How far can crude oil prices plunge?

We are of the view that crude oil price may fall below US$60 per barrel, if production in countries like Libya, Iraq, Iran and Venezuela rise to normal. Sanctions on Russia and Iran are also there to avoid glut. We have the convictions that unrest in some of the African countries is there to avoid fall of crude oil price below US$50 per barrel  

Brent crude futures fell below US$70 a barrel on Tuesday for the first time since December 2021, after OPEC Plus revised down its demand forecast for this year and 2025.

Brent crude futures were traded at US$69.51 a barrel and US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude slipped to US$66.21. On Monday, both benchmarks had risen about 1%.

On Tuesday, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in a monthly report said world oil demand will rise by 2.03 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2024, down from last month's forecast for growth of 2.11 million bpd. Until last month, OPEC had kept the forecast unchanged since it was first made in July 2023.

OPEC also cut its 2025 global demand growth estimate to 1.74 million bpd from 1.78 million bpd. Prices slid on the weakening global demand prospects and expectations of oil oversupply.

On Monday, Chinese data showed consumer inflation accelerated in August to its fastest in half a year, though domestic demand remained fragile, and producer price deflation worsened.

Data released on Tuesday showed China's exports grew in August at their fastest in nearly 1-1/2 years, yet imports disappointed with domestic demand depressed.

“If we lose China this market is going to have a problem because OPEC just cannot cut enough to offset the US and Brazilian position, and some of the other reservoirs at work,” said John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital.

 

Israeli attempt to normalize Libya ties backfires

Libyan Prime Minister has firmly rejected the prospect of normalizing relations with Israel, days after the news broke out of an apparent secret meeting between the Libyan foreign minister and her Israeli counterpart.

On August 27, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen publicly said he and Libya’s now sacked foreign minister had held a private meeting in the Italian capital Rome the previous week, the first-ever alleged encounter between a top Libyan diplomat and an Israeli regime official in history.

The next day, Libya’s Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah fired Foreign Minister Najla Mangoush, (who claimed it was not an official meeting but a swift coincidental interaction) and launched an investigation into the reported meeting. 

Mangoush’s whereabouts is now unknown following the uproar in Libya after news emerged of the exchange late last week.

Dbeibah also touched on the ongoing probe about the incident, saying, “Regardless of good or bad intentions, together we (the Libyan people) will learn the details of what happened in Rome through the ongoing investigation.”

Under a 1957 law in Libya, it is illegal to normalize ties with the occupation regime of Israel. Libya has long been hostile toward the Israeli regime and a staunch supporter of the Palestinians.

During a televised ministerial meeting of the Libyan Government of National Unity, Prime Minister Dbeibah said his government completely rejects any form of normalization with Israel.

"Before I assumed this mission, (I affirm) our categorical and complete rejection of any form of normalization, and our complete bias towards the Palestinian people and their just cause,” Dbeibah told his ministers.

The Premier has also accepted responsibility for the foreign minister’s illegal interaction, in spite of being unaware of the reported secret gathering, saying, “Despite everything that happened to our people, they still cling to their principles and identity. In fact, from this place, I bear full responsibility for this government, regardless of who made mistakes in it and who was responsible.”

“Long live Libya, long live its people, long live Palestine, and long live the Palestinian cause in our hearts,” he added.

On Tuesday, Libya’s parliament also condemned the meeting, while voicing opposition to any attempt toward any level of normalization with Israel, with the parliament speaker denouncing any contacts with the regime and emphasizing Libya’s support for the Palestinians. 

Aguila Saleh Issa added that no one is allowed to undermine the Palestine struggle for freedom, and everyone should work on establishing a Palestinian state with occupied al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capital.

In a sign of how just sensitive the news was for the Libyan public, the reported meeting ignited angry street protests in several Libyan cities, including mass rallies in the capital Tripoli, with demonstrations strongly condemning Israel and protesters chanting slogans in support of the Palestinians. 

