Iran: World’s top oil pipeline developer

Global Energy Monitor, in a recent report, has said Iran is the world’s top country in terms of oil pipelines under construction.

Based on the report, the Iranian Oil Ministry is also among the world’s top oil pipeline developers.

According to new data from Global Energy Monitor, Africa, and West Asia are home to 49% of all oil transmission pipelines under construction globally at a cost of US$25.3 billion.

The 2023 annual survey of data in the Global Oil Infrastructure Tracker shows that these regions together are building 4,400 kilometers (km) of crude oil transmission pipelines at an estimated capital expenditure of US$14.4 billion.

An additional 10,800 km are proposed in these regions at an estimated cost of US$59.8 billion.

Globally, there are 9,100 km of oil transmission pipelines under construction and an additional 21,900 km of proposed pipelines. These pipelines in development are estimated to cost US$131.9 billion in capital expenditure.

The total 31,000 km of oil pipelines in development globally represents an increase of nearly 30% from this time last year.

The leading five countries in terms of in-development pipelines (proposed and under construction) are Iran, the United States, India, Iraq, and Tanzania.

The top five parent companies developing oil pipelines are state-owned enterprises and private companies, including Iran’s Oil Ministry, the China National Petroleum Corporation, Iraq’s Ministry of Oil, India’s Numaligarh Refinery Limited, and France’s TotalEnergies.

The longest pipeline projects under construction are the 1,950-km Niger–Benin Oil Pipeline and the Paradip Numaligarh Crude Pipeline (PNCPL) in India, both slated to start operating in 2024.

Canada is home to the third-largest pipeline project under construction, the 980-km Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX), expected to start in 2023 as an expansion to the existing Trans Mountain Oil Pipeline.

Arab foreign ministers affirm priority of resolving Syrian crisis

The Arab foreign ministers affirmed on Monday the priority of resolving Syria's crisis through a political settlement that would safeguard its sovereignty and meet the people's aspirations.

During the meeting held in Amman with the participation of the foreign ministers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt, they called for creating proper conditions for safe and voluntary return of the Syrian refugees to their homeland.

Additionally, they called to rid Syria of terrorism, withdrawing all illegitimate foreign forces from the country and achieving national conciliation.

The foreign ministers also exchanged views on the efforts exerted to reach a political solution to the Syrian crisis, which would contribute to ending all its repercussions and preserving its unity, security, stability, and Arab identity.

This is in addition to returning it to its Arab surroundings, in a way that achieves prosperity for the Syrian people.

At the end of the meeting, they confirmed that there will be more meetings at this level in the future to work on attaining the objectives outlined in the Security Council Resolution 2254.

It is noteworthy that the meeting held in Amman comes as a follow-up to a gathering that comprised foreign ministers of the GCC states with their peers from Jordan, Iraq and Egypt on Syria, which was held in Saudi Arabia on April 14, 2023.

Jordan to host talks on Syria’s return to Arab League

Jordan will host a meeting of Arab foreign ministers and Syria's top diplomat on Monday to discuss Syria's return to the Arab League as part of a broader political settlement of Syria's more than decade-old conflict, officials said.

The meeting, to be attended by Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad and his counterparts from Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, would discuss a Jordanian plan to achieve a political settlement of the conflict, Jordanian government officials said.

The meeting comes two weeks after talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia between the Gulf Cooperation Council, as well as Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, failed to reach agreement on Syria's possible return to the Arab fold.

It is the first such meeting with a top Syrian official by a group of Arab states - most of whom endorsed the move to suspend Syria's membership of the League in 2011 after a crackdown on protesters denouncing President Bashar al-Assad's authoritarian rule escalated into a devastating civil war.

Arab states and those most affected by the conflict are trying to reach consensus on whether to invite Assad to the Arab League summit on May 19 in Riyadh, to discuss the pace of normalizing ties with Assad and on what terms Syria could be allowed back.

Officials said the Jordanian initiative calls on Damascus to engage with Arab governments collectively on a step-by-step road map to end the conflict.

It would include tackling the issue of refugees, the fate of thousands of missing detainees, drug smuggling between Syria and the Gulf through Jordan and the presence of Iranian militias in Syria.

Regional superpower Saudi Arabia has resisted normalizing relations with Assad but said after its rapprochement with Iran - Syria's key regional ally - a new approach was needed with Damascus, which is under Western sanctions.

At the Jeddah meeting there was resistance to the move to invite Assad to the Arab League summit, with Qatar, Jordan and Kuwait saying it was premature before Damascus accepts to negotiate a peace plan.

Jordan's foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, met on Sunday with visiting US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf, officials said.

Washington does not wish to change its policy towards the Syrian government which it terms a ‘rogue’ state, has urged Arab states that have shifted their stance to get something in return for engaging with Assad once again.

Even one American in Iraq is too many, says Iranian President

The United States is an unreliable friend, and Iraq should not allow any US troops on its territory, Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told visiting Iraqi President Abdul Latif Rashid on Saturday.

Iran, which has strong ties with Iraq, opposes the US military presence on its borders in Iraq and the Gulf, saying Western military intervention is the root of insecurity in the region.

"Americans are not friends of Iraq. Americans are not friends with anyone and are not even loyal to their European friends," state media quoted Khamenei as saying.

US national security agencies are investigating after a leak of classified documents has suggested the United States spied on allies including Ukraine.

"Even the presence of one American in Iraq is too much," Khamenei told Rashid, who was in Tehran with a delegation to boost ties between the two neighbours.

The United States has some 2,500 troops in Iraq to help advice and assist local troops in combating Islamic State, which in 2014 seized territory in the country.

"Iraq's main effort is to deepen relations with Iran and resolve certain remaining issues between the two countries," Rashid was quoted as saying, without referring to Iraq's ties with the United States.

OPEC Plus gaining control of oil market

According to M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat, the recent shocking oil production cuts from May outlined by the OPEC Plus essentially means that eight key OPEC countries decided to join hands with Russia to reduce oil production, signaling that OPEC and OPEC Plus are now back in control of the oil market.

No single oil producing country is acting as the Pied Piper here. The great beauty about it is that Saudi Arabia and seven other major OPEC countries have unexpectedly decided to support Russia’s efforts and unilaterally reduce production.

While the eight OPEC countries are talking about a reduction of one million barrels per day (bpd) from May to the end of 2023, Russia will extend for the same period its voluntary adjustment that already started in March, by 500,000 barrels.

Now, add to this the production adjustments already decided by the OPEC Plus previously, and the total additional voluntary production adjustments touch a whopping 1.6 million bpd.

Fundamentally, many analysts had forewarned, the Western sanctions against Russian oil creating distortions and anomalies in the oil market and upsetting the delicate ecosystem of supply and demand, which were compounded by the incredibly risky decision by the G7, at the behest of the US Treasury, to impose a price cap on Russia’s oil sales abroad.

On top of it, the Biden administration’s provocative moves to release oil regularly from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve in attempts to micromanage the oil prices and keep them abnormally low in the interests of the American consumer as well as to keep the inflationary pressures under check turned out to be an affront to the oil-producing countries whose economies critically depend on income from oil exports.

