Who REALLY benefits from a War between the U.S. and Syria ?
Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means "to whose benefit?" The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war. If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting.
They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.
There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.
So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?
Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.
Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a "limited military strike" and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.
The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S.
But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.
That is about the last thing that we need right now.”
Attack on Syria: The worst and least-bad scenarios
“Western military strikes on Syria present a complex set of possible outcomes, and all of them make problems for energy markets to one degree or another. But some scenarios are worse than others.
Despite an abundance of oil supplies—and the fact that Syria is a minor oil producer, at best—the global market for crude has been dominated for a week by worries about the Middle Eastern country. U.S. oil hit a two-year high above $112 on Wednesday, after closing below $104 on Aug. 21, the day that the Syrian military is believed to have used chemical weapons against rebels fighting the regime of President Bashar Assad. Hundreds of civilians died in the attacks.
Since then the United States has intensified its naval presence in the region, and increasingly hostile rhetoric has spilled from allied capitals, including Washington, London, Paris and Ankara, Turkey. Given Syria's geographical location and the multitude of countries and non-national actors with interests in Syria's brutal 2½-year-old civil war, market watchers and others are asking themselves, where is this conflict headed?