Raven Library

The use of chemical weapons in Syria is both humanly tragic and internationally illegal. Chemical weapons are horrifically worse than “traditional” weapons – after the initial explosion of the traditional warhead the chemical component is designed to stick to its target and keep burning, often boiling through skin and down to the bone. A common example is napalm. The use of such weapons should never be ignored or escape accountability, as, sadly, was the case when the United States used white phosphorous in Iraq in 2004. [1]

The party who used chemical weapons in Syria should be held accountable.

That being said, there is always more to a conflict than what is on the surface. The United States openly admits to using these illegal weapons yet wants to attack Syria for similar action. Are there other motives for the United States to be involved in the war-torn nation?

When trying to find motive behind any action, an appropriate question to ask is,
“Who benefits?”
What could the United States possibly gain from an assault on Syria? The geo-politics of the Middle East are so confusing and convoluted, why would the United States risk an attack that will certainly have international consequences?

What motivates such a hazard? Why the gamble? Sure, a main factor is international accountability for the use of chemical weapons. But having used them in the past the United States has no moral high ground from which to act. And if this were the case, why are other nations avoiding military action? The United Kingdom parliament recently voted to abstain and The United Nations Security Council will not condone the attack. The United States, however, is showing signs of pushing ahead with the assault while losing international support.

Sounds very familiar …

So the question is: why? What could the US stand to gain?
Cui bono?
I wanted to know, so I followed the money.

When the United States gears up its military for any operation it costs money.

Soldiers need to eat.
Helicopters need gasoline.
Rocket launchers need rockets.

My first question for the assault on Syria is, “Who will profit from arming this attack?” Representative Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has heard from his constituents about whether or not we should become directly militarily involved in Syria. Grayson said, “Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex.” [2]

Currently, four US destroyer-class ships are anchored off the coast of Syria, each one loaded with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Those famous missiles are developed by Raytheon, whose stock value has swelled by 10% in the last two months. [3] Lockheed Martin, the #1 defense contractor in the United States, has also seen a recent increase in stock value. [4] Boeing’s defense division, developer of military aircraft, has its share of the pie by recently receiving over $100 million worth of contracts from the US Department of Defense. [5] These corporations, all well-grounded in the United States economy, have seen happy gains as a direct result of just the possibility of striking Syrian targets. Further action would do nothing but increase their financial gain.

And those cruise missile-loaded destroyers have to have fuel. British Petroleum (Yes, the same BP from the oil spill in 2010) is one of the leading suppliers of gasoline to the military, followed by corporations like Valero, Exxon, and Chevron. Billions of dollars go into these government contracts for fuel. [6] Which brings us to another hidden financial motive.

So this one gets a little confusing. Remember the Geo-Politcal flow chart above? Keep that in mind and consider this map as well.

While researching the potential economic motives behind the US attacking Syria I stumbled across information regarding two oil pipelines in the area, neither of which have been completed. [7]

1. In 2011, a contract was signed for the construction of what has been nicknamed “The Islamic Pipeline.” It would start in the world’s largest oil field at Asaluyeh, Iran (on the map: SE from Bandar-e Bushehr along the Persian Gulf coast), run through Iraq, and end in Damascus, the capital of Syria. Joining Iran, Iraq, and Syria with one oil pipeline would create a nearly unimaginable growth for the Arabic economies as they sell oil to Western nations.

2. A competing pipeline is also scheduled. It would start in Qatar (tapping into the same subterranean oil as Asaluyeh, Iran, but from the other side of the Persian Gulf), run through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Syria, and up to Turkey. This pipeline has been approved by the United States government.

Referring back to the geo-political flow chart we can see that these two pipelines, both intersecting in Syria, are on opposing sides of political ties. The flow chart shows political alliances and now the oil pipelines add a crucial factor that cannot be stressed enough: money.

