When Russia came to Syria’s aid in September 2015, one of the first things it did was to target and destroy Islamic State’s thriving oil export industry, bombing thousands of oil tankers taking oil from Syria’s eastern fields over the North East border into Turkey.

The massive scale of this oil theft was missed by the tunnel vision of Western media and institutions, and had met with no measurable resistance from NATO forces despite their presence in the region on the pretext of fighting the IS terrorist organization.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made his views known on this most revealing of failures at the G20 summit held in Antalya, Turkey two months later, while the Russian foreign ministry published aerial photos and videos of this virtual oil pipeline.

The evident collaboration of Turkey in this operation, both in enabling the export of oil from its Ceyhan terminal and in facilitating the shipping of weapons and supplies to ISIS in return, could hardly be denied – so it was ignored.

Shamed into acting against the IS tanker convoys by Russia, the US launched its own assault just days after the G20 meeting, while trying to take back the high ground by dropping warning leaflets before its bombs, and publishing drone footage of drivers leaving their trucks.

As with every other US operation against ISIS in Syria, the propaganda value was the first consideration, with the token destruction of a hundred or so tankers making dramatic news footage.

Nothing further could be expected given the long involvement of US firms in oil theft and export from over the border in Iraq, and desire to extend their control into Syria.

According to the above article, IS made $100 million from oil sales in 2014, according to the US Treasury.

They would know.

While Russia’s interference in the nice little earner east of the Euphrates was a set-back for the Caliphate, this was soon followed by an intensified push by US proxy forces to take over control of Syria’s oilfields from IS, and protect them from the Syrian Army and its allies.

The US bombing of the bridges over the Euphrates south of Raqqa and west of Deir al Zour was both a war crime and a signal of US intent; if Syria wanted its territory back Syrian soldiers would have to suffer and die for it.

And so they did, but without making any permanent gains.

As far as Syria is concerned, the situation regarding both its territory and access to its own fuel resources continues to deteriorate, where that of the US and its proxy forces continues to increase and consolidate.

A recent long and detailed analysis of Syrian resources from a US academic, Dr Gary Busch, puts it like this: There is a major battle going on for control of the Syrian oil and gas industry among the US, the Russians, the Iranians and the Turks.(NB not the Syrians!) The US operates through the Kurdish forces of the SDF in the region which controls the oil fields in the northeast of the country.

It contains 95 percent of all Syrian oil and gas potential, including al-Omar, the country’s largest oil field.

Prior to the war, these resources produced some 387,000 barrels of oil per day and 7.8 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually.

However, more significantly, nearly all the existing Syrian oil reserves – estimated at around 2.5 billion barrels – are located in the area currently occupied by the Kurds and the SDF The SDF and the Kurds have an advantage.

Not only are they selling oil to Assad, they are able to take the Syrian oil through to Iraqi Kurdistan where it can be refined and sent out through the Ceyhan pipeline to the world markets without sanctions. Whereas the gas still flows to Syria and keeps its power stations operating, the Oil reserves available within Syrian control west of the Euphrates only supply around 25,000 barrels a day.

Whitney Webb described the US control – or extortion – of the Syrian government’s access to its own resources in April last year, noting the involvement of energy companies linked to the US administration: With the US now occupying the area, the oil and gas produced in this region are already benefiting US energy corporations to which Trump and his administration have numerous ties. According to Yeni Şafak, the US along with the Saudis, Egypt, and Kurdish officials held meetings where decisions were made to extract, process and market the fossil fuels harvested in the region, with the Kurds being given a handsome share of the profits. Syria’s Kurdistan exports its oil to Iraq’s Kurdistan, with which it conveniently shares a border, and it is then refined and sold to Turkey.

Though no corporations are publicly involved, the deal between Syrian and Iraqi Kurds was brokered by unnamed “oil experts” and “oil investors.” The Kurds in Syria and Iraq did not even sign the agreement in person.

They were subsequently “informed” of the agreement by the United States and instructed to supervise the operation. Given that over 80 foreign companies are involved in the KRG’s oil trade, most of them US-based, we can safely assume that many of the same players have also been involved in developing the oil trade of Syria’s Kurdistan.