The OPEC Plus calls the production cuts a precautionary measure aimed at supporting the stability of the oil market. In the downstream of the OPEC Plus decision, analysts expect the oil prices to rise in the short term and pressure on Western central banks to increase due to the possible spike in inflation.

What stands out in the OPEC Plus decision is that Russia’s decision to reduce oil production by the end of the year has been unanimously supported by the main Arab producers.

Independent but time-coordinated statements were made by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Algeria, Oman and Kazakhstan, while Russia confirmed its intention to extend until the end of the year its own production reduction by 500,000 barrels per day, which began in March.

Significantly, these statements have been made precisely by those largest oil producers in OPEC, who have a record of fully utilizing their existing quota. Put differently, the reduction in production is going to be real, not just on paper.

Partly at least, the banking crisis in the US and Europe prompted the OPEC Plus to intervene. Although Washington will downplay it, in March, Brent oil prices fell to US$70 per barrel for the first time since 2021 amid the bankruptcy of several banks in the US and the near-death experience of Credit Suisse, one of the largest banks in Switzerland. The events sparked concern about the stability of the Western banking system and fear of a recession that would affect oil demand.

There is every likelihood that tensions may increase between the US and Saudi Arabia as higher oil prices will push inflation and make it even more difficult for the US Federal Reserve to find a balance between raising the key rate and maintaining financial and economic stability.

Equally, the Biden administration must be furious that practical cooperation is still continuing between Russia and the OPEC countries, especially Saudi Arabia, notwithstanding the West’s price cap on Russian oil and Moscow’s decision to unilaterally cut production in March.

However, the Biden administration has only a limited range of options to respond to the OPEC Plus surprise move, one, go for another release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; two, pressure US producers to increase domestic oil output; three, back legislation that would allow the United States to take the dramatic step of suing OPEC nations; and, four, curb the US export of gasoline and diesel.

To be sure, the OPEC Plus production cut goes against the Western demand to increase oil output even as sanctions were imposed against Russian oil and gas exports. On the other hand, the disruption in oil supplies from Russia contributed to the rising inflation in the EU countries.

The US wanted the Gulf Arab states to step in and step-up oil production. But the latter did not oblige because they felt that there wasn’t enough economic activity in the West and there were clear signs of recession contrary to expectation.

Thus, as a result of the sanctions against Russia, Europe is facing the complex situation of inflation and near-recession known as stagflation.  In reality, the adaptive and agile OPEC Plus read the situation correctly and has shown that it is willing to act ahead of the curve.

At a time when the world economy is struggling to grow at a healthy rate, the demand for oil would be relatively less, and it makes sense to cut oil production to maintain the price balance.

All that the Western leaders can complain about is that the OPEC Plus cut in oil output has come at an inappropriate time. But the woes of Western economies cannot be laid at the door of OPEC Plus as there are inherent problems which are now coming to the surface.

For instance, the large-scale protests in France against pension reform or the widespread strikes in Britain for higher wages show that there are deep structural problems in these economies, and the governments seem helpless in tackling them.

In geopolitical terms, the OPEC Plus move came after a meeting between Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman in Riyadh on March 16 that focused on oil market cooperation. Therefore, it is widely seen as the tightening of the bond between Russia and Saudi Arabia.

In fact, in May, as the largest members of OPEC join Russia in its unilateral reduction, the balance of quotas and the ratio of market shares between and amongst the participants in the OPEC Plus deal will return to the level set when it was concluded in April 2020.

The rise in crude oil prices particularly benefits Russia. Simply put, the production cuts will tighten up the oil market and thus help Russia to secure better prices for the crude oil it sells. Second, the new cuts also confirm that Russia is still an integral and important part of the group of oil producing countries, despite the Western attempts to isolate it. Third, the consequences of the decision are all the greater because, unlike the previous cuts by the OPEC+ group at the height of the pandemic or last October, today, the momentum for global oil demand is up, not down—what with a strong recovery by China expected.

That is to say, the surprise OPEC Plus reduction further consolidates the Saudi-Russian energy alliance, by aligning their production levels, thus placing them on equal footing. It is a slap in the face for Washington.

Make no mistake, this is another signal regarding a new era where the Saudis are not afraid of the US anymore, as the OPEC leverage is on Riyadh’s side.

The Saudis are only doing what they need to do, and the White House has no say in the matter. Clearly, a recasting of the regional and global dynamics that has been set in motion lately is gathering momentum. The future of the petrodollar seems increasingly uncertain.

 

Iraq key destination of Chinese investment

In recent years, Iraq has become one of the leading destinations for Chinese investments in the Middle East and a crucial link in Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

To capitalize on its geostrategic location and central position within the Chinese BRI, Iraq is seeking to develop a sprawling new 54-square-kilometer port project in the far southern town of al-Faw, known as al-Faw Grand Port, which will reduce the country’s reliance on Arab Gulf ports and overland transit from Iran and Turkey for its imports.

The project also underscores Iraq’s growing economic rivalry with neighboring Iran, as both countries seek to carve out a similar niche in handling regional transit traffic.

A number of hurdles have hampered Iraq’s efforts to diversify its economy, including extreme underinvestment and widespread corruption. There are some signs that change may be on the horizon.

Earlier this month, Baghdad reached an agreement with France’s TotalEnergies to move forward with a massive, long-delayed US$27 billion energy project, highlighting the potential for foreign investment and partnerships to contribute to Iraq’s economic growth and development.

This follows an earlier deal, announced in July 2021, between the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and China National Chemical Engineering Co. (CNCEC), whereby CNCEC will develop an integrated petrochemicals and refining complex at al-Faw capable of producing 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil as well as, in a later second phase, 3 million tons per annum (mtpa) of petrochemicals.

International companies are increasingly showing interest in investing in Iraq's energy and infrastructure sectors in particular. This could help to improve the country’s economic prospects and reduce its reliance on oil exports, which accounted for 95% of its federal budget revenue in 2022.

The success of projects like these will depend on a range of factors, including security conditions, political stability, and the government’s ability to create a favorable investment climate.

The al-Faw project includes the construction of a new port, dry dock, oil terminal, dry canal, and associated transportation infrastructure, and once completed, it is expected to become one of the main pillars of Iraq's economy. According to recent reports, phase one is set to be finished in 2025 and will have the capacity to handle 20-45 mtpa of cargo.

The dry canal will provide land connectivity to the Turkish border via road and rail, linking up with port and rail infrastructure in Turkey, especially in Mersin and Istanbul. If successfully completed, al-Faw could leverage its location and connectivity with Turkey and Syria to become a leading container terminal and one of the largest ports in the world.

In December 2022, Basra hosted the second al-Faw International Conference, the focus of which was to highlight the al-Faw port and dry canal. Iraq’s central goal is to link this project with China's broader BRI and bill it as part of an alternative route to the Suez Canal and the North-South Corridor. China’s overall investment in the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey between 2005 and 2022 totaled US$273 billion.

Iraq has become an increasingly important partner for China in recent years, with a particular focus on the energy sector. Beijing inked deals with Baghdad worth US$10.5 billion in 2021 alone.