This, in turn, prompted the suspended foreign minister Mangoush to reportedly flee to Turkey for fear of her safety. Her exact whereabouts remain unknown.

Israeli news reports suggest that the regime’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was furious with his foreign minister for making the news public before informing him.

Reports also suggest the United States is fuming about the Israeli announcement of the reported meeting amid the wave of angry reactions from Libya.

Both Israel and the US are reportedly said to have hoped the private meeting could have materialized into some type of PR boost for Israel and President Biden, ahead of the 2024 US presidential election with a view to some kind of normalization agenda between Israel and Libya.

The response from the Libyan people and the government officials since the news broke out suggests that no such measure will materialize in the foreseeable future.

Israel is finding itself isolated in West Asia after the so-called Abraham Accords which saw the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco normalizing ties with Israel when Donald Trump was at the White House.

While Sudan formally joined the so-called Abraham Accords, relations between Sudan and the occupation regime have been frozen because of domestic opposition and political instability.
Three years later, Israel had widely hoped to expand on the so-called Abraham Accords by normalizing ties with many more states in West Asia and Africa, something that has yet to transpire.

Palestinians have said the Abraham Accords have emboldened Israel in its brutal crackdown in the occupied territories, describing the deal as a stab in the back for the Palestinian cause.

According to the United Nations, Israeli forces have killed more than 200 Palestinians so far this year, many of them women and children, the highest annual death toll since the UN began keeping records in 2005.

But 2023 has yet to end and Israeli aggression against the Palestinians continues to expand, particularly the almost daily pre-dawn heavy military invasions in the occupied West Bank cities, towns and villages that have been condemned by human rights groups as “merciless”.

On Friday, the regime's military raided several cities in the occupied West Bank, killing an innocent teacher in the village of Aqaba, while injuring and arresting many others, including family members of residents that Israel claims are wanted. 

Israel is being governed by one of the most fascist regimes in the entity’s short history.  And while former Israeli rulers committed similar war crimes against the Palestinians, observers say the new ministers in Netanyahu’s cabinet are not even trying to hide their brutal and illegal practices, unlike previous ones who tried to cover them up. Netanyahu’s cabinet openly boasts about killing Palestinian civilians.

This has added extra pressure on any regional state's official pondering the idea of some kind of diplomatic normalization and being seen warming up to the new fanatical criminal gang in charge of the occupied Palestinian territories.

 

Egypt could help end Sudan conflict

Egypt recently took the initiative to host a summit in order to address the civil war in Sudan. The summit brought together leaders from several countries, including the Central African Republic, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, and South Sudan.

However, notably absent from the summit were representatives from the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). At the Cairo summit, the Egyptian leadership wanted to draw a framework for any potential peace agreement and to remind all parties to facilitate the humanitarian corridors for civilians for aid delivery.

Egypt possesses historical and political influence in the MENA region, enabling it to potentially bring about an end to the conflict. By engaging directly with the key stakeholders in Sudan as well as their regional supporters, Egypt can initiate negotiations for sustainable political reforms by creating the environment where both sides and their supporters agree to sit together and try to reach sustainable peace.

The conflict has the potential to be long-lasting due to the steadfastness of both parties in their positions. General Mohamed Hemeti declared that he is present on the field and would not cease fighting until he achieved the desired goal, overthrow the government and seize power. Similarly, General Abdel Fattah Al-Barhan announced that he was defending the Sudanese state's sovereignty.

Numerous efforts to bring about peace in Sudan have proven unsuccessful so far due to disagreements involving the mediators and the parties involved in the conflict. A notable instance occurred when Khartoum raised objections to the peace initiative presented by Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and rejected Kenya’s chairmanship of the conflict resolution committee, claiming that the Kenyan president favors the RSF. Furthermore, both parties opposed a demand from Ethiopia to impose a no-fly zone in Sudan. Additionally, Sudan vehemently rejected a proposal to deploy East African forces, even going so far as to threaten the suspension of its membership in the East African bloc of IGAD.

