Israel VS Cyprus

Many times in the past I have written about the cooperation between Cyprus and Israel in the energy and defense sector. Israel and Cyprus have adjacent gas fields, and the American energy company Noble Energy is developing the gas fields of both countries, which makes their exploitation a lot cheaper and leaves a lot more room for profit. Moreover Israel and Cyprus have a defense pact against Turkey.

Map 1 Israeli, Cypriot and Egyptian Gas Fields

Israel and Cyprus are hoping to construct common pipeline networks, which will transfer their gas to one of the 3 players who can absorb large quantities of gas i.e. Egypt, Turkey or the European Union. Israel and Cyprus are small countries, while Egypt and Turkey both have a population of 80 million people, and the European Union has a population of 500 million people.  Moreover the two countries have discussed the possibility of constructing an LNG plant in Cyprus, in order to export their gas in liquid form.        

Map 2

Before moving on with the Cypriot-Israeli interests, I must say once more that there is a huge Turkish-Russian conflict running at the background, with Russia supplying Turkey with 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year, and Turkey desperately trying to find alternative sources of gas, in order to reduce her dependency on Russia. As you can read at the following Al Monitor article, the main gas contracts between Turkey and Russia are expiring in 2020.  See Al Monitor

“How the PKK is Entering Energy Wars”, March 2016

5^th Paragraph

That timing would be perfect, as some of Turkey’s major gas contracts with Russia expire in 2020, including the Blue Stream deal for 16 billion cubic meters, and half of the western route contracts that cover 4 billion cubic meters. In short, if everything goes as planned, Ankara hopes to get rid of Putin’s noose in several years.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/turkey-israel-pkk-shadow-player-energy-wars.html

Gazprom’s site says that the contract for the Blue Stream Pipeline, which carries 16 billion cubic meters of Russian gas to Turkey each year through the Black Sea, expires in 2022. See Gazprom.

Blue Stream

History

On December 15, 1997 Russia and Turkey signed an intergovernmental agreement. Under the agreement Gazprom and Turkish Botas inked the contract stipulating that 365 billion cubic meters of gas should be supplied to Turkey via Blue Stream during 25 years.

http://www.gazprom.com/about/production/projects/pipelines/blue-stream/

What is important is not whether the contracts are expiring in 2020, 2021 or 2022. What is important is the race between Turkey and Russia, with Turkey trying to find new sources of gas, and Russia trying to block her, either by using Armenia and Iran to threat Azerbaijan, or by using the Kurds of Turkey (PKK) to block the Iraq-Turkey and the Iran-Turkey pipelines, or by using the Alawites and Kurds of Syria to block the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, or by using Hezbollah to threat Israel. Note that Turkey could use the Azeri, Iranian, Iraqi, Qatar and Israeli gas, not only to substitute the Russian gas that reaches Turkey through the Black Sea (Blue Stream) and Ukraine (Trans-Balkan), but also to export gas to Europe. And we all know how addicted Russia is on her exports to Europe.

Map 3

Map 4

You might think that Russia is acting like a pimp, and you would be right. But Russia is not an exception. The same is true for Turkey and Qatar, that support ISIS, but also for Iran, which many times in the past has supported Al-Qaeda. Therefore it is ridiculous for the Turks and the Iranians to talk about ethics.

But let me go back to Israel and Cyprus. The construction of common pipelines, and the export of gas, is a common objective for both the Cypriots and the Israelis. But Cyprus and Israel face a huge difference in their foreign policy. Turkey is the main geopolitical threat for Cyprus, while Iran is the greatest threat for Israel. Therefore it is very difficult for the two countries to completely synchronize their foreign policies.

There are discussions between Cyprus and Turkey, in order for the two countries to solve the decade long disputes over North Cyprus, which is under Turkish occupation since 1974. Cyprus has a motive to strike a deal with Turkey before the Turkish-Russian conflict is resolved, because the more Turkey needs Cyprus, and the more desperate Turkey is for alternative sources of gas, the more she will be willing to offer Cyprus, in order for Cyprus to accept an Israel-Cyprus-Turkey pipeline. Because Syria and Lebanon do not recognize Israel, and there is no way they will accept such a pipeline.