Chinese companies have secured contracts to develop and operate several major oil and gas assets, including the Rumaila and Halfaya oil fields. Chinese firms have also been involved in building and operating power plants and other infrastructure projects in Iraq, in addition to investing in telecommunications and agriculture. China's investments have contributed significantly to Iraq’s economic development and have strengthened economic ties between the two countries.

The focus on al-Faw and China’s investments in Iraq has also underscored neighboring Iran’s limited role in international transit and trade, an area in which Tehran punches far below its weight. Given its central location and status as a land bridge between South and Central Asia and the Middle East, Iran should play a major role in both the East-West and North-South corridors — the former connects the Caucasus, Central Asia, and China to the Middle East and Europe via Iran, while the latter links Russia and Central Asia to the Persian Gulf and India through Iran — but Tehran has not capitalized on either opportunity.

Despite its natural advantages, Iran has failed to become an important strategic hub for the transportation of goods due to a combination of factors, including economic sanctions, political instability, and outdated transportation infrastructure, especially for railways and ports.

The development of al-Faw Port in Iraq could represent a further challenge to Iran’s aspirations in this area. Ali Hosseini, the head of the Transport and Logistics Commission of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, believes that, in the future, al-Faw will become a major competitor for Iran.

With help from Turkey and the UAE, Iraq is trying to link al-Faw to Iraq’s national railway and connect that railway to Turkey in the north, creating an alternative transportation corridor that will likely have a negative impact on Iran's transit traffic to Turkey.

At present, an estimated 90% of transit traffic through Iran moves by road. While there is an existing railway between Iran and Turkey, it is limited and often disrupted by political tensions between the two countries.

The volume of trade between Iran and Turkey is significant, reaching US$6.42 billion in 2022, up from US$5.59 billion the year before, but the lack of reliable transportation infrastructure has hindered its growth.

Officials in Tehran have accused the United States of interference and suggested that Baghdad is under pressure from Washington to impede Iran’s development of a viable north-west transit corridor.

They also claim that Turkey is exerting influence on Iraq to back its railway link to Asia, in line with Ankara’s ambition of becoming a regional hub for energy and communication.

As a result, it is highly likely that Iran will use Iraq’s actions in this space as leverage in their bilateral negotiations over energy and agricultural trade, and this could potentially strain the relationship between the two countries in the future.

 

United States always soliciting war, not peace

In a brilliant op-ed published in the New York Times, the Quincy Institute's Trita Parsi explained how China, with help from Iraq, was able to mediate and resolve the deeply-rooted conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, whereas the United States was in no position to do so after siding with the Saudi kingdom against Iran for decades.

The title of Parsi's article, "The US is not an indispensable peacemaker", refers to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's use of the term "indispensable nation" to describe the US role in the post Cold War world.

The irony in Parsi's use of Albright's term is that she generally used it to refer to US war-making, not peacemaking. In 1998, Albright toured the Middle East and then the United States to rally support for President Clinton's threat to bomb Iraq. After failing to win support in the Middle East, she was confronted by heckling and critical questions during a televised event at Ohio State University, and she appeared on the Today Show the next morning to respond to public opposition in a more controlled setting.

Albright claimed, "..if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see here the danger to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life."

Albright's readiness to take the sacrifices of American troops for granted had already got her into trouble when she famously asked General Colin Powell, "What's the use of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Powell wrote in his memoirs, "I thought I would have an aneurysm."

But Powell himself later caved to the neocons, or the "fucking crazies" as he called them in private, and dutifully read the lies they made up to try to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq to the UN Security Council in February 2003.

For the past 25 years, administrations of both parties have caved to the "crazies" at every turn. Albright and the neocons' exceptionalist rhetoric, now standard fare across the US political spectrum, leads the United States into conflicts all over the world, in an unequivocal, Manichean way that defines the side it supports as the side of good and the other side as evil, foreclosing any chance that the United States can later play the role of an impartial or credible mediator.

Today, this is true in the war in Yemen, where the US chose to join a Saudi-led alliance that committed systematic war crimes, instead of remaining neutral and preserving its credibility as a potential mediator.

It also applies, most notoriously, to the US blank check for endless Israeli aggression against the Palestinians, which doom its mediation efforts to failure.

For China, however, it is precisely its policy of neutrality that has enabled it to mediate a peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the same applies to the African Union's successful peace negotiations in Ethiopia, and to Turkey's promising mediation between Russia and Ukraine, which might have ended the slaughter in Ukraine in its first two months but for American and British determination to keep trying to pressure and weaken Russia.

Neutrality has become anathema to US policymakers. George W. Bush's threat, "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists," has become an established, if unspoken, core assumption of 21st century US foreign policy.

The response of the American public to the cognitive dissonance between our wrong assumptions about the world and the real world they keep colliding with has been to turn inward and embrace an ethos of individualism.

This can range from New Age spiritual disengagement to a chauvinistic America First attitude. Whatever form it takes for each of us, it allows us to persuade ourselves that the distant rumble of bombs, albeit mostly American ones, is not our problem.

The US corporate media has validated and increased our ignorance by drastically reducing foreign news coverage and turning TV news into a profit-driven echo chamber peopled by pundits in studios who seem to know even less about the world than the rest of us.

Most US politicians now rise through the legal bribery system from local to state to national politics, and arrive in Washington knowing next to nothing about foreign policy. This leaves them as vulnerable as the public to neocon clichés like the ten or twelve packed into Albright's vague justification for bombing Iraq: freedom, democracy, the American way of life, stand tall, the danger to all of us, we are America, indispensable nation, sacrifice, American men and women in uniform, and "we have to use force."

Faced with such a solid wall of nationalistic drivel, Republicans and Democrats alike have left foreign policy firmly in the experienced but deadly hands of the neocons, who have brought the world only chaos and violence for 25 years.

All but the most principled progressive or libertarian members of Congress go along to get along with policies so at odds with the real world that they risk destroying it, whether by ever-escalating warfare or by suicidal inaction on the climate crisis and other real-world problems that we must cooperate with other countries to solve if we are to survive.

It is no wonder that Americans think the world's problems are insoluble and that peace is unattainable, because our country has so totally abused its unipolar moment of global dominance to persuade us that that is the case. But these policies are choices, and there are alternatives, as China and other countries are dramatically demonstrating.

President Lula da Silva of Brazil is proposing to form a "peace club" of peacemaking nations to mediate an end to the war in Ukraine, and this offers new hope for peace.

During his election campaign and his first year in office, President Biden repeatedly promised to usher in a new era of American diplomacy, after decades of war and record military spending. Zach Vertin, now a senior adviser to UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield wrote in 2020 that Biden's effort to "rebuild a decimated State Department" should include setting up a "mediation support unit… staffed by experts whose sole mandate is to ensure our diplomats have the tools they need to succeed in waging peace."

Biden's meager response to this call from Vertin and others was finally unveiled in March 2022, after he dismissed Russia's diplomatic initiatives and Russia invaded Ukraine.

