Given President Trump’s repeated talk of taking Syria’s oil as his primary military goal, one might get the impression that Syria is actually a large oil producing nation. In reality the nation’s proven reserves are quite minuscule, not even in the top 30 worldwide.
The reason it has remained a key focus within Syria is that, several years into a disastrous war, it’s about the only thing Syria has going for it. Even with the infrastructure in ruins, Syria’s oil might be used for reconstruction.
With much of Syria’s oil production in the nation’s northeast, where the Syrian government is not in control, this means that if oil is going to be the deciding factor of who controls post-war Syria, it is still very much up for grabs.
Economic analysts question Syria’s ability to get the nation’s production back up, even if they end up in control of the oil. Many are also scoffing at the Trump plan, doubting the US could ever produce enough even to break even on their ongoing occupation of the oilfields.
Even if Syria is never able to produce enough oil to fully recover from the war, as one of the nation’s few dependable revenue streams control over that oil will remain a major test for who is actually in power. The US interest in controlling the oil is likely being done primarily to undermine Assad, as opposed to actually making a profit looting the country’s limited reserves. Knowing its importance, Syria is likely to ensure the US forces are as costly as possible to maintain.
As a U.S. citizen and a Trump supporter The United States policies in Syria sure do make me sad .
eric, you should be a former Trump supporter by now. Our policies in Syria aren’t even our most egregious. Vote 3rd party.
Wasted vote. It’s Trump or some ultra-left moron. Yes, he’s a huge disappointment on the wall, troops on the border, and deportations but you do understand this is a crucial election for white America? Trump’s betrayal on immigration may guarantee whites being a majority minority anyway but he’s marginally better.
The next time an “ultra-left” candidate gets a major party nomination will be the first time, and there’s no such thing as “white America” as a political bloc with a common interest.
Right. I always base my vote on what is best for white America. Maybe I’ll write in David Duke. Or is he already running under the alias of Donald Trump?
It’s actually brilliant.
Passively neutralizing the funding source needed for the civil war is beneficial in stalling both ISIS and Assad’s war machine.
You are antiwar aren’t you?
Petroleum in general needs to be devalued to near zero. To kill or die for it is wasted sacrifice.
How do you devalue any commodity? Ridiculous.
By no longer purchasing it, and stopping others from purchasing it.
Everything, and I mean everything would stop.
Agriculture, jobs, economies, healthcare, etc. etc.
You people are lunatics.
Lunatics? So investment in f-35s and Afghanistan heroin is sane, and investment in sustainable economy at home is insane ?
Yes, Dave’s suggestion to, somehow (LOL),
“devalue” oil, = LUNACY.
Does he suppose we could somehow “devalue”
gold, real estate, paper money, narcotics?
How does one unilaterally “devalue” a commodity people want?
No one was talking about F-35’s or Afghany heroin.
How long did it take, to go from horseless carriage, to freeway gridlock ? It was done with investment by government and private enterprise. It’s not complicated to build sustainable economy, just need the political will. Just too many people like you who think it can’t be done. The world is round, people are changing the climate, and every f-35 takes us billion dollars away from fixing it.
Oil runs this world,
nearly 8 billion people on this planet depend on oil energy for everything that is fundamental to life.
You will never see oil dismissed as nonessential in your life time.
You, the “squad”, Greta and Dave can scream at the sky all you like,
I will deal in reality.
Wrong from the start. Water. Science not your strong suit. Oil is there to secure water. My grandfather witnessed first flight to man on the moon, don’t try to tell me what can, and can’t be done, you still think you drink oil.
ISIS didn’t run it’s war machine on water.
Water does not power farm tractors, autos, aircraft, locomotives, supertankers etc. The point is without oil (and it’s by-product NatGas)
the entire world would look like Somalia.
Climate changes gradually on its own. You have had countless ice ages and thaws when we were neanderthals. The whole campaign is a typical scam sold to the paroles under the guise of some noble cause. Look at what the socialists propose to fight it. Electric cars that are way out of the price range of the average person and large tax hikes that will kill small manufacturing, personal businesses as only the larger corporations will weather the storm.