However things are quite different for the Israelis. The Israelis do not want to go ahead with an Israeli-Turkish pipeline while there is so much tension between Russia and Turkey. The main threat Israelis face is Hezbollah in South Lebanon, and Hezbollah is supported by Iran. But Hezbollah would also be supported by Russia if the Israelis were to sell gas to the Turks. The Israelis have given Gazprom stakes in their second largest gas field, the Tamar, and they also hope to give Gazprom stakes in their largest gas field, the Leviathan, in order to jointly export gas, whether that is to Egypt, Turkey or the European Union. That way the Russians will be happy with the Israelis, and in return for their help they will not interfere in their fight with Hezbollah and Iran.

Therefore speed is good for the Cypriots when it comes to their discussions with Turkey, but it does not help the Israelis. The recent ruling of the highest Israeli court, which rejected the agreement between Israel and the American Noble Energy for Leviathan gas field, seems to be very convenient for the Israelis, even though Netanyahu was supposedly disappointed with it. Noble Energy would have the Leviathan gas ready by 2019, but the court ruling will delay the project by at least one year. For the Israeli court ruling see World Tribune. I do not have proofs that the Israeli court makes life hard for Noble Energy in order to ensure Russian support for Israel, but that’s what it does.

“Israel Court ruling seen as threat to U.S. energy firm”, March 2016

2^nd Paragraph

The ruling was a major setback for U.S.-based Noble Energy, which could delay the firm’s $6 billion natural gas project off the coast of Israel for as much as a year. The project was expected to start up in 2019.

http://www.worldtribune.com/israel-court-ruling-seen-as-threat-to-u-s-energy-firm/

See also “Israel, Russia and the Leviathan Gas Field”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/israel-russia-and-the-leviathan-gas-field/

There is Egypt too of course. The largest gas field of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea was discovered in Egypt in August 2015 i.e. the Zohr fied. Turkey and Egypt are currently at war, but the Zohr field might make the difference, if the two countries agree that Egypt exports gas to Turkey. The Turks have already said that they would be willing to consider normalizing their relations with Egypt, if Egypt accepted to relax her stance towards the Egyptian Islamists. See the friendly to the Turkish government Daily Sabah.

“Normalization of relations between Turkey, Egypt possible if conditions fulfilled”, December 2015

3^rd Paragraph

Erdoğan gave a statement to the media in April while returning from a visit to Tehran and listed four conditions that need to be met before Turkey would be willing to normalize ties with Egypt. The first is the immediate release of Morsi, followed by an annulment of all capital sentences given to supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, which have been handed out to thousands of political opponents of the coup regime and now face execution in Egypt. Third, Erdoğan said Egypt needed to release all political prisoners, nearly 18,000 people. Lastly, all bans on political parties must be lifted so that a normal democratic process may flourish.

http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/12/19/experts-normalization-of-relations-between-turkey-egypt-possible-if-conditions-fulfilled

For the Egyptians and the Cypriots the main enemy is Turkey, while for the Israelis and the Saudis the main enemy is Iran. Therefore in this energy game with Turkey, the Israelis, the Cypriots and the Egyptians perceive the time factor in a very different way.

I must also say that the Egyptians hope to have the Zohr gas flowing by 2017, as you can read at Reuters.

“Egypt's giant Zohr gas field aims to start output in 2017”, November 2015

http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-investment-egypt-gas-idUSL3N12X4DX20151102

Israel, Russia and the Leviathan Gas Field

As you can read at the following World Tribune article, Israel’s supreme court rejected the contract  between Israel and the American energy company Noble Energy about the Leviathan gas field. Leviathan is the largest Israeli gas field.

Picture 1

The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is supposedly disappointed with the court’s ruling. But I think the court ruling is very convenient for the Israeli foreign policy even though it is not convenient for the American company which is very upset.

Only Turkey and Egypt can import large amounts of Israeli gas. The other option would be Europe, but you need LNG facilities that Israel does not possess. Moreover both Turkey and Russia would be very upset with Israel if it was to send gas to Europe, bypassing Turkey and antagonizing Russia in the European markets.

Egypt was the best option for Israel, because Russia does not export gas to Egypt, and Israel gave Gazprom large stakes in its second largest gas field, the Tamar. Israel was also willing to give Gazprom stakes in Leviathan. Therefore the Israelis, the Russians and Noble would all together export to Egypt. That was the plan. And Noble would be happy to have Gazprom in order to protect the project from Hezbollah and Turkey.

Map 1

But now Egypt has discovered the Zohr field (August 2015), which is the largest gas field of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Therefore Turkey seems to be the best option, if not the only one. But that would upset Russia, because the Leviathan gas will start flowing in 2019, and in 2020 the contract between Russia and Turkey for the Blue Stream is expiring. Therefore Turkey could start importing gas from Israel and dump Russia’s Blue Stream gas (16 billion cubic meters annually).