The State Department's new Negotiations Support Unit consists of three junior staffers quartered within the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. This is the extent of Biden's token commitment to peacemaking, as the barn door swings in the wind and the four horsemen of the apocalypse - War, Famine, Conquest and Death - run wild across the Earth.

As Zach Vertin wrote, "It is often assumed that mediation and negotiation are skills readily available to anyone engaged in politics or diplomacy, especially veteran diplomats and senior government appointees. But that is not the case. Professional mediation is a specialized, often highly technical, tradecraft in its own right."

The mass destruction of war is also specialized and technical, and the United States now invests close to a trillion dollars per year in it. The appointment of three junior State Department staffers to try to make peace in a world threatened and intimidated by their own country's trillion-dollar war machine only reaffirms that peace is not a priority for the US government.

By contrast, the European Union created its Mediation Support Team in 2009 and now has 20 team members working with other teams from individual EU countries. The UN's Department of Political and Peace Building Affairs has a staff of 4,500, spread all across the world.

The tragedy of American diplomacy today is that it is diplomacy for war, not for peace. The State Department's top priorities are not to make peace, nor even to actually win wars, which the United States has failed to do since 1945, apart from the reconquest of small neocolonial outposts in Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait.

Its actual priorities are to bully other countries to join US-led war coalitions and buy US weapons, to mute calls for peace in international fora, to enforce illegal and deadly coercive sanctions, and to manipulate other countries into sacrificing their people in US proxy wars.

The result is to keep spreading violence and chaos across the world. If we want to stop our rulers from marching us toward nuclear war, climate catastrophe, and mass extinction, we had better take off our blinders and start insisting on policies that reflect our best instincts and our common interests, instead of the interests of the warmongers and merchants of death who profit from war.

 

Saudi Arabia, Russia announce oil output cuts

Saudi Arabia and other OPEC Plus oil producers on Sunday announced voluntary cuts to their production, with Riyadh saying it would cut output by 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) from May until the end of 2023.

Russia's Deputy Prime Minister also said Moscow would extend a voluntary cut of 500,000 bpd until the end of 2023.

The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman and Algeria said they would voluntarily cut output over the same time period.

The UAE said it would cut production by 144,000 bpd, Kuwait announced a cut of 128,000 bpd while Iraq said it would cut output by 211,000 bpd and Oman announced a cut of 40,000 bpd. Algeria said it would cut its output by 48,000 bpd.

The Saudi Energy Ministry said in a statement that the kingdom's voluntary cut was a precautionary measure aimed at supporting the stability of the oil market.

Russia will extend 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) oil production cut until the end of the year, Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said on Sunday.

Russia announced the move within minutes of statements by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates that they were also reducing output until the end of the year. Russia is part of OPEC Plus, which groups the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies.

"Acting as a responsible market participant and as a precautionary measure against further market volatility, the Russian Federation will implement a voluntary cut of 500 thousand barrels per day till the end of 2023, from the average production level as assessed by the secondary sources for the month of February," Novak said in a statement.

The announcement means Russia has now twice extended the output cut that Novak first announced in February this year.

Novak said on Feb. 10 that Russia would reduce production by 500,000 bpd in March. On March 21, he said the cut would continue until the end of June.

On March 24, Novak said Russia was very close to reaching the targeted level of output, which he said would be 9.5 million bpd.

 

Baghdad-KRG deal to resume oil exports

Iraq's federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) are close to striking a deal aimed at resuming northern oil exports, four sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters on Saturday.

Turkey stopped pipeline flows from the Kirkuk fields in northern Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region to its port of Ceyhan on March 25, after it lost an arbitration case brought by Baghdad.

In the case, Iraq accused Turkey of violating their 1973 pipeline agreement by allowing the Kurdish government to export oil without Baghdad's consent between 2014 and 2018.

The halted flows of around 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) only accounted for about 0.5% of global oil supply, but the stoppage, which forced oil firms operating in the region to halt output or move production into rapidly-filling storage tanks, still helped boost oil prices last week back to near US$80/bbl.

An initial agreement between the two sides states that Iraq's northern oil exports will be jointly exported by Iraq's state-owned marketing company SOMO and the KRG's ministry of natural resources (MNR), according to two of the sources – a senior Iraqi oil official and a KRG official.

Revenues will be deposited in an account managed by the MNR and supervised by Baghdad, the KRG official said.

The preliminary agreement has been sent to Iraq's prime minister for final approval, according to two of the sources. The KRG source expects the deal to be confirmed by Monday.

The KRG declined to comment. Iraq's oil ministry spokesman could not immediately be reached outside regular business hours.

Baghdad and the KRG have agreed to continue meetings following the resumption of oil exports to find solutions to other lingering problems.

"[These include] the contracts of the foreign companies operating in Kurdistan and the Kurdish debts," the senior Iraqi oil official said.

With its oil exports at a standstill, Kurdistan had halted repayments to energy traders including Vitol and Petraco on crude cargo deals worth US$6 billion, trading sources said.

Another sticking point in discussions so far has come from the Turkish side.

A second arbitration case relating to the 1973 pipeline agreement for the period from 2018 onwards remains open, and one source said this could take around two years to settle.

Turkey wants that case resolved before reopening the pipeline, three sources told Reuters.

A Turkish senior official said Turkey has yet to be informed about the initial agreement by the KRG or federal Iraqi officials and that discussions are ongoing.

OPEC Plus likely to stick to its output quota

OPEC Plus is likely to stick to its existing deal to cut oil output at a meeting on Monday, five delegates from the producer group told Reuters, after oil prices recovered following a drop to 15-month lows.

Oil has recovered towards US$80 a barrel for Brent crude after falling to near US$70 on March 20, as fears ease about a global banking crisis and as a halt in exports from Iraq's Kurdistan region curbs supplies.

OPEC Plus, which comprises the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies led by Russia, is due to hold a virtual meeting of its ministerial monitoring panel, which includes Russia and Saudi Arabia, on Monday.

"It is hard to expect any new development," one of the delegates said of Monday's talks. Another said the Kurdistan curbs and recent price drops were not sufficiently important to affect the overall OPEC Plus policy path for 2023.

Three other OPEC Plus delegates also said any policy changes were unlikely on Monday. After those talks, the next full OPEC Plus meeting is not until June.

Falling oil prices are a problem for most OPEC Plus members because their economies rely heavily on oil revenue.

Even so, OPEC Plus delegates did not raise any suggestion of further action to support the market after the recent price drop and predicted prices would stabilize - which they have since shown signs of doing.

Last November, OPEC Plus reduced its output target by 2 million barrels per day - the largest cut since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The same reduction applies for the whole of 2023.

Saudi Arabia's energy minister has said OPEC Plus will stick to the reduced target until the end of the year.

 

Iraq halts northern crude oil exports to Turkey

Iraq halted 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude exports from the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region and northern Kirkuk fields on Saturday, an oil official told Reuters, after the country won a longstanding arbitration case against Turkey.

In a case dating from 2014, Baghdad claimed that Turkey violated a joint agreement by allowing the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to export oil through a pipeline to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Baghdad deems KRG exports as illegal.