ExxonMobil for instance, unilaterally brokered an oil deal with Iraqi Kurds behind the back of the Iraqi government and has expressed interest in developing Syrian oil interests in the portion of the country currently occupied by the US It should, of course, be noted that “Syrian Kurdistan” is not an entity recognized by the Syrian Government and has no authority to extract and sell Syria’s oil, even to the Syrian government.

But “Syrian Kurdistan” makes up the other half of John Bolton’s “Sunnistan” when combined with the resource-rich area of Northern Iraq seized by US interests following the 1990 Gulf War, and consolidated after 2003 under Kurdish control.

Whitney Webb again, describes the background and prospects for Bolton’s malignant vision in this article from six months ago, that might now be called prophetic.

Not only does the Bolton-led campaign against Iran appear to be intensifying towards breaking point following the staged tanker attacks and imminent US strikes on Iranian defenses following Iran’s shooting down the US Global Hawk, but it appears that the US just set another trap to lure Iran into war.

This incident barely made the news, because Iran didn’t take the bait, and the rain fell on Trump’s parade; Moon of Alabama proposes what seems a likely, but deeply troubling explanation for the latest US flight over Iranian territory in the Gulf, on the 31st anniversary of the USS Vincennes attack on an Iranian airliner.

That anniversary happens to be on July 3rd and MoA suggests this second extreme provocation by the US was timed to suit the Independence day agenda.

The trajectory of the USAF signal intelligence plane, which was sending out a false identifier, took it directly over two Iranian islands guarding the Straits of Hormuz.

It is hard to see any explanation for this action other than as a direct attempt to draw Iran into war.

Despite its failure, the malign intent of the US regime cannot now be doubted.

However, at the same time as this was taking place, a very public action against Iran was effected in those other straights – of Gibraltar.

In an action long-planned and instantly celebrated by its mastermind John Bolton, the US delivered a double blow to its antagonists in the Middle East.

What appeared to most to be an action against Iran, impounding 2 million barrels - $120 million worth – of Iranian oil, was actually intended to strengthen the Western choke-hold on Syria.

In fact, the justification for this act of political piracy was that EU sanctions on Syria prohibited its importation of oil.

In a similar way the EU has been used by the US to legitimize its illegal actions against Iran.

In both cases, this facilitates the ongoing US occupation and exploitation of Syrian and Iraqi oil resources and the development of the “former Caliphate” as a regional strategic bridgehead for the campaign to take back Iran.

The overall strategy, an effective strangulation to force Syria to her knees - where bullets have failed, is well described by the Syrian opposition-affiliated group Enab Baladi: Economic analyst Munaf Quman added in an interview with Enab Baladi: “If the US prevents the SDF from supplying the regime with petroleum trucks, and if any land or sea shipment of oil destined for Syria from Iran is targeted, the regime will only be left with the fields and wells under its control, which would be enough to cover up only a small portion of its needs.

As a result, the country will face a significant rise in food prices and a devaluation of the Syrian lira.” The Syrian market needs a daily minimum of 4.5 million liters of gasoline, six million liters of diesel oil, seven thousand tons of fuel and 1,200 tons of gas, the President of the Syrian Economic Task Force, Osama Kadi, told Enab Baladi. If this is accomplished, it will allow the SDF to impose their political conditions in the negotiations with the regime after lengthy discussions between the two sides, during the previous year, which did not lead to any agreement. However, Kadi believes that the SDF are just an American tool in Syria.

They cannot violate US orders, and any negotiation process they conduct with the regime will be closely monitored by the Americans.

This is a test of the seriousness of economic sanctions to push for a political solution, as Kadi put it.

He pointed out that the fuel artery from eastern regions that may ease the crisis is a card with which the Americans pressure the regime to accept the political solution. Perhaps we should start thinking about what we might offer the Iranians as they start to choke off our own economic lifeblood coming through the Straits of Hormuz.

A full and immediate withdrawal of US coalition forces and their proxies from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan would be the least they might accept