Map 2

The court ruling seems to be convenient for Israel, because for Israel it is a lot more important that the Russians do not use the S-400 anti-aircraft missiles they have in Syria to prevent the Israelis from attacking the Iranians in Syria, when the Iranians send weapons to Hezbollah in South Lebanon. How much would the Israelis earn by selling 10 billion cubic meters of gas to Turkey? Would it worth the risk with Hezbollah, at a time the United States are improving their relations with Iran?

Israel is hoping that Turkey and Russia will sort things out, and Israel and Russia will jointly export natural gas to Turkey.

For the expiring contract for the Blue Stream between Russia and Turkey see Al Monitor.

“How the PKK is Entering Energy Wars”, Μάρτιος 2016

5^th Paragraph

That timing would be perfect, as some of Turkey’s major gas contracts with Russia expire in 2020, including the Blue Stream deal for 16 billion cubic meters, and half of the western route contracts that cover 4 billion cubic meters. In short, if everything goes as planned, Ankara hopes to get rid of Putin’s noose in several years.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/turkey-israel-pkk-shadow-player-energy-wars.html

“Israel Court ruling seen as threat to U.S. energy firm”, Μάρτιος 2016

2^nd Paragraph

The ruling was a major setback for U.S.-based Noble Energy, which could delay the firm’s $6 billion natural gas project off the coast of Israel for as much as a year. The project was expected to start up in 2019.

http://www.worldtribune.com/israel-court-ruling-seen-as-threat-to-u-s-energy-firm/

Erdogan and ISIS

There is a blame game these days between Turkey on one hand, and Belgium and the Netherlands on the other, about Barkaoui, one of the Belgian terrorists who blew up the Brussels airport in March 2016. See Financial Times “Belgium admits mishandling Turkish terror warnings”, March 2016

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/65c89c22-f1cb-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a.html?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/WorldNews/product#axzz448duMPHh

The Turks say they sent Barkaoui back to the Netherlands in July 2015, when they found out he was associated with radical Islamists in Turkey. The Belgians and the Dutch admit that the Turks sent Barkaoui back home, but they published the Turkish documents which accompanied Barkaoui, and it does not mention any connections to terrorism. The Turks say that this kind of information is normally given verbally and not written, and that it was provided by the Turkish authorities.

This blame game is more important than it seems, because the West accuses Turkey of supporting the radical Sunni Islamists of Syria and Iraq i.e. ISIS, both by buying its oil, and also by providing military and intelligence support. That does not mean that the West implies that it was Erdogan and Davutoglu who ordered the terrorist attacks in Europe. It is one thing to support ISIS against the Kurds and Assad in Syria, and another to order terrorist attacks in Brussels.

Picture 1 The Turkish Dictator Tayip Erdogan

Turkey is a NATO country, and Erdogan could not possibly order terrorist attacks against the West. This was a practice of leaders who had officially declared war against the West, and they only did it for the period they were at war with the West, and not for the whole time of their ruling. Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Omar al Bashir in Sudan, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Iran until recently, were such cases. The Pakistani secret services are also carrying terrorist attacks against India. At least that’s what the Indians are saying.

Therefore even though it is possible for country leaders to order terrorist attacks, it is not possible for Turkey, which is a member of NATO. The secret services of the NATO countries would find out that the attacks were ordered by the Turkish government, and relations between the West and Turkey would have been frozen.

But as I said Turkey buys the oil of ISIS, and also provides ISIS with military and intelligence expertise, and therefore whenever ISIS decides to attack Europe it can do it a lot more efficiently. Actually Turkey is not the only Muslim country that supports ISIS, but Turkey is the greatest military power of the Muslim world and she is very interest about what is going on in Syria.

Anyway that’s the accusation against Turkey i.e. that her support to ISIS in Syria allows ISIS to attack Europe more efficiently, even if Turkey does not want these attacks. Turkey on the other hand says that that the West support the Kurds in Syria, and due to the cooperation between the Kurds of Syria and the Kurds of Turkey, the Western support ends up in the hands of the Kurds of Turkey (PKK), and therefore the West indirectly supports the attacks of the PKK in Turkey.

At the following map you can see with the red cycle the Western support to the Kurds of Syria, some of which ends up in the hands of the Kurds of Turkey (PKK), and it is used against Turkey. With the green cycle you can see the Turkish support to the Sunni radicals of Syria (ISIS), some of which ends up at the hands of radical Islamists in Europe.

