Published on September 1st, 2013 | by Jo Borrás9
If the US Bombs Syria, Canada Stands to Profit
As I write this, warships are gathering in the Mediterranean sea and the Persian Gulf, ready to enter a civil war that’s been waging for years among Syria’s Sunni and Shiite Muslims. While the war has been going on for years, the conflict between the two groups has roots that go back much further, and it could be argued that the Office of the President of the United States – because of ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE – has a vested interest in making sure the Sunnis win. One thing that’s beyond dispute, however, is that American boots and bombs in Syria means OPEC’s oil prices will go sky-high, and Canada will make a killing.
Already, oil futures are trading at a 2-year high, with Brent October futures are above $115 per barrel and West Texas Intermediate blend (WTI) hit $110 on speculation unrest in Syria will disrupt oil shipments and supplies in the Middle East. That’s a surge of over 27% since this year’s April low and the highest oil has been since May 2011, when several sources claim that price-fixing and price-gouging among the big American oil refineries began in earnest.
So, the big winners in a US strike on Syria seem to be (in no particular order), Sunni Muslim extremists/rebels (aka Al-Quaeda), Saudi Arabia/OPEC (who have been vocal in opposing the use of alternative fuels and electric vehicles in the US), and Canada, whose Albertan tar sand operations only really make fiscal sense when oil is over $100/bbl.
Canada’s tar sands, by the way, have been opposed by the Bishop Desmond Tutu and called “the worst natural disaster in history” by Greenpeace. Meanwhile, the Canadian government and the TransCanada company have been lobbying hard to get US approval to build a number of pipelines (including the Keystone XL) across the the US in a bid to export Canadian oil to emerging markets. A war in Syria would make those pipelines, and Alberta’s oil reserves, much, MUCH more valuable.
So, what’s Canada’s official stance on the war? According to CTV reports, Canada’s in!
Despite less than 9% of Americans supporting military strikes against Syria and the British parliament voting against UK action, Canada’s CTV station reports that Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird moved into uncharted territory today, opening the door for possible Canadian participation in a military strike against Syria. “We are of one mind,” he said, “that these weapons have been used and a firm response is needed.”
Baird reportedly outlined what a strike may look like, saying “quick, limited and conducted primarily with cruise missiles and drones, a war designed to fight an enemy who has access to powerful weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction, and has demonstrated a willingness to use them,” and claims that the conflict is Syria “appears to be primarily sectarian in nature”, which means he’s wither stupid, or thinks the Canadian people are stupid enough to buy into his bulls***. Either way, the US will have “full political support” from Canada in the event of a strike, which may be a valuable commodity in the absence of UN sanctioning.
Won’t that be nice?