Discussing climate change with deniers is like discussing plate tectonics with flat earthers. You gladly grab bits and pieces of peer reviewed studies when you can interpret it your way, ice ages and such, then when the same scientific method shows something you don’t like, it is a conspiracy. Sheesh.
Everything will stop soon if we don’t radically reform the way we grow food and get from point A to point B, anyway.
You were warned 40 years ago and you said: “everything will stop.
Agriculture, jobs, economies, healthcare, etc. etc. You people are lunatics.”
You may have been more right back then, now we have viable alternatives with less murder and mayhem attached.
How, … should we grow our food, just asking?
Without so much ammonia that every waterway downhill from a farm is a dead-zone, for starters. Drip irrigation. Vertical greenhouses. Moving food production to urban centers (or vice versa).
Topsoil abuse (including oil based agriculture) is a serious problem as that dirt can sequester a lot of carbon with minimal input. Letting nature alone can sometimes accomplish more than blind faith in industry.
Petroleum in the ground is in reality a stranded asset. It should be written-off and good riddanced. ASAP. To plan wars around it is dangerously out of touch with reality. Gearing up to respond to famine and civil disorder is a sane military vision. Not fighting over firewood. Our leadership lacks the vision thing.
There is a point of no return vis a vis carbon pollution. That is the truth that should inform every decision, pretty much.
You might be happier in a subsistence agriculture environment. There are many 3rd world choices available. Maybe give that a try.
I’m an American, and the solution to my problems is not to become one of America’s slaves, kept poor, undeveloped and repressed by CIA-installed strongmen. The biggest problem is American unsustainability and authoritarianism, and here is where the change is needed.
You’re a communist, Americans celebrate INDIVIDUAL freedom, you do whatever you want (legally) and everyone else gets the same latitude.
Ride your bicycle, while I drive my v-8,
it’s a personal choice.
Yes, everything important would stop, if it happened in an instant like falling off a cliff. Sooner or later this utter dependence on oil will lead to such a crash. Choosing to break the addiction step by step is the only rational choice to get us a non-apocalyptic future.
Poppycock. Oil will remain the backbone for global energy throughout your life time.
When you become king, maybe.
If people want it, like drugs, they will get it.
You are a totalitarian, and will be resisted always.
Universities invest in stocks, usually blindly seeking profit over anything else. When we fully recognize all of oil’s harmful consequences, like hard drugs, respectable people and institutions will invest elsewhere. Everyone in a university community, or who invests in stocks, or who votes can make better or worse choices. Accountability is not totalitarianism.
I’m OK with that,
universities can do what they want.
You can do what you want,
BUT so can I.
Oil and other fossil fuels are steadily devaluing themselves over time, and will likely continue to do so. I don’t know that their use will cease completely by, say, the end of this century, but I’d be surprised if that use came to as much as 10% of current levels.
How exactly is it anti war to maintain an imperial military occupation of another countries resources and destroy their economy?
Anyway, even the most ardent pro war Zionist should realize it doesn’t really undermine Syria’s military. It makes Syria’s military dependent on Iran and Russia.
It temporarily eliminates the funding source for trouble makers,
ISIS and Assad.
There is nothing”imperial” about the US presence there to destroy ISIS,
they provoked and attacked us and brought that on themselves.
Further, in a country engulfed in a civil war, because of despotic rule is hardly a sovereign nation. No one is attempting to destroy their economy, just their war making capability.
Neither Russia
(GDP less than Italy and under sanctions for overrunning half of Ukraine)
or Iran (under sever sanctions for attempting to go nuke and threatening ME stability) are in a position to do much.
The best outcome would be for negotiations to develop, but,
until then NO oil.
“there to destroy ISIS”…so you have been told. Fact is, what the US did in Syria and Mosul, was to rubble cities allegedly controlled by “ISIS”. Destroying civilians, rubbling cities, creating a million refugees doesn’t fix anything, it doesn’t prevent warmaking now, and especially not in the future. Trump promised to carpet bomb ISIS and kill their families, this, is the promise he kept.
Oh, so we aren’t talking about the role oil plays in world economies now, got it.