The Sudanese leadership strongly believes that the deployment of foreign troops would only prolong the conflict by potentially involving external actors. They also harbor concerns that Ethiopia and Kenya may stand to benefit from Sudan's vulnerability and its inability to unite its own factions, thereby gaining regional power.

This objection to various proposals from neighboring countries indicates that the solution in Sudan can’t be found through traditional ways. The warring parties have to agree on one regional mediator—a country or a regional organization with good relations with both SAF and RSF—to end the conflict.

The Cairo summit stressed that the Sudan conflict would only be resolved in Sudan, closing the door to any external interference in Sudan. An announcement is welcomed in Khartoum, but it still could not end the conflict or at least bring both warring parties to the negotiation table. 

Egypt and Sudan have long been connected by historical, social, and political ties, as well as a shared destiny as one nation. This led the Egyptian Parliament in October 1951 to amend King Farouk's title to the King of Egypt and Sudan.

Egypt fears that the outbreak of conflict in Sudan could lead to the influx of mercenaries and armed militants through the country's southern borders. Intelligence reports suggest that Hemeti and his forces receive military support from several Arab and foreign countries.

Reports have also revealed a relationship between the Wagner Group, a Russian military contractor, and the Rapid Support Forces. 

The Wall Street Journal reported that General Khalifa Haftar in Libya is supplying weapons to Hemeti.

This unstable security situation in Sudan, coupled with the availability of arms and equipment from various regional and international parties, is a cause for concern for the Egyptian administration.

Egypt maintains strong alliances and close ties with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Libya, making it an important regional player. Furthermore, Egypt has established a stable relationship with Russia. These connections enable Egypt to communicate effectively with its regional allies, who possess significant influence and leverage over the RSF, thereby increasing the chances of initiating negotiations.

Egypt enjoys a distinct bond with the Sudanese army, characterized by shared experiences and military strategies. By leveraging these relationships, Cairo has the potential to resolve the conflict by convening both opposing factions in Cairo and creating regional support to ensure a lasting peace.

The Cairo initiative received a positive response on social media from both conflicting parties. Additionally, all seven neighboring nations expressed their support for the initiative, which is considered as a significant accomplishment for the leadership in Egypt. With its strong political influence and regional power status, Cairo has the opportunity to leverage its relationships to advance towards a durable and extended ceasefire. The ultimate goal is to establish a comprehensive plan for political reform and ensure transparent elections. Consequently, it is crucial for Egypt to capitalize on the achievements of the Cairo summit and take further steps to promote stability in the region, which is of great importance to the country. 

 

US War on terror has killed more than 4.5 million since 9/11

A report, by the Costs of War project at Brown University in the American state of Rhode Island reveals that around 4.5 million people have been killed due to the US-led military adventurism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia.

According to the research, the operations have indirectly killed millions more due to destruction of economies, public services, infrastructure, and the environment, which adds to the death toll long after bombs are dropped and increases over time.

Many long-term and under-appreciated consequences of war that was need to be studied in more detail.

The research indicates that the direct war fatalities or killing of nearly one million people is an undercount “precise mortality figure remains unknown”.

The estimates of war deaths in Iraq have been particularly controversial. A 2006 article in The Lancet estimated that approximately 600,000 Iraqis had died due to war violence between 2003 and 2006.

The controversy over the conflicting reports on the death toll in Iraq stems from news outlets that are opposed to the war, who overplayed the death toll, while those who supported the illegal invasion downplayed the death toll.

There have been various unbiased studies that concluded more than one million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 to 2011.

The Iraqi deaths can be considered an undercount because of almost daily bombings that killed hundreds of Iraqis. Add to the era of the US and Daesh from 2014 to 2017 where hundreds of thousands of others were slaughtered and it’s not difficult to imagine more than one million Iraqis have died and continue to die today as a result of the US war on terror.   

