Standing to Death: Whoever controls Syria controls the whole Middle East

Judging by recent statements, the United States intends to occupy Syria indefinitely. Initially, Washington stated that the purpose of its military presence in the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic is to combat the banned Islamic group of terrorist groups. Moreover, the White House was not embarrassed by the fact that the US military and their bases were located on Syrian territory illegally, as uninvited guests.





However, ISIS seems to have been officially defeated, their "capital" Raqqa liberated by the American allies. It would seem time to go home? But it was not there. United States Special Representative to the United Nations Nikki Haley said:

We will not leave until we are sure that we have completed all the tasks.

Now, “tracking Iran’s actions” and “ensuring that chemical weapons do not carry US risks,” have been added to the American “tasks.” The grounds are very blurry and make it possible to stay in Syria indefinitely. Perhaps there are other reasons for the US military to linger in Syria? The Syrian desert itself is not rich in hydrocarbons, but the territorial location of the country historically made it a crossroads of trade routes. The saying is known:



Shortly before the outbreak of armed conflict in the republic, President Bashar al-Assad announced a “four sea concept” that could connect Syria, Turkey, Iran and Azerbaijan into a single oil and gas transportation system, linking the Persian Gulf and the Caspian, Black and Mediterranean Seas. At the same time, Western countries would be left out of the project. Syria's role in this global economic project would be leading as a transit of hydrocarbons. Is it any wonder that the regime of Bashar al-Assad was immediately recognized by the West as hostile to all "progressive humanity", and a bloody war began?

The Americans and their allies came to Syria and neighboring Iraq in earnest and for a long time. Russia, officially allied with the Syrian Arab Republic, unfortunately, “helped” it several years ago, depriving it of its existing arsenal of chemical weapons. The sense of such "help" turned out to be zero, as can be seen from recent events. However, the seizure of his arsenal from official Damascus deprived him of deterrence from aggressive neighbors like Turkey, which had already chopped off a hefty piece of northern Syria.

In the near future, the West will put on the agenda the question of the resignation of Bashar al-Assad from the post of president of the republic. The "chemical attack" in the Duma, as an excuse to accuse him of exterminating the Syrian people, arrived in time on time. The Western coalition's missile strikes are an element of pressure to remove the Assad regime and the Russian military contingent. To "smart rockets" will be added economic sanctions with a proposal to stop supporting the legal president of the republic.

The problem is that if Assad leaves, his successor may denounce agreements with Russia on the deployment of military bases and contingents in Syria, and they will all be asked to leave. However, maintaining a Russian presence in Syrian sands may require a large fee. The Syrian leader hinted that the restoration of his country's infrastructure would require about $ 400 billion over the next 10-15 years. On whose help the president of the Syrian republic is counting on, he did not specify, but hardly on the USA, Great Britain and France.