Re. Trump, my recollection was he promised to eliminate the ISIS caliphate, thankfully he did.
Now, to prevent ISIS (or other antagonists) ability to make war, he has US troops preventing access to the oil that did formerly fund ISIS activities.
“my recollection”….or, I filter what spanky says to fit my arguement…oh, yes, there are a couple issues being discussed…maybe google how to “scroll pages”.
I responded to the other Dave who was pining for a way to devalue oil.
I said that was nuts to “think” that was possible. Then you showed up, disagreed and introduced other issues unrelated like F-35’s and Afghan heroin and water.
The SAA is perfectly capable of defending all Syrian oil fields. ISIS made money by running tankers to Turkey. The US pretended not to see them until the Russians came and showed up our greasy deception about “fighting” ISIS.
Again, 0bama’s “Arab Spring” did do that and it was a horror, we can’t change the past but we are changing the future. ISIS in Syria is neutered.
The US created and supports ISIS. They didn’t attack or provoke us. There’s no despotic rule and it’s decades past the point when clueless Americans pronounced certain rulers unacceptable per our high moral standards. Our presence in Syria is unconstitutional and an instance of aggressive war. Get real.
US meddling did arm “moderates” to oppose Assad, all despicable and behavior that should be condemned. However, when they morphed into ISIS they launched a worldwide jihad that included us and the Euros.
The Pulse dance club, Florida, and San Bernadino Christmas attacks were examples.
Assad is a thug, who ruled like a murderous thug, that turned Syrians against him. It’s all ugly. But now it is in a stalemate.
Because we hold the oil.
yes I think so
Civil war? Wow. And “passively neutralizing” the oil fields? Double Wow. The resident neocon is at it again.
Civil war is on the Syrians.
Eliminating oil revenues from supporting MORE war, brilliant.
It’s not civil war when tens of thousands of foreign jihadis flood in to attack the government and the US and its greasy OIR allies fund, train, supply, and support the jihadi filth. What do you think the CIA Annex in Benghazi was doing, fool?
From Wikipedia:
The unrest in Syria, part of a wider wave of the 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with the Syrian government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for Assad’s removal were violently suppressed.[115][116] The war, which began on 15 March 2011 with major unrest in Damascus and Aleppo,[117] is being fought by several factions: the Syrian Armed Forces and its international allies, a loose alliance of mostly Sunni opposition rebel groups (including the Free Syrian Army), Salafi jihadist groups (including al-Nusra Front), the mixed Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), with a number of countries in the region and beyond being either directly involved or providing support to one or another faction (Iran, Russia, Turkey, the United States, as well as others).
Yes, 0bama’s admin did create and support the “moderates”
(joke that it was) until they morphed into ISIS. Yes, all of that dirt is on the US. That was then, this is now.
ISIS then went rogue, inspiring attacks directed against the US and Euro allies. That led to increased US air and artillery with serious changes to RoE, all used backing locals to defeat the caliphate, which we did. Now we hold those oil fields, denying their use to continue the war, and await the remaining participants desire for peace negotiations.
Wikipedia’s definition of the Syrian ( and other ME nations) civil war omits critical points.
1) millions of refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.
2) the surge in iraq
The bush wars in Iraq caused millions of refugees, primarily Sunni, whom predominately went to Syria. The failure of host countries infrastructure, as they attempted to deal with Bush’s refugees, was the primary cause of arab spring demonstrations.
An important part of Bush’s surge, was to buy off Sunni militia groups, giving them scads of dollars and weapons, if, they would exit areas of civil strife, thereby giving the cia media sources a “surge victory”. These refugees organized in kurdish, and Syrian areas, as refugees always do, if they want to survive.
Bush wars were the primary cause of what the CIA marketing boys labeled “ISIS”, and surge payoffs were the primary source of the Sunni weapons. The war on “ISIS” is simply an extension of the Iraqi civil war caused by Bush, clinton,bush. Or, classic blowback.
The idea that Obama “caused ISIS ” belongs with Clinton’s pedophile ring in the basement of a building with no basement.
Thanks for the history lesson, but we are talking about today, not yesterday.