"Iraq was officially informed by the International Court of Arbitration final ruling on Thursday and it was in favour of Iraq," a senior oil ministry official said.

Turkey informed Iraq that it will respect the arbitration ruling, a source said.

Turkish shipping officials told Iraqi employees at Turkey's Ceyhan oil export hub that no ship will be allowed to load Kurdish crude without the approval of the Iraqi government, according to a document seen by Reuters.

Turkey subsequently halted the pumping of Iraqi crude from the pipeline that leads to Ceyhan, a separate document seen by Reuters showed.

On Saturday, Iraq stopped pumping oil through its side of the pipeline which runs from its northern Kirkuk oil fields, one of the officials told Reuters.

Iraq had been pumping 370,000 bpd of KRG crude and 75,000 bpd of federal crude through the pipeline before it was halted, according to a source familiar with pipeline operations.

"A delegation from the oil ministry will travel to Turkey soon to meet energy officials to agree on new mechanism to export Iraq's northern crude oil in line with the arbitration ruling," a second oil ministry official said.

Al-Qasabi meets with Iraqi Prime Minister

Minister of Commerce and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Authority for Foreign Trade Dr. Majid Bin Abdullah Al-Qasabi, who is also the head of the Saudi side of the Saudi-Iraqi Coordination Council, is visiting Iraq to strengthen economic relations between the two countries and follow up on the outcomes of the Saudi-Iraqi Coordination Council.

During the visit, Al-Qasabi met with the Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani, conveying greetings and appreciation from Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman and the Crown Prince, wishing Iraq further progress and prosperity.

The minister also met with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Planning Dr. Muhammad Ali Tamim (Head of the Iraqi side of the Saudi-Iraqi Coordination Council), the Iraqi Minister of Trade Atheer Al-Ghurairy, and the President of the Supreme Judicial Council Dr. Faiq Zaidan.

The meetings dealt with ways of consolidating the strategic partnership within the framework of the Saudi-Iraqi Coordination Council.

The Coordination Council aims to enhance communication between the two countries and to elevate bilateral relations in various fields, including economics, development, security, investment, tourism, culture, and media.

Iranian presence in neighboring countries in oil and gas exploration

Director of Exploration of National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) stated that currently Iran has oil and gas exploration relations with four neighboring countries. Transferring exploration technologies to neighboring countries is creating value and generating income for Iran.

Making the remarks in a press conference, Mehdi Fakour said that exploration has a special status in the oil industry, stressing that exploration maps the country's energy future.

The transfer of exploration technologies to neighboring countries can create value and generate income, the official further reiterated.

Pointing out that there is no local exploration management in the countries around Iran, the director of the exploration of the National Iranian Oil Company said this is a prominent position for the Iranian Ministry of Oil to present itself to the neighboring countries and Eurasian countries, and they are also willing to cooperate with Iran.

Emphasizing that this important issue has not been possible in the past years, Fakour clarified, “We now have exploratory relations with four neighboring countries.”

He pointed to the holding of meetings with Oman and said, “We had meetings with the minister of Oman and they accepted all the proposals for exploration cooperation to form a joint team and advance the agreements.”

The official also named Tajikistan, Russia, and Iraq as the three other neighboring countries cooperating with Iran in the field of exploration.

 

Iraq: US Senate may finally end authorization for war

A US Senate committee backed legislation on Wednesday to repeal two authorizations for past wars in Iraq, paving the way for a possible vote in the full Senate before the 20th anniversary of the last invasion by American troops.

Under the Constitution, Congress, not the president, has the right to declare war.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 13-8 to approve a bill to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs), against Iraq, the latest attempt to reassert Congress' role in deciding to send troops into combat.

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said the full Senate could vote on the legislation in the next few weeks. That would coincide with the 20th anniversary of the March 19, 2003, invasion of Iraq.

Senator Tim Kaine, a leader of efforts to repeal old AUMFs, said it makes no sense to have the authorizations on the books.

"Iraq was an enemy in '02," he told Reuters in a telephone interview. "Increasingly, they are a security partner. We work with Iraq to defeat ISIS and continue to guard against terrorist activity."

Lawmakers have been arguing for years that Congress has ceded too much authority to the president over whether troops should be sent into combat, by passing and then failing to repeal broad, open-ended war authorizations that presidents have then used for years to justify military action around the globe.

Republican then-President Donald Trump said the 2002 AUMF provided legal authority for the 2020 killing in Iraq of senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani.

The measure's chances of becoming law were unclear. Despite support from members of both parties in both the Senate and House of Representatives, there is also significant opposition.

Republican Representative Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called for a replacement, written in consultation with military commanders, before repealing existing AUMFs.

"Piecemeal repeal of those Iraq authorities is not a serious contribution to war powers reform," McCaul said in a statement.

Arab reluctance to react to Iranian protests

Wilson Center has tried to find an explanation for the lack of Arab support in highlighting the actions of Iranian ruling regime. Its efforts could be termed ‘Killing two birds with one stone’. Not only has it maligned Iran, but also Arab States for not opposing Iran because they also don’t like opposition.   

When protests in Iran broke out in September 2022 following the killing of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini by the morality police, the world showed immediate support for the outraged Iranian women who took to the streets. Unlike before, these protests gained momentum as popular demands shifted from greater freedoms and economic reforms to the overthrow of the oppressive regime. The Iranian government’s harsh repression sparked international condemnation and sanctions against officials and entities, including the morality police itself.

As compared to strong responses from Western nations, Arab governments have stayed noticeably silent. This pattern of silence from Arab governments on internal Iranian issues, in contrast to Iranian involvement in Arab protests and revolutions, has been evident since the 2009 ‘green scarf movement’ in Iran and raises questions about the relationship between Arab states and Iran during times of popular upheaval.

While certain Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, harbor a desire for the downfall of the Iranian regime, their reluctance to engage with Iran’s protests and internal politics is due to a multitude of challenges and constraints.

Many Arab governments, particularly those in the Gulf region, have a complex relationship with Iran. They may disapprove of the suppression of protests, but they also see Iran as a regional rival and may not want to give the impression of supporting domestic dissent, in effect allowing Iran to justify its interventionist policies elsewhere in the region.

The GCC nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, are grappling with the uncertainty surrounding the potential consequences of taking a unilateral adversarial approach towards Iran amid concerns about US security commitments and a decline in bilateral relations. Nevertheless, since the early days of the protests, Iranian authorities have repeatedly blamed foreign nations, including Saudi Arabia, for instigating the demonstrations.

IRGC Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami warned the Saudi leadership, saying, “You are involved in this matter and know that you are vulnerable; it is better to be careful.” This warning was in reference to media supported by Saudi Arabia, such as funding for Iran International TV, which broadcasts in both Persian and English from London. It also refers to other Saudi-funded media outlets like Al-Arabiya and newspapers like Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Okaz, Al-Riyadh, and Al-Madina, as well as Qatari and Jordanian newspapers. Arab News, a Saudi English-language newspaper, even dedicated special coverage to the protests.

