Who Will Benefit the Most if Diplomacy Fails in Syria?

by Gerard Emershaw

The United States and Russia have reached a deal in which the Syrian government would turn over its chemical weapon stockpile for destruction. However, there are many ways in which this deal could fall apart. President Obama has indicated that if diplomacy fails, the use of military force against Syria is still a possibility. Congress is unlikely to vote on the use of force against Syria, but President Obama has indicated that he does not need permission from Congress to strike Syria.

The idea of American military action against Syria is simply not popular with the American public. According to an NBC News poll, nearly 80% of Americans believe that President Obama does need permission from Congress in order to attack Syria. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, only 33% said that Congress should approve President Obama's request to attack Syria. According to a Reuters/Ipso poll, 75% of Americans support the use of diplomacy to resolve the crisis in Syria.

Syria poses no military threat to the United States. The United States has no national interest in Syria. An attack on Syria is unlikely to help President Obama in his legislative dealings with Congress or help his popularity with the American people. There are no Trotskyite neocons in the Obama administration whispering in his ear, and despite his faults, President Obama is not as naïve and easily led as his predecessor often was. Syria is not oil rich. It ranks 32nd in oil production—which makes up less than .5% of the world's total. Given that any military action in Syria would allegedly involve no “boots on the ground,” there would be no occupation. No occupation means no nation building. No nation building means no opportunity for war profiteering companies like KBR to enrich themselves through no bid contracts to rebuild the infrastructure of Syria or to provide services in support of the occupation.

So who or what is behind the hawkish desire of President Obama to attack Syria? The question to ask is probably: “Who would benefit the most from the fall of Assad's government?” The most obvious answer is the Jihadists who dominate the rebel forces. However, President Obama has no reason to wish Al Qaeda to gain dominance over yet another country or to wish another Middle Eastern country to become a fundamentalist Islamic nation under Sharia law. Some may suggest that Israel would benefit, but this is debatable. If Assad becomes desperate, he is likely to launch chemical attacks against Israel. Furthermore, there is evidence that the rebels are considering launching a chemical attack of their own against Israel. A choice between Hezbollah or Al Qaeda having influence in Syria is not a pleasant choice for Israel, and it very well may prefer dealing with the devil it knows. The fact that Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel makes an attack on Assad seem even less attractive to Israel.

Arthur Conan Doyle's famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes famously said: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Having eliminated so many possibilities, two remain.

1. Raytheon

President Eisenhower presciently warned against the Military-Industrial Complex during his farewell speech in 1961. Raytheon is a poster child for the Military-Industrial Complex. Raytheon produces the Tomahawk missile, which it sells for about $1.4 million a piece. The beating of the war drums over Syria has caused the Pentagon to consider purchasing even more than the 196 Tomahawk missiles that it already buys per year. In the “kinetic military action” against Libya in 2011, the United States fired more than 112 Tomahawk missiles.

In December, the Pentagon paid Raytheon $254.6 for Tomahawk missiles just six months after paying them $337.8 million. Raytheon also produces Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOWs)—“low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employ an integrated GPS-inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker.” A “low cost” JSOW still costs $285,000.

The run up to possible American military action against Syria has been beneficial for Raytheon stock because of these reasons. Since June 25, the stock has increased more than 20% in value.

Nevertheless, this does not prove that Raytheon or the Military-Industrial Complex in general is pulling the President’s strings on Syria. There is no reason that “kinetic military action” in Syria would be preferable over such action in any other place. President Obama has also claimed that any American actions in Syria would be even more limited than the military action that he took in Libya in 2011. While American military intervention in Syria would be profitable to Raytheon, would it be profitable enough for them to seek to gin up a war? Could Raytheon possibly have enough influence over President Obama to force his hand in this manner? It seems unlikely.

2. Qatar

Qatar wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Syria into Europe. Unfortunately for Qatar, Assad has refused to allow this, opting instead to pursue negotiations with Iran on an alternative pipeline that would ship natural gas to Europe across Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In February, Iraq approved a deal for this pipeline with Iran and Syria. Qatar saw this as a “direct slap in the face” to its plans. As a result, Qatar has spent over $3 billion over the last two years bankrolling the Syrian rebels. Qatar began funding the Al Qaeda allied Syrian rebels at about the same time that it began funding Al Qaeda allied Libyan rebels. If victorious, these rebels would likely be inclined to sign a new deal for a pipeline with their benefactors in Qatar rather than Assad allies in Iran. The rebels are also Sunni and far more likely to do business with fellow Sunnis in Qatar.

Qatar has had close military ties with the United States since 1992 and is the location of U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center. However, Qatar is “totally dependent on US militarism and diplomatic protection.” Therefore, it appears that the United States taking down the Assad regime on Qatar’s behalf would be a matter of the tail wagging the dog. 

3. The Wider Middle East Plan

In an interview given on March 2, 2007, retired 4-star United States Army General Wesley Clark spoke of a memo that he was shown by another general around the time that the United States began its military campaign against Afghanistan:

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

The United States has already taken out Iraq and Libya. Could this neoconservative plan be back on? Could the neo-progressives hawks in President Obama’s administration be reinstituting this plan? Or has the plan continuously been in place? More importantly, if this plan is currently in effect and guiding President Obama’s hand on Syria, who is behind the plan? The Military-Industrial Complex? Big Oil? Some combination of these? Someone else? The fact that no entity powerful enough to strongly influence American foreign policy benefits enough by military action in Syria makes President Obama’s militaristic zeal puzzling. Could he actually have humanitarian concerns over the innocent civilians suffering in Syria? He has not shown similar concern over the innocent civilians suffering as a result of his drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, so this seems unlikely.

Taking a longer view, it could be that action in Syria would not be about Syria at all, but about Iran. This may be confirmed by the events which occur in the near future. As a result, both Assad’s progress in satisfying the dictates of the Obama-Putin plan to surrender Syrian chemical weapons and Iran’s behavior will bear close watching.