As a result of US forces sequestering the oil fields their is no war while there is no peace, a stalemate.
Sure the Russians and Syrians are preparing to destroy Idlib,
but that is on them, not us.
Stalemate is a better thing than war and
allows time to negotiate peace.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/war-peace-syria-analysts-191214154127744.html
“a result of US forces sequestering oil fields their (sic) is no war while there is no peace”….parking themselves on oil accomplishes nothing. Once the US forces completed rubbling every city they could, of course things quieted down. The peace of death. They left, leaving someone else to clean up the mess. Your idea of US militancy goals is right out of what the CIA marketing boys have sold. Yes, there is a quiet now, in US terms, as they consider what to rubble next, problem being, there is so very little in range of US militancy to profitably rubble next.
Russia and Assad are currently doing the “rubbling”,
but because it’s them, I’m sure you don’t mind.
Really ? Who do you think I should vote for in the next Russian election ?
It doesn’t matter, it’s rigged.
Which planet you landed from?
Planet Reality.
That’s just sad.
The current policy is antiwar,
you are sad to pine for a return to good ol ISIS civil war atrocities!
Only if it’s neocon based reality.
Why are we involved in Syria’s civil war. It’s none of our business. Also, how do you account for the thousands of innocent civilians US, and US led forces have killed?
ISIS was inspiring attacks in the US and against our Euro allies.
A US response was warranted.
Defending ISIS, isn’t a good look for you.
As a human being with a conscience, I agree.
I do not agree. There are many countries without oil or gas, and are economically viable.
There are other consideration here, and in this order:
1.
Congress under influence of war-pushing interests, wants even symbolic presence in Syria to keep on the appearance that US matters in Syria
2.
Keeping a footprint creates opportunities for further mischief — use Kurds, Al-Qaeda, even imagined ISIS
3.
There is an obsession with controlling borderlands, preventing free movement of trade, building infrastructure.
4.
Giving Trump an explanation to his base for staying in Syria. He will not admit that the War Machine refuses to budge. As mercenary as this sounds, to Trump base it will not look like we are involved in Syria. A lie, of course, but irksome to War Machine, desiring a military/ideological explanation.
But the truth is, I see the withdrawal as a major concession to Syria. Northeastern Syria, including large area of Euphrates valley, including city of Raqqa and electric power plant dam on Euphrates. Cities like Manbij, and many along the border — are turned over to Syria, with Russians providing police services. Turkey and Russia patrol the 10 km border region, so far working. Kurdish issue is clearly under works, but their ambition
were cut to their actual size, as Kurds have relinquished control of the region.
So now even Kobane, Kurdish majority city is now under Syrian government control.
Even though US continuously complains about refugees coming back as destabilizing . This is not a valid complaint. True, Kurds will be disappointed for losing potential for expansion — but these were pipe dreams. US could not deliver to them Arab areas without repercussions.
A great number of refugees can return following restoring utilities and removal of unsafe structures. Nearly million have returned into Aleppo city and area, Homs , Hama, and greater Damascus area. If US would let go of Deir Azzor area, many refugees from Lebanon would return. The problem is the lack of security in Syrian Golan, where many refugees in Lebanon come from.
So it is altogether good progress from Syria.
Those oil wells are no bargaining chip. If there is one thing Russia has it is oil and gas. The real reason for being there is — being there, looking for a mischief in border areas.
But many such adventures may become swept by the upcoming debate on loss of US industrial base and the consequences to our science, technology and education sectors. The discussion has started. Senator Rubio, of all people, the advocate of wasteful interventions and regime changes has come out blaming our policy decisions — not China — for the decline in manufacturing, innovations, science and technology advocating heavy investment in strategically selected sectors.
And hopefully, somebody might see the LiNK between foreign policy and military excess and the decline. China trade war has certainly laid this bare.
A thoughtful comment.
“So it is altogether good progress from Syria” ….only from the US militancy perspective. Again, they have destroyed a ME region, then left when there was nothing left to rubble. War profits soared, and they left the mess for someone else to clean up.
Assad could ask Rouhani for assistance in rebuilding Syria’s oil industry. That would really put the wind up Trump and Co.