits' that brought the USA to launch an intervention in Guatemala. But, you're going to explain me that nowadays corporations like LM are 'not important' and 'not interested' in cases like Iraq, Syria etc.?

We all know what happened in the 1950s. We also all know the 1950s are history.

I do not know whether or not Lockheed Martin is interested in Syria. It is, however, abundantly clear that the US Government is not interested in getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. That leaves 2 possibilities.

1. Lockheed Martin wants the US to get involved, but doesn't have the influence to make it happen.

2. Lockheed Martin has the influence, but doesn't care enough to use it to force US involvement.

If Lockheed Martin had both the interest and the influence to drive US involvement in Syria, the US would be involved. Since the US is not getting involved in any significant way, we know that Lockheed Martin lacks either the involvement or the interest to drive involvement, very likely both.

After seeing that, I'm not the least surprised you have 'skilfully' ignored my question about 'what did the USA do in Afghanistan of the 1990s'?

I answered it, but you apparently weren't paying attention. The US offered a pipeline deal tot he Taliban. This was essentially bait, an effort to bribe the Taliban to drop bin Laden and establish a business relationship with Western interests. It didn't work, but it was worth a try. The pipeline could have been a matter of some significance to Afghanistan, but it had little to know significance to the US other than as a lever on the Taliban. The only payoff to the US would have been a contract for Unocal.

We can see this pretty clearly: the pipeline was never built, and may never be built... has anyone been negatively affected, other than Afghanistan? Turkmenistan is still exporting its gas, and it doesn't matter to the US whether it goes to China or to Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India buy their gas elsewhere. Unocal got bought out by Chevron. The proposal failed in its intended purpose, and was shelved. No big deal. It was never an issue worth going to war over.

Or do you 'just' prefer to ignore that? Perhaps you want to imply that no US government, and no dozens of thousands of votes have ever - ever, ever, ever - been bought in the history of the USA, whether by various corporations or private interests?? Would you like to say that no corporations and no private interests have any kind of influence upon the US government? Congress? US domestic and foreign policy?

They have influence, but not control. Their influence is mixed in with other influences. Their influence is also not unanimous: corporations and private capital lobby for and pursue their own interests, and they aren't always consistent. On the subject of Syria, however, there is a remarkable amount of unanimity in the US: nobody, anywhere, shows any sign of seeing a vital or pressing US interest. There's no pressure from the corporate sector to get involved. The oil and gas industry isn't pressing for involvement. Neither is anyone else.

As with Lockheed Martin, if you're going to argue that corporate interests control the US, you have to assume that corporate interests are not interested in getting involved in the Syrian Civil War, because if they had control and wanted involvement, there would be involvement.

Now, would you like to try to explain what vital or pressing US interest you believe exists in Syria that could be a reasonable motive for involvement?