There is little doubt that the US has brought nothing but insecurity and instability to West Asia, with its military presence. In January 2018, the Leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said,

"America's corrupting presence in this region should end… In this region, they brought war, discord, sedition, destruction, destruction of infrastructure.  Of course, wherever they stepped in the world, they acted the same way... this must end."

The report put special emphasis on the effects of US wars on women and children who suffer the brunt of these ongoing impacts the most.

The report notes that while people were killed in fighting, far more, especially children, have been killed by the reverberating effects of US wars, such as the spread of disease and damage to public services.

"More studies are necessary on the impact of war’s destruction of public services, especially beyond the healthcare system, on population health," the report says.

"Damage to water and sanitation systems, roads, and commercial infrastructure such as ports, for instance, have significant but less understood consequences."

The research says wars and conflicts which the US has waged or been engaged in under the pretext of countering terrorism since September 11, 2001 makes clear that the impacts of war's ongoing violence are so vast and complex that they are unquantifiable.

It should be noted that after the September 11 attacks, the US waged wars and sparked conflicts, especially in West Asia under the pretext of fighting terrorism. However, as a result of the US military adventurism, there has been an extremely sharp rise in terrorist groups that had no presence in West Asia or countries such as Somalia before Washington’s intervention in the region.

In other words, war on terror has had the complete opposite effect of the slogan under which the Pentagon waged a campaign of instability in West Asia that allowed terrorism to flourish.

Millions of people are still in distress, pain and traumatized in both current and former warzones, the study says, calling on the US as well as its allies to alleviate the ongoing losses and suffering of millions of people and provide the required reparations, though not easy or cheap. This is something imperative, the report points out.

The report focuses on Afghanistan as an example of how people, in particular women and children, the most vulnerable in society, are dying because, despite the US (shambolic) withdrawal, the damage Washington inflicted on Afghanistan’s vital services, such as the health sector and the damage the US caused to the country’s sanitation and other infrastructure in the 20 years of war and occupation means Afghans are still dying today.  

"Though in 2021 the United States withdrew military forces from Afghanistan, officially ending a war that began with its invasion 20 years’ prior, today Afghans are suffering and dying from war-related causes at higher rates than ever," the report alarmingly points out.

In the case of Somalia for example, US intervention and the war that followed has prevented the delivery of humanitarian aid, which the research says exacerbated famine; this is a natural disaster that could have been alleviated if the US instead chose to spend a vast amount of money in humanitarian assistance programs and not radicalizing the local population (and increasing terrorism and bloodshed) by bombing civilians with drones in the sky.  

Critics argue that if the United States had not waged war against countries in West Asia or provoked conflicts in the region, then other parties would not have engaged in any combat missions. In this case, the US must be solely held responsible for the disturbing direct and indirect death toll as a result of its provocative and illegal military measures. 

 

Why Sudan conflict matters to the world?

Fighting in Sudan between forces loyal to two top generals has put the nation at risk of collapse and could also have consequences far beyond its borders.

Both sides have tens of thousands of fighters, foreign backers, mineral riches and other resources that could insulate them from sanctions. It’s a recipe for the kind of prolonged conflict that has devastated other countries in the Middle East and Africa, from Lebanon and Syria to Libya and Ethiopia.

The fighting, which began as Sudan attempted to transition to democracy, already has killed hundreds of people and left millions trapped in urban areas, sheltering from gunfire, explosions and looters.

A look at what is happening and the impact it could have outside Sudan.

Gen. Abdel Fattah Burhan, head of the armed forces, and Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, the leader of a paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces that grew out of Darfur’s notorious Janjaweed militias, are each seeking to seize control of Sudan. It comes two years after they jointly carried out a military coup and derailed a transition to democracy that had begun after protesters in 2019 helped force the ouster of longtime autocrat Omar al-Bashir. In recent months, negotiations were underway for a return to the democratic transition.

The victor of the latest fighting is likely to be Sudan’s next president, with the loser facing exile, arrest or death. A long-running civil war or partition of the Arab and African country into rival