To such accusations, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, the Saudi Foreign Minister stated, “A country that strengthens itself with good governance and a clear vision does not need to turn to the outside, and the Kingdom firmly adheres to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs.”

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran was planning to attack Saudi Arabia, either directly or through its allies, such as the Houthis in Yemen, allegedly to distract from the protests.

Indeed, there is a state of uncertainty regarding the trajectory of events within Iran that raises four concerns:

First, it is unclear whether the current wave of protests will be more impactful than previous ones in affecting the regime. Given the past failures of protest movements to achieve their demands, it is understandable for Arabs to expect the current protests to fail or remain focused solely on reforms without aiming for regime change.

Second is the possibility of a desperate retaliation from the regime on neighboring states and interests should the protests escalate to the point of overthrowing the government—the ‘Samson option.’

Third is whether the support for the demonstrations will pressure the regime to respond positively to the JCPOA negotiations or vice versa.

Fourth is what the new regime will look like if the mullahs’ regime falls (to avoid repeating the deception of the 1979 revolution) and the role of opposition groups already plagued by sharp internal division.

Comparably, the silence and reticence of Arab capitals towards the Iranian protests are rooted in their varying relationships with Iran and their perceptions of the threat posed by the Islamic Republic.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain hold a hostile attitude toward Iran, while Iraq, Syria, and Algeria maintain close ties and similar ideologies. Oman tries to maintain a balancing act between Iran and Saudi Arabia, while Qatar has strong economic connections with Iran that have only grown stronger in recent years after the GCC blockade in 2017.

 In some ways, this explains Al Jazeera’s limited media coverage of the protests in Iran compared to that of the Arab Spring uprisings. But at least the Qatari Foreign Minister, in his interview with Bloomberg, indicated that “We are opposing using violence by security forces against civilians whether a woman or a man. This is a domestic issue, and we don’t normally interfere in domestic issues with countries.”

Arab governments may be hesitant to speak out against the Iranian government’s repression of protests due to their fear of a domino effect. This fear stems from the potential for revolutionary contagion, as seen in the Iran Islamic Revolution and Arab Spring Uprisings, and the potential undermining of ideological ties with Iran.

It is clear that since the Arab Spring uprisings, the change in the power dynamic in the region has worked in Iran’s favor, allowing it to expand the axis of resistance it leads, particularly to the detriment of Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, these Arab governments may avoid taking a stance on the issue to avoid drawing attention to their own history of suppressing protests and to prove their goodwill and non-interference in Iran’s internal politics on the principle of good neighborliness—moral grandstanding. They believe this would strengthen their negotiating positions with Iran on outstanding and complex issues and strengthen their legitimacy in the international community.

Arabs and Iranians share the same region and religion. However, they have proud and distinct heritage, speak different languages and follow different branches of Islam, with Arabs predominantly Sunni while Iranians are Shiite. These cultural and linguistic differences create communication barriers and binary stereotypes, making it difficult to understand each other’s current common interests and demands.

Arab and Gulf media focus primarily on Iran’s regional influence and power struggles but pay little attention to local issues such as popular protests and human rights violations against minorities.

The lack of meaningful Arab media dedicated to in-depth coverage of Iranian society has heightened the divide between the Arab and Iranian peoples. The deliberate media stereotyping that portrays Iran merely through its regime and regional behavior, viewed from a narrow religious perspective, obscures the overall picture of Iranian society and erodes the trust and sympathy of the Arab public.

As against this, Iran has a vast media apparatus aimed at both the Arab and Iranian publics that reflects the views of the Iranian regime and presents political events through ideological and sectarian lenses.

Arab elites, especially after the Arab Spring, continue to face restrictions on freedom of demonstration and expression. Indeed, this impedes their ability to back advocacy campaigns for the protests in Iran organized by civil society.

Authorities are balancing a political equation that prevents them from officially supporting the protests in Iran. Nevertheless, some interaction with the protests, such as solidarity statements, condemnations, and vigils, can be observed in a few Arab capitals and elsewhere in the diaspora.

In Arab countries such as Lebanon and Iraq, which have close ties to Iran, any upheaval in Iranian politics could be viewed as a window of hope for those who grapple with their own internal struggles to challenge Iranian political influence.

In Lebanon, for example, Fe-male, a feminist organization, held a vigil to show support for the Iranian women protesting against mandatory veiling under the title “From us to you, [sending] all our love and support.” The vigil featured slogans in Arabic and Persian, including mantra of the protesters, “Woman, Life, Freedom.”

Other activist groups also sought to organize a protest in front of the Iranian embassy in Beirut, calling it “From Tehran to Beirut, the killer regime is one,” but failed amid threats from Hezbollah’s militias.

In Iraq, some women on social media launched the “No to Compulsory Hijab” campaign to support Iranian women facing regime repression and the mandatory dress code.

Also, in Tunisia, human rights and feminist organizations held a rally outside the Iranian Cultural Center to express their support for women in Iran. The demonstrators denounced the discrimination and mistreatment of women in Iran and chanted slogans such as “Tunisian women support Iranian women,” “Here to voice our solidarity with Iranian women,” and “Revolution and freedom.”

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), including a coalition of Arab feminist and human rights groups, issued a statement on October 7, 2022, to express solidarity. The statement, ‘We stand in solidarity with women and demonstrators in Iran,’ condemned the suppression of peaceful protests.

We likely won’t see decisive Arab reactions to the protests in Iran any time soon. Despite Arab grievances to Iran’s regional behavior, states will maintain political neutrality given the uncertain trajectory of the protests.

Furthermore, they may fear exposing themselves ideologically if they endorse foreign protests. Lastly, in a cultural dimension, there is already a wide gulf between how Arabs and Iranians perceive each other. Despite what limited civic action we have seen, these factors inhibit any broad social expression of solidarity as seen in the west.

With the challenging and fading prospects of altering Iran’s behavior or the entire regime from within, Arabs still have other choices. These include waiting for a full-fledged revolution in Iran, capitalizing on international stances and sanctions, and luring its allies to abandon it, as were tried recently with China, Russia, and Iraq.

 

Iraq to allow trade with China in yuan

The central bank of Iraq said on Wednesday it planned to allow trade from China to be settled directly in yuan for the first time, in an attempt to improve access to foreign currency.

The central bank has been taking urgent steps to compensate for a dollar shortage in local markets, which prompted the cabinet to approve a currency revaluation earlier this month.

"It is the first time imports would be financed from China in yuan, as Iraqi imports from China have been financed in US dollars only," the government's economic adviser, Mudhir Salih, told Reuters on Wednesday.

The move is the latest sign of the yuan's growing role on the international stage as China gradually opens up its financial markets and some countries look to diversify their currency exposures.

The central bank could, as part of its plan, boost the balances of Iraqi banks that have accounts with Chinese banks in yuan, it said in a statement.

Another option would be to boost local banks' balances via the central bank's accounts with JP Morgan and Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), it added.

The first option would depend on the central bank's yuan reserves, while the other would use the bank's US dollar reserves at JP Morgan and DBS. The two banks would convert the dollars to yuan and pay the final beneficiary in China, Salih explained.

Why are United States assets not being frozen?