Map 1

Therefore even thought there is not a direct war between the West and Turkey over the issue of the PKK in Turkey and the Jihadist attacks in Europe, there is indeed an indirect war. As long as the Turks will be supporting ISIS in Syria, and as long as the West will be supporting the Kurds of Syria, there will be suspicions between the two parties, which at some point could escalate if an agreement is not reached between Turkey and the West about what will happen with the Kurds of Syria.

In the meantime Europe is flooded by pro-ISIS socialist propaganda, most of which is funded by the Arabs (Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc) and Turkey. You might be surprised to hear many journalists in the West accusing Europe and defending ISIS and Turkey. Look for example at the following picture.

Picture 2 Arab-Funded Socialist Propaganda

The picture puts at the same basket the attacks in Turkey and the attacks in Europe, in order to say that we, the Europeans, make too much fuss about the attacks of ISIS in Europe, and we say that ISIS is supported by Turkey, but we don’t care about the attacks in Turkey by the PKK, which are indirectly supported by us, due to our support to the Kurds of Syria.

What the above picture does not say is that 2 of the attacks in Turkey were carried out by ISIS against tourists, and another one was an ISIS attack against the Kurds of Turkey. Only two of the attacks were Kurdish attacks against the Turks. The October 2015 attack was an ISIS attack against the Kurds of Turkey, the January 2016 attack was an ISIS attack against tourists, the February and the March 13 2016 attacks were Kurdish attacks against the Turks, and the March 19 2016 attack was an ISIS attack against tourists.

Therefore 3 out of 5 attacks in Turkey were ISIS attacks. What difference does it make if ISIS kills a European in Europe or Turkey? But do you hear European socialists discriminate between the attacks in Turkey? Most of the time the socialist propaganda in Europe, which is funded with Arab and Turkish money, does not discriminate between these attacks.

Both Turkey and the ISIS of Syria are infuriated with the Western support for the Kurds of Syria, and the socialist propaganda in Europe aims at reducing the European support for the Kurds.

I must also say that there are three sources of terrorism in Turkey. The first one is the ISIS attacks against the Kurds, and also against Western targets. The second is the Kurdish attacks against the Turks. The third one is the attacks of the Turkish communists against Turkish soldiers, policemen, businessmen etc.  These attacks are carried out by the Marxist terrorist organization  Marxist Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C), which is the equivalent of IRA, ETA etc. See Stratfor “Untangling the Threads of Terrorism in Turkey”, March 2016.

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/untangling-threads-terrorism-turkey?utm_source=paidlist-a&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=*|DATE:|*&utm_content=Daily+Intelligence+Brief%3A+March+22%2C+2016

Articles

(ISIS VS the Kurds)

“Turkey terror attack: mourning after scores killed in Ankara blasts”, October 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/turkey-suicide-bomb-killed-in-ankara\

(ISIS VS Tourists)

“Suicide bomber kills 10 people, mainly Germans, in Istanbul”, January 2016

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-blast-idUSKCN0UQ0UJ20160112

(The Kurds VS the Turks)

“February 2016 Ankara bombing”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2016_Ankara_bombing

(Kurds VS Tourists)

“March 2016 Ankara bombing”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2016_Ankara_bombing

(ISIS VS Tourists)

“March 2016 Istanbul bombing”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2016_Istanbul_bombing

The Strategy of Israel in Syria

A very nice article from the Tower about Israel’s strategy in Syria. The Tower is a very good Israeli geopolitical magazine.

According to the Tower, when the Arab Spring broke out in Syria, there was a debate in Israel about whether it would be better for Israel if the Sunnis of Syria won Assad, which would brake the connection between Iran and Bashar al Assad, or whether these radical Sunni Islamists would be an even worse adversary for Israel, since they would be supported by Turkey and Qatar. These Sunni Islamists would form a corridor from Turkey to the Golan Heights and Israel.

Before the Arab Spring broke out, Assad, a bitter rival of Israel, did not attack Israel from the Golan Heights, because he was afraid of the Israeli retaliations. However Assad allowed Iran to arm Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon through Syria.

Map 1

The Israelis were divided about what would be best for Israel, and in the end it was decided that Israel would not support any side. Instead Israel would follow its own strategy in Syria. I must also say that by dong so the Israelis were trying to avoid angering either the Turks or the Russians.

