International Man: After nearly 14 years of brutal conflict, various jihadist groups backed by Turkey, the US, and Israel finally toppled the Assad government in Syria.
What is your take on this?
Doug Casey: I’ve been to Syria twice over the years for about a week at a time. I drove around the country, even including what passes for beach resorts on the small Syrian coast—not that that gave me any special insight into the current situation. Though the country was viewed as a dangerous bastion of evil, I had a great time. Except for active war zones, you can almost use the State Department’s “no go” list as a travel advisor. FWIW, even when I applied for my visa at the Syrian consulate in Beirut, I remember being impressed with their friendly and competent staff.
People forget that Syria is an artificial country. The region called “Syria” has been around for thousands of years, since pre-Roman times. But today’s Syria only came into existence with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. It’s not an organic country. Like most Third World countries, it was put together in the drawing rooms of Europe, with zero consideration of local ethnic or religious sensitivities. That’s a guaranteed formula for perpetual chaos in a highly tribal region, where governments are mainly vehicles for theft.
For the last 50 years, it’s been run by the Assad family. Even if you’re a nice guy, or used to be a nice guy, like Bashar al-Assad, when you’re surrounded by lots of nasty people who are holding together a pressure cooker that’s looking to explode, it can’t end well.
International Man: With Syria now fragmented, major powers hold strategic portions of the country:
- Turkey controls large swathes of northern Syria.
- Kurdish forces occupy about one-third of the country.
- Israel has seized additional Syrian territory, with their tanks closing in on Damascus.
- US puppets hold oil-rich regions and critical border crossings.
- Russia maintains air and naval bases.
Is Syria still viable as a nation-state?
What are the implications for the Middle East?
Doug Casey: It was never viable as a nation-state, nor is it now. That’s because the country is no more than a conglomerate of many religious, political, and ethnic groups, all mutually antagonistic. It’s one of the worst possible candidates for being a nation-state.
The best case is that it breaks up into two, three, four, or five new countries that might have more internal cohesion and consistency. What’s going to happen? That’s impossible to predict. We’re looking at chaos. We’re looking at a dogfight between a bunch of rabid dogs. It’s exactly the type of thing the US loves to stick its nose into.
It is strange that Bashar Assad is now supposed to be one of the most evil people in the world. Along with Putin, of course, now that Washington doesn’t have Saddam or Gaddafi to kick around anymore. Neither of them was much worse than the type of dictators that the US has supported everywhere.
The US will likely wind up missing Assad’s more-or-less stable regime. It made black sites available to the CIA in a desperate effort to curry Uncle Sam’s favor. But in the world of realpolitik, no good deed goes unpunished. I suspect Bashar is relieved to be out of office and living in Moscow with his family, where he may go back to practicing ophthalmology. Unless he made off with a few hundred million, which is the minimum for a national leader these days.
As for the Russians, what’s the point of their having naval and air bases on the Mediterranean? They’re indefensible as military propositions. A base may be useful as a refueling station and a jumping-off point for Russian mercenaries in Africa, but there are other options. And if they want to, they can rent it, much the way the US rents naval bases all over the world. It’s just a question of what kind of deal the Russians can cut with whichever Syrian group controls the area.
International Man: Assad was a key ally of Russia and Iran while opposing the US, Israel, and their regional partners.
How does Syria’s collapse affect the global balance of power?
Does his overthrow give the US Empire a new lease on life?
Doug Casey: I certainly hope not. But the US will almost certainly stay involved in Syria. It will turn into another tar baby to entrap them at great expense and with great risk. On the bright side, it might be useful for stealing and laundering US Government funds, like the Ukraine.
The best thing that the US empire can do is totally disinvolve itself from Syria and, for that matter, from Israel and Iran as well. But I don’t think that’s going to happen. Like all declining empires, the US is “on tilt.”
As to how Syria’s collapse will affect the global balance of power, we may yet wind up with a new country called Kurdistan. The Kurds, an ethnic group, occupy parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran but have never had their own nation-state. It’s possible that they’ll secede from Syria and then combine with the Kurds in Iraq, who are semi-autonomous. And eventually with those in Iran and Turkey. That could be a template for the rest of the artificially constructed nation-states in the region.
But a better question is: Why should we care what happens to Syria? It’s a concern for the locals but not for a bankrupt power on the other side of the globe that doesn’t have a clue about who’s who in that zoo. You should be much more concerned about what happens with your neighbor across the street.
International Man: Will the US and Israel now be emboldened to take on a more formidable opponent like Iran?
How do you think a potential war with Iran would unfold?
Doug Casey: At this point, after its long adventure in Gaza and with enemies on all sides, Israel may be approaching bankruptcy. As is its patron in Washington.
It’s pointless, foolish, and dangerous for the US to get involved in the Middle East. There’s nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost. If it does get involved, it’s going to be as Israel’s puppet. A war with Iran could be much more serious than the Korean, Vietnam, Afghan, or Iraq wars, all four of which were expensive disasters fought against primitive countries on the other side of the world.
But a war with Iran amounts to hunting big game. The only possible beneficiary is Israel. And that’s dubious. Because Iran is on the cusp of getting nuclear weapons. If provoked, they might use them pre-emptively against Israel. For what it’s worth, Israel has already annexed about 700 square miles of Syrian territory on the Golan Heights, while the Israeli Air Force destroyed huge amounts of Syrian arms. These are rather bold moves, amounting to unprovoked aggression. Maybe they viewed it as abandoned property since the 200,000-man Syrian Army had just melted away and gone home when Islamic rebels ramped up their attacks.
In today’s world—as always, actually—governments are basically fighting each other. Then, they draw their subjects into the conflict. Ordinary people don’t want war and don’t care about wars. I suggest that, instead of war, governments should just designate hit squads to take out the leaders of whichever opposing government they don’t like. The citizens of both countries would benefit. But they never do. It’s a kind of professional courtesy between rulers.
The Israelis have come close to this ideal with their targeted assassinations, cell phone explosions, and missile strikes on leaders. It’s too bad we can’t put these psychopaths in an octagon to fight it out between themselves, as opposed to giving them the command of huge militaries and letting them draw their people into it.
This is a theme that I cover in my last novel, Assassin. It’s a great stocking stuffer, most appropriate for a Christmas on the eve of World War 3.
International Man: Given these seismic geopolitical shifts, what are the most important investment implications?
Doug Casey: There’s really very little value In the Middle East except for archeological ruins and oil. The natives are very fortunate that Westerners discovered both for them.
Considering all the things that can go wrong in the production chain and the fact that oil at $70 right now is very reasonably priced relative to everything else, I like oil stocks. They’re out of favor, sport pretty fat dividends, and low P/Es. I like natural gas stocks even more. And coal stocks. And uranium stocks.
And, of course, since we’re looking at chaos and more out-of-control government spending, I continue to like gold and Bitcoin, even though neither is any longer at bargain levels.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
About the author