The European Union (EU) is planning to use frozen Russian assets to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine. A question arise, why United States and NATO countries having indulged in wars, invasions, and carpet bombings have not met the similar fate?

The EU’s plans include an attempt to re-invest the international reserves of the Russian Central Bank in Ukraine. 

Moscow’s assets frozen under sanctions imposed by the EU can be divided into two main sections. Private assets are worth nearly €19 billion while public assets held by state entities are about €300 billion of international reserves owned by the Russian Central Bank.

"Russia must also pay financially for the devastation that it caused,” European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said. Moscow has “to compensate Ukraine for the damage and cover the costs for rebuilding the country." she added.

In the midst of rising inflation across Europe, freezing and selling Russian assets is being viewed as an avenue by the 27-member bloc to raise funds for Ukraine.

However, EU sanctions are always temporary, so the assets at the end of the day must be returned to their original owners.

It seems that before this happens the EU is working hard to move the goalposts and ensure the frozen assets become a solid, bulletproof solution to make Russia pay, as von der Leyen put it.

NATO could have prevented this war by not expanding its military equipment and troops eastwards toward Russian borders in the years prior to the war.

The US could have avoided the crisis in Ukraine and the suffering of Ukrainians by choosing to negotiate rather than reject the Kremlin’s proposals of security guarantees, which were sent to Washington months before the conflict erupted.

The Minsk agreements which began in 2014 after fighting erupted between ethnic Russian forces and the Ukrainian army in the eastern Donbas region could have been implemented to avoid a war.

Experts have questioned the double standards of the EU asking why such efforts have not been applied to the US-led wars, proxy wars, invasions, and carpet bombings that have led to the complete destruction of many countries over the past decades.

The US invasion and 20-year occupation of Afghanistan saw an unprecedented rise in terrorism (ironically Washington invaded the country under the pretext of its war on terror). During the two-decade occupation, Afghans witnessed nothing but destruction, terror, violence, mass killings, and other atrocities.

As a result of the spike in terrorism and regular US attacks, the destruction of the country’s infrastructure and the damage caused to Afghan public sectors has left a humanitarian catastrophe after the US fled Afghanistan in 2020.

The Afghanistan Country Director of Save the Children said in mid-February: “I’ve never seen anything like the desperate situation we have here in Afghanistan. We treat frighteningly ill children every day who haven’t eaten anything except bread for months. Parents are having to make impossible decisions – which of their children do they feed? Do they send their children to work or let them starve? These are excruciating choices that no parent should have to make.”

America’s longest war killed at least 66,000 Afghan national military and police as well as tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians, with different monitoring groups providing different death tolls.

In an ideal, just world, US assets should have been frozen and used to finance the reconstruction of Afghanistan. American assets should have also been frozen and used to compensate the families of Afghans killed as a result of the US invasion.

Following its embarrassing and chaotic withdrawal, Washington seized Afghanistan’s assets leading to further humanitarian suffering for Afghans, the majority of whom now live in poverty.

Likewise, the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq saw widespread damage to the country’s infrastructure. Damage that has yet to be rebuilt.

Washington claims it waged war against Iraq to remove the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power. Everyone wanted to see the end of Saddam, but very few wanted the US to be involved, especially considering the widespread hatred of America among Iraqis.

Even before the American invasion, US-backed UN sanctions against Baghdad killed at least half a million Iraqi children, with some studies putting the number at around 1.5 million Iraqis, primarily children, who died as a direct consequence of the imposed sanctions, citing UNICEF estimates.

During the US war itself from 2003 to 2011, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, again because of an unprecedented rise in terrorism as a result of the US war on terror and many other civilians were killed because of attacks by the US military.

The damage to Iraq's infrastructure as a result of US interference in the country (in the form of sanctions, airstrikes, and wars) from 1991 until its occupation which is ongoing until this day is estimated to have cost the nation trillions of dollars.

How many Iraqi civilians have been killed because of terrorist groups that did not exist before Washington’s 2003 invasion and US carpet bombings in cities such as Mosul?

With such vast oil wealth, Iraqi infrastructure has been damaged to such an extent that the country still relies on Iranian energy exports for its electricity.

Why are US assets not being frozen and used to finance the reconstruction of Iraq? Why are US assets not being frozen and used to compensate the families of civilians murdered because of terrorism that came with the US invasion?

As many reports have emerged over the years, NATO killed civilians when it waged war on Libya to allegedly help overthrow longtime ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi. The US-led military alliance’s bombing campaign had a devastating toll but, more than a decade after the war, NATO has yet to take any responsibility.

There was no terrorism before NATO bombed Libya. Since then, the country has been embroiled in terror with Daesh and other Takfiri groups wreaking havoc in the North African country.

The US military is occupying regions in eastern and northeastern Syria and looting the country’s oil in an attempt to prevent Damascus from restoring its own infrastructure and services following a decade of US-backed war on the country.

Yemen, the poorest country in West Asia, has faced an eight-year, US-backed bombing campaign that has destroyed the country’s entire infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of Yemenis have been killed because of US-made bombs that have been dropped using US intelligence with warplanes whose pilots were trained by the US and UK military.

Rights groups accuse the US and its allies, including Canada and European countries of being directly complicit in the war. Yemeni officials say Saudi Arabia was used as a proxy by Washington and that the US was the one that waged war on it in March 2015.

Such is the damage inflicted on Yemen, which is too difficult to estimate, and U.S. assets should be frozen and used to finance the reconstruction of Yemen.

Yemen is a country that the United Nations has described as having the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.  

Washington’s support for the Israeli regime’s ethnic cleansing, and genocidal terrorism campaign against the Palestinians is well documented.

The list of US wars is long. Washington economically survives on waging wars, and invasions and using proxies to trigger violence, unrest, terrorism, and civil wars in regions well beyond its borders.

From the Vietnam War to the shadow wars in Somalia, Pakistan, and the African continent, why isn’t the US being held accountable? Why are US assets not being frozen? Why are there no punitive actions against Washington? 

 

Iran Emerging Regional Transit Hub

For thousands of years, Iran has been an important route for the transit of foreign goods due to its geopolitical position. The country played a significant role in transporting commodities from west to east as one of the main stations along the ancient Silk Road.

In the modern day, this huge capacity became dormant due to war, political conflicts, and sanctions and consequently lack of infrastructure. Now the global conditions are changing in Iran’s favor and new opportunities have appeared on the horizon.

The Ukraine war, despite its grave consequences for many countries, has presented Iran with a golden opportunity to realize the long-awaited goal of becoming the global transit hub it once was.

The row between Europe and Russia over the Ukraine war, which resulted in harsh sanctions being imposed on the country, cornered the Russian government economically and many European countries closed their borders on Russian goods making it very hard for its traders to be able to access their destination markets. As a result, the country started looking for new ways for distributing its goods across the world, especially in Asia and the International North-South Transit Corridor (INSTC) once again came under the spotlight.

The agreement for launching INSTC was signed by Iran, India, and Russia in 2000. Despite all the interest and hype, the attention to the route faded due to geopolitical hurdles including the global economic stagnation, the US sanctions on Iran, the conflict in Karabakh, and the pandemic.