However at the other side of the Golan Heights the Israelis decided that it would be better to have the Sunni Islamists than to have Iran, and therefore the Israelis started supporting some Sunni gangs against Iran and Hezbollah, in order to help them keep their positions at the Golan Heights. The Israelis even provided their wounded with medical care, and in return the Sunni gangs agreed not to attack Israel from the Golan Heights. According to the Tower the Israelis were also very closely monitoring whether these Sunni gangs had any connections with ISIS. I guess what the Tower wants to say is that Israel preferred to support at the other side of the Golan Heights some Sunni gangs who were supported by Saudi Arabia and not by Turkey.

The Israelis did not count only on the Sunni gangs at the other side of Golan to keep the Iranians and Hezbollah away, but they themselves targeted them on several occasions. The Tower mentions the event of January 2015, when the Israelis killed several officers of Iran and Hezbollah who were examining the other side of the Golan Heights.

The article also mentions that in several occasions the Israelis attacked in Syria Iranian shipments heading towards Hezbollah in South Lebanon. These operations became more complicated when the Russians brought to Syria their radars and their S-400 anti-aircraft missiles. But the Israelis and the Russians managed to reach an agreement, according to which the Iranians would not be allowed to provide Hezbollah with high-tech weapons, and if they did so, the Israelis would be allowed by the Russians to attack such shipments in Syria.

Map 2

http://static.euronews.com/articles/bonus/204482/1211-syria-israel-golan-heights-fighting-map.jpg

For the article see

“How Israel Navigated through the Hurricane of the Syrian Civil War”, March 2016

http://www.thetower.org/article/how-israel-navigated-through-the-hurricane-of-the-syrian-civil-war/

The American Strategy in Syria

I would like to describe the options faced by the United States in Syria, under the present geopolitical landscape. I am mainly talking about two issues i.e. the issue of the Syrian Kurds and the issue of the natural gas pipelines.

Map 1 Middle East

As far as the Kurds of Syria are concerned, things seem to be pretty simple. The Americans have proven their willingness to support them against the Sunni Islamists of Syria i.e. ISIS, who are supported by Turkey. The Americans pretend they do not see that the Kurds of Syria are cooperating with the Kurds of Turkey (PKK), and at the same time they put pressure on the Kurds of Syria to use the Americans guns only against the Sunni Islamists of Syria (ISIS) and not against Turkey in Turkey. Therefore the answer is simple to this question. The Americans will keep supporting the Kurds of Syria, unless they launch a big war against Turkey from Syria, which is very unlikely.

The harder question to answer is what the Americans can do on the issue of the natural gas pipelines. They only have 3 options on this one. The first one is to accept the current status quo in Syria, which is what the Russians want. Or go for 3 federal states, one Alawite, one Sunni and one Kurdish, but which will be designed in a way that will not allow the connection between Turkey and the Persian Gulf, in order for Russia to be happy.

Map 2

http://www.oil-price.net/cartoons/iran-iraq-syria-pipeline.jpg

The second strategy the United States can follow is to support Iran’s plans. Iran wants to reach the Mediterranean Sea through Syria and Iraq, something the Russians, the Turks and the Arabs of the Gulf do not want to see happening. The Russians proposed in the past the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, which would be constructed by Gazprom, but they did it to keep the Iranians and the Syrians happy, and not because it was an optimal solution for them. The Russians want Russian gas and oil to run in their pipelines.

 After the abolition of the economic sanctions, the Iranians do not need Gazprom to construct their pipelines. They can also obtain financing from the West. Therefore the United States could support Iran’s effort to reach the Mediterranean Sea through Iraq and Syria in order to enhance their alliance. But if the United States decide to do that they will have to fight a war with Russia at the Syrian coasts, and actually Russia will be supported by the Arabs of the Gulf and the Turks, who do not want to see Iran reaching the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore this does not seem to be a good option for the United States.

The third option the Americans have is to support, alongside the Turks and the Qataris, the Sunni pipeline i.e. the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. The argument will be that the pipeline will pass from the Sunni part of Syria, and it is not fair for the Sunni majority of Syria to be ruled by the Alawite minority, and therefore the Russians and the Iranians would have to accept the pipeline.

Map 3

However this kind of argumentation does not mean nothing, because we are talking about major Russian and Iranian economic interests. The Russians and the Iranians will say that Syria is one country, a that she is a traditional ally of Russia and Iran, and she cannot be used to hurt so vital Russian and Iranian interests. I think the Iranians would not be happy with the Federal solution proposed by Russia for Syria, because the Sunni federal state would block Iran’s access to the Mediterranean Sea. For the Russians it would be a good thing if the Iranians were blocked from reaching the Mediterranean Sea.