“A gas pipeline from Iran would be highly profitable for Syria. Europe would gain from it as well, but clearly someone in the West didn’t like it. The West’s gas-supplying allies in the Persian Gulf weren’t happy with it either, nor was would-be no. 1 gas transporter Turkey, as it would then be out of the game.” [8]

For political reasons, the US would rather buy oil from Turkey than Iran. With pipeline #2, the Qatar Pipeline, the US is much more likely to get better deals on prices. The Qatar Pipeline is a win/win/win for the US, Turkey, and Qatar. For this reason, the US would benefit financially from a regime change in Syria – one that is more friendly to Western nations. [9]

With such a frustrating and strikingly familiar story – reminding us of the ulterior motives to invade Iraq – linking our possible military strike in Syria with the economics of oil pipelines may seem unbelievable. At least we want it to be unbelievable. However, during the past few days, the Obama administration has been sure to consult oil and energy experts while he weighs the option to attack. [10] He wants to make sure the United States does not run out of oil as a result of getting involved. The finances are on his mind.

With such a terrible deed as killing hundreds of people using illegal chemical weapons it comes at little surprise that nations from the international community want to hold someone accountable. It truly is tragic, inhumane, and evil. If this was the only motive for the United States to assault Syria, many would consider it justified – though Shalom House recognizes that evil cannot drive out evil; only a creative and reconciliatory love can [Please join us in prayer and mobilized action].

The uncovered truth, however, proves that international accountability is not the only motive behind the White House’s desire for assault –

There are very clear economic motives.

Shalom House, rooted in the faith and praxis of Christianity, holds as a core value the resolute pacifism of Christ. We believe all humans – American and Syrian alike – are beloved creations of God, meaning absolutely no human has the right to bomb another human. In our efforts to create Shalom on earth as it is heaven we have chosen to highlight the economic ulterior motives behind war and violence. The impending assault on Syria does not come solely from a moral objection to chemical weapons. There are clear economic motivations hidden behind the curtain of the White House.

[1]  BBC News. November 16th, 2005. “US Used White Phosphorous In Iraq.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm Accessed August 28th, 2013.

[2] Ryan Grim. Huffington Post. August 29th, 2013. “Alan Grayson on Syria Strike.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/alan-grayson-syria_n_3836276.html?utm_hp_ref=tw Accessed August 29th, 2013.

[3] Alexander Reed Kelly. TruthDig. August 29th, 2013. “Raytheon Says Let’s Go To War!” http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/raytheon_says_lets_go_to_war_20130829 Accessed August 29th, 2013.

[4] Usaamah Khan. Media Diversity UK. August 28th, 2013. “#Syria and the War Drums of the Western Nations.” http://mediadiversityuk.com/2013/08/28/syria-and-the-war-hysteria-of-the-western-nations/ Accessed August 29th, 2013.

[5] PR Newswire. July 22nd, 2013. “The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights.” http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-zacks-analyst-blog-highlights-boeing-raytheon-lockheed-martin-european-aeronautic-defence-and-space-and-gas-services-group-216430181.html Accessed August 29th, 2013.

[6] Danielle Ivory. Bloomberg. February 24, 2012. “BP Wins Most Pentagon Fuel Awards in Year After Gulf Explosion.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-24/bp-wins-most-pentagon-fuel-awards-in-year-after-gulf-of-mexico-explosion.html Accessed August 30th, 2013.

[7] Dmitry Minin. Global Research. May 31st, 2013. “The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopolitics-of-gas-and-the-syrian-crisis-syrian-opposition-armed-to-thwart-construction-of-iran-iraq-syria-gas-pipeline/5337452 Accessed August 28th, 2013.

[8] ibid.

[9] Pepe Escobar. Asia Times. September 28th, 2012. “Why Qatar Wants To Invade Syria.” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NI28Ak03.html Accessed August 28th, 2013.

[10] Timothy Gardner and Roberta Rampton. Huffington Post via Reuters. August 29th, 2013. “Obama Consults Oil Experts As He Weighs Action Against Syria.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/obama-syria-oil_n_3839931.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037 Accessed August 30th, 2013.