Now the multi-modal network of ships, rail, and roads is once again gaining its importance, as the most important trade link between Asia and Europe.

According to official data, one of the major advantages of this transportation route is that the cost of transporting goods through this corridor is 30% cheaper. It also halves the time it takes to transport Indian goods to Russia via the Suez Canal.

Iran can use this transit route to distribute European commodities in the shortest possible time and at a lower cost than other routes to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.

It is predicted that after the full operation of INSTC, Iran will be able to earn US$20 billion in transit profits annually, something helping it reduce its dependence on oil revenues amid the American ban on the sector.

Iran has been taking serious measures for the development of its railway network as well as its ports and shipping infrastructure in order to encourage more countries to join the project.

Using the capacities of INSTC, Iran will be able not only to expand the volume of trade with Russia and the countries of the region; it can also gain a huge share of the mentioned countries’ annual transit.

Currently, Russia has proposed to take part in some railway projects in Iran in order to accelerate the development of the Islamic Republic’s railway network along the mentioned route.

Last week, Igor Yevgenyevich Levitin, aide to the president of the Russian Federation, visited Iran on top of a high-ranking delegation to meet with Iranian Transport and Urban Development Minister Rostam Qasemi and discuss the expansion of transport ties.

According to the Iranian Transport Ministry, Levitin was tasked by Russian President Vladimir Putin to take the necessary measures for the implementation of Iran’s Rasht-Astara railway and the signaling of the country’s Incheh Borun-Garmsar railway line (both of which are along the INSTC route).

Besides linking India to Europe via this corridor, Iran can connect Central Asia to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. Landlocked countries in Central Asia can use the corridor's railway to access the high seas. Over time, Iran's place in the corridor would become known to all.

Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Iraq, and Afghanistan have also shown interest in joining the huge project by linking their railways to that of Iran.

Earlier this month, Kazakhstan reached an agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran for using the country’s rail network and the southern Shahid Rajaee Port for transiting goods to the Central Asian and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) regions.

Iran has also been seeking to join its railway with Iraq in order to use the Arab country to facilitate access to the Syrian market, this way Syria can also be somehow linked to the INSTC.

The rail and sea route can also join the Chinese Road and Belt project, which seeks to revive the ancient Silk Road. As one of Iran’s major trade partners China has also shifted to Central Asia and the Caspian Sea to transit its goods to Europe after the eruption of the Ukraine crisis and Iran could play a significant role in delivering Chinese goods to their destinations.

The current international conditions have presented Iran with a proper opportunity to play a bold role in the broader implementation of the INSTC and to transform into a regional trade hub by developing its rail and transit infrastructure.

Given the lower costs and shorter time of trade via this route, Iran can become the main trade link between Asia and Europe and effectively neutralize the US measures aimed to isolate Iran from the global economy.

 

 

Unveiling the real face of United States

The United States has been involved in hundreds of wars, invasions, coups and conflicts around the globe, yet it claims to be the flag-bearer of the international fight for freedom, liberation and human rights.

Even a cursory look reveals that in addition to its crimes, atrocities and attempts to divide countries, Washington stands accused of seditious acts through a widespread social media campaign and its embassies around the globe have been censured for their role in destabilizing different regions of the world.

It is often alleged that the United States itself was founded on violence against the indigenous people of America and since then it has survived on instigating violence with its hegemonic dreams and hopes of global hegemony following the collapse of the British Empire.

Over the past two decades Washington has had its eyes on West Asia with the disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as its support for Takfiri terrorist groups in countries such as Syria and Libya and in particular Iran.

It has since expanded its warmongering approach towards Eastern Europe with the aim of containing rising superpowers such as Russia. It has also pinned its hopes on China’s domestic issues such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and elsewhere with the hope of containing the rising economic and military power of Beijing. In essence, what is very clear is that wherever there is a US presence, there is also insecurity and no stability in that part of the world.

President Joe Biden claims the US will free Iran. Speaking at a campaign speech in California recently, he said, "Don't worry, we're gonna free Iran". The reality is, as noted by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Iran was freed from US captivity by toppling the Pahlavi regime. 

"I am telling Biden that Iran was freed 43 years ago," Raisi said in reference to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

It is also important to note that the Iranian people were free in 1953 before the American CIA and British MI6 orchestrated a coup that toppled the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and replaced it with a puppet regime to loot the country’s large oil and gas resources.

This is something both Washington and its Western allies publicly acknowledge. The reality is that the US has been trying to repeat the exact same scenario in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It has no interest in freedom or the livelihoods of Iranian people. Experts say human rights are observed in Iran more than the United States where minority groups, including Black Americans, face systematic discrimination.

The US claims it wants to free the Iranian nation while at the same time it has imposed the harshest ever sanctions on Iranian people that have caused the majority of the country's population to suffer. American sanctions prevented and continue to prevent patients suffering from serious diseases, such as cancer or rare skin diseases, to gain access to vital medicines by banning money transfer from Iran. This is under the name of "US freedom".

American widespread support for riots in Iran over the past few weeks have also led to the brutal death of police forces. This is the freedom and human rights that America seeks to spread and preach about. 

The closer the United States approaches Iranian borders or any other border in West Asia and beyond, the more insecurity grows in that country. And the US has dozens of military bases surrounding Iranian borders but an independent Iran has proven it has the capability to prevent the Pentagon from toppling the Islamic Republic because of Tehran's military might.

The governments and kingdoms that have linked their own national security interests (knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly) to the US have been toppled because of their lack of sovereignty.

In cases where they have not been toppled, the US is stirring sedition and divide nations. This policy of spreading instability helps American arms manufacturers make lucrative profits from weapons deliveries, as has been witnessed in many countries, such as Cuba and other Latin American countries and more recently to Syria, Libya, Ukraine, etc.  

The US State Department has demanded that North Korea refrain from taking any defensive measures to protect its territory, and instead engage in dialogue. This is while the United States has hundreds of warplanes buzzing around North Korean borders in joint war games that have been extended and which Pyongyang views as a rehearsal for an imminent invasion. North Korea has test-fired ballistic missiles in response to these war games and Pyongyang, unsurprisingly, has been denounced by Washington for stirring up trouble.

The US is allowed to hold the largest ever war games next to North Korea with the deployment of B-1B strategic bombers but the North is not allowed to test its own missiles to protect its territorial integrity.

The US Navy missile-guided destroyers and other warships including US warplane carriers and strike groups regularly sail in the South China Sea and expect China to remain silent, which by the way Beijing has exercised praiseworthy patience with its diplomatic approach to the US provocations. A reflection of how one country is not after seeking military confrontation and how another has a warmongering approach under the pretext of spreading freedom that nobody even requested in the first place.

Critics argue that the delusional idea that Washington can provide security guarantees for another country can’t be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is, as history has shown and proven, the US only looks after its own interests, makes lucrative profit from its military adventurism and once these America’s interests are gone, so are the alleged security guarantees that Washington once promised to provide for certain governments and rulers and kings.