I am sure that the Americans like the idea of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, but it is very difficult for them to support it. The first problem is that the Germans, who are US allies, have constructed with the Russians the Russo-German pipelines (Nord Stream), and would not be willing to go to a war against Russia for the sake of the Arab-Turkish pipelines.

Map 4

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45871000/gif/_45871934_pipelinemap2.gif

The second problem is that the other US ally, Israel, has already allied with Russia against Turkey.

The third problem is that it is unlikely that the Saudis would be willing to go to a war with Russia for the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. The Saudis are not as rich as the Qataris in natural gas reserves, and they consume domestically all the natural gas they produce. Therefore for the Saudis it is much more important to block the Iranians in Syria and Lebanon, in order to prevent them from exporting their oil from the Mediterranean Sea, than to push for the Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline. That means that if the Russians were to guarantee that they will not allow Iran to reach the Mediterranean Sea, and if the Russians were willing to help the Saudis dominate Syria and Lebanon, where they are fighting with the Iranians for influence, the Saudis would have no motive to go to a war with Russia to support the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. Or even if they had the motive it is doubtful they would be willing to take all this trouble instead of reaching a descent peaceful deal.

The fourth problem is whether the French and the English would be willing to fight a war against Russia for the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. France is a strong Arab ally, and is helping her allies by asking the removal of Bashar al Assad from power. But would France really be willing to go to a war with Russia to help her enemy Turkey? There is Qatar of course. Qatar is a French ally and it buys billions in French weapons, and the French buy billions in Qatari gas and oil, and at the same time the French energy companies are working with the Qatari ones. But would the French be willing to go to a war with Russia for Qatar? And take into account that the Russians gave stakes to the Germans, the French, the British, the Dutch and the Austrians in the Nord Stream 2 project.

The other day the ex President of France, Nicola Sarkozy, said that Turkey is not good for the E.U. and whoever says Turkey should join the European Union wants the death of the E.U. He also said that Russia is much better for Europe.

Therefore given the current geopolitical landscape, the United States best option seems to be to let Russia block the Sunni and Shia pipelines, and simply go for a Kurdish state in Syria. To support the Sunni Pipelines would be very nice for the United States, but it could lead to bloodshed in Syria and the destruction of NATO.

The question is what would happen if Turkey was to cause a war with Russia, in order to force NATO in the fight. Remember that the other day the Foreign Minister of Luxemburg said that Turkey should not expect NATO to support her if she chooses to go to a war with Russia in Syria.

Therefore I am sure there is no question of German support for the Turks, and there are doubts about the French and British support. The question is what the United States would do if Turkey was to start a war with Russia? I really don’t know. But I do not know either whether Turkey would dare to send the Turkish army in Syria and go to a war with Russia, without guarantees from NATO. Erdogan and Davutoglu are risk takers, but would they go that far? I don’t know.

To make a long story short I will say that it seems the only thing the Americans can do in Syria is to go for a Kurdish federal state, and then accept Russia’s terms. Of course there is the question mark of what will happen if Turkey causes a war with Russia.

The Causes of the American Civil War (1861-1865)

Historians offer various explanations about the causes of the American Civil War (1861-1865). I do not know much about the subject, and I just want to briefly present the explanation put forward by some Austrian Economists, because it sounds reasonable.

At the time of the American Civil War, the American North was industrialized and it was trying to compete with the European industries. For that reason the North was asking for high tariffs on imports, in order to protect its industries.

On the contrary, the economy of the American South was based on agriculture. Many states were cotton economies that were also using black slaves from Africa, while slavery had been forbidden at the American North and Europe.

The South did not want high tariffs, because they did not want to pay for more expensive manufactured goods from the American North. The American North was not happy with that, and it was demanding the South to abolish slavery, which would however increase the cost of production of cotton.

At the time the South had more influence over the Democrats, and the North had more influence over the Republicans, and therefore most democrats were asking for slavery to be legal and for tariffs to be kept low, while most republicans were asking the opposite.

At the end of 1860 the Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected as President of the United States, and he decided to go ahead with the abolition of slavery and the introduction of high tariffs on imports. Some Southern States decided to leave the United States and form a separate state. The crisis that followed led to the American Civil War of 1861-1865. The North won the war and slavery was abolished while high tariffs were implemented.

“Root Causes”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

“Lincoln’s Tariff Wars”

https://mises.org/library/lincolns-tariff-war