Hacker News Reader

Comment by rgbrenner | Hacker News Reader

The goal was to create a new pipeline from Qatar to Europe so Europe don’t have to buy gas from Russia.

Your missing something obvious with this conspiracy theory. Look at a map. Iraq borders both SA and Turkey. It would be cheaper to build through Iraq than destabilize an entire country.

Believe it or not, every time something goes wrong in the world, the US is not behind it. These conspiracy theories help no one.

View on HN

I would not entirely see them as conspiracy theories, but by now we all know.. conflicts or military operations are conducted for one reason but are "sold" to public with different kind of marketing.. one in which they appeal to our better angles and in other to our worst fears.

So some of these stated items may be sub-plots, the truth is Iran - Saudi rivalry plays a major part in ME politics. Syria was a proxy battleground so was Yemen.

"It would be cheaper to build through Iraq than destabilize an entire country."

Except that at the time, Iraq was itself a highly unstable conflict zone. Building a pipeline in those conditions was not viable, and probably still isn't.

But we're comparing Iraq with destabilizing a country, re-securing it, establishing a relationship with the leaders, etc.. and then building a pipeline.

Iraq is further along in that process.. than starting anew with Syria.

> Except that at the time, Iraq was itself a highly unstable conflict zone.

I fail to see how turning Syria into an unstable conflict zone would help.

Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria. Those who were backing the opposition factions were no doubt hoping for a quick, orderly transition of power. But obviously it didn't work out that way.

> Nobody set out to cause a long-lasting, destructive conflict in Syria.

That's precisely the point. Nobody set out to cause long-lasting, destructive conflict in Iraq as well.

Furthermore, in Iraq there was a multinational coallition allocating hefty amounts of resourses to ensure a clean politically advantgeous outcome, while the war in Syria would be, according to that conspiracy theory, at best a covert operation leading to a drawn out conflict.

Does it ever work out that way? This myth of USA military effectiveness isn't promoted in order to ensure transfers of power or [snicker, haha] natural gas in pipelines. It is promoted to ensure the continuing transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to armaments manufacturers and their sockpuppets in government and media.

Also Iraq is a buffer zone between SA and Iran which prevents Iran invading and taking control of the pipeline.

Indeed, my first thought when I read that was "why can't it just go through Iraq instead?" And as it turns out you've pointed out that there already is such a pipeline. So the whole theory stops making sense then.

Worth the read: https://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-us-israel-and-saudi-...

Have a link to the original cable?

A lot of what is written there doesn't pass the basic smell test of anybody even vaguely familiar with the conflict

MintPress is a rather unreliable source. [0][1]

[0] https://www.minnpost.com/media/2015/11/mystery-mintpress-new...

[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-inside-story-of-one-w...

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

I know that cable - it's rather famous for predicting a lot of what took place but is far from a US plot to overthrow Assad

The other conspiracy that exist, there is three countries that surround occupied Palestine two of them already in USA pocket and one still refuse to make relation with occupied Palestine so destabilize Syria is big win for USA.

What is "occupied Palestine" in your count?

Just to clarify if it is Gaza+West Bank, or the usual Arab definition that includes all of Israel, or all of the old Palestine mandate that included also present-day Jordan?

Depending on what is "Palestine", it s surrounded by 5 to 7 countries: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia and Egypt.

It may be a conspiracy theory but we must not be naive usually the marketed reasons have nothing to do with the real geopolitical ones. Remember the Iraq invasion?

You say "usually" but you only give one single example. Not to say that you couldn't come up with others but I'm not sure I agree with the "usually".

Being french this argument annoys me particularly because if you remember France was against this intervention because we thought the WMD menace was bullshit. Turns out that we were right. Then a few years ago France was saying "Assad is using chemical weapons against civilians, we must do something!" and the whole internet started parroting the russian talking points "But remember Iraq!!! It's all a bunch of lies!!!".

Not to say that french intelligence is infallible or can't be manipulated but using the garbage fire that was the "Gulf War Episode 2: The Empire Strikes Back" to immediately dismiss any kind of foreign intervention is rather disingenuous. Yet an other terrible long term consequence of the Bush administration years I suppose.

You seem to be leaving something out, here. What was the French position on Libya? In the end, was it different than the position of BHL?

A public reticence to create further disasters, if indeed it existed, would be among the best possible long-term consequences of that foolish administration.

Would Iran let a pipeline pass through the Shia land next to it ? There is a short pipeline from North Iraq to Turkey, you need to research about it. Syria was the best bet and that also didn't work.

Believe it or not, every time something goes wrong in the world, the US is not behind it.

Ok, so you're just working on other people's democracies for their benefit. Gotcha.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com