Lest we forget, an attack on Syria is an attack on Iran and a threat to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization

via chycho

United States involvement in Syria has nothing to do with a repressive regime. After all, in 2002 the United States willingly used Assad’s regime to torture Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, when they renditioned him to Syria from New York. The world was also quite grateful to Syria for accepting 1.5 million refugees created by the US invasion of Iraq, especially considering that for approximately the same period the United States had only accepted 7,000 Iraqi refugees. What’s happening in Syria is part of a bigger picture, a grand chessboard if you’d like, and what’s happening there is definitely not the end game.

Irrelevant if Assad stays in power or the rebels take control, what’s important to know about Syria is that an attack on Syria is an attack on Iran and a threat to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – a mutual security organization founded in 2001, which “includes not only the two giants Russia and China, but also the energy-rich Central Asian states Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.”

In 2006 Syria signed a defense agreement with Iran. With this agreement Iran “considers Syria’s security its own security,” and its defense capabilities to be those of Syria. This means that an attack on Syria is an attack on Iran, and Iran is a much more formidable foe than Syria. Not because of Iran’s military capabilities but because of its diplomatic ties to the regional countries.

Not only has Iran signed a declaration with Caspian Sea leaders in which all parties have agreed “to reinforce peace, stability, economic development, and good neighborliness in the region,” Iran is also an observer state in the SCO.


If the United States attacks Syria, which it has threatened to do, it will force it into a military confrontation with Iran. If this occurs, it is very unlikely that the SCO, especially the two most influential members Russia and energy strapped China, will stand idly by.

Direct Western intervention in Syria or a war with Iran will be catastrophes on their own, but they could also trigger a confrontation between NATO and the SCO. Not a good scenario any way you look at it.

17 Comments on "Lest we forget, an attack on Syria is an attack on Iran and a threat to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization"

  1. Hadrian999 | Jan 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm |

    it’s amazing(no not really) that the west is perfectly happy to put vast chemical weapons stockpiles in the hands of jihadists for no real gain besides propaganda.

    • So you don’t think the west (U.S. in particular) considers spreading Saudi power in the region while simultaneously reducing Iranian power to be a bit more than a propaganda win?
      *Honest question. No sarcasm.

      • Antediluviancurrent | Jan 10, 2013 at 11:42 am |

        Wahhabi’s are more friendly to capitalism than the Arab socialist states ( f.e. Gaddafi’s Libya and Assad’s Syria ).

      • Calypso_1 | Jan 10, 2013 at 1:22 pm |

        Saudi power is about to experience a significant shift. The generations are passing & the West found out long ago the tumultuous nature of Kingdoms when the Crown changes heads.

      • Hadrian999 | Jan 10, 2013 at 4:57 pm |

        the saudis are no more friendly to western interests than Iran. they are just more useful to elites.

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 10, 2013 at 5:31 pm |

      I’m not so sure the intended possibilities would be limited solely to propaganda.

      • Hadrian999 | Jan 10, 2013 at 6:17 pm |

        what benefit do you see the united states deriving from turning syria into a taliban style nation

        • Calypso_1 | Jan 10, 2013 at 10:04 pm |

          Not speaking directly to an islamization of Syria but rather the acquisition of chems by AQ affiliates. Operating under the assumption that there has been ongoing entanglement and utilization of such forces for Western aims even to the extent of false flag operations, I could think of several scenarios:

          1) The sheer propaganda of increased threat level provided by rumored or actual terrorist acquisition of chems (after all the WoT has been waning).
          2) The actual use of these weapons in a domestic strike. Anyone with training in chems knows that the casualty level & actual combat effectiveness of these are not exceptional & the logistics are difficult. The real advantage is fear and could take gov’t reaction home & abroad to new levels.
          3) The same scenario as two but against Russia or China from their own jihadists if more overt resistance to Western goals is met.

          4) Demonstration of acquisition & distribution without significant loss of life in some proxy theater such as the Sahel as a warning/precursor to any of the above.

          • Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2013 at 7:26 pm |

            some chemical weapons are quite effective but most are terror weapons but the things you sited are various forms of propaganda except #3 would be either ineffective or beneficial to china and russia.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 11, 2013 at 7:48 pm |

            In regards to effectiveness (over conventional arms), generally not the type of delivery systems that could be fielded by such groups. #1 yes. Solely propaganda as that is what initiated the thought. But all others since they involve actual usage would have at the least secondary tactical considerations. Propaganda is always a contingency for any action. I believe #3 depending on the strategic scenario (granted a narrow one) need not be wholly disadvantageous.

  2. Good, we all want the world as it is to end anyway!

  3. This info makes my head spin and reminds me that those in charge are seriously deranged.

  4. Once the invasion propaganda steps up and formal actions are taken (war speeches, congressional approval, UN approval, blah blah blah), the protests will start. I bet TPTB will be paralyzed this time. Remember 2003? My guess is the population has grown a lot more disillusioned with everything their shit government has done since then. 9/11 Truthers alone would fill DC.

    • BuzzCoastin | Jan 9, 2013 at 9:41 pm |

      while I admire your perspective: the protests will start
      it’s unlikely that the sheeple give a flying F
      and there are enough pigs to silence the ones that do
      I’d be very surprised if this will be as big as OWS

    • Nope. Antiwar protesters are always going to come from the Democrats, and 95% of them only have a problem with neocolonialism when Republicans do it.

  5. BuzzCoastin | Jan 9, 2013 at 9:43 pm |

    Uncle Homeland needs a new war to replace Afghanistan & Iraq
    round & round he goes
    where he stops no one knows

  6. “Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.”? *The 4 Stan’s!*
    Why don’t we call it for what it is, World War 3.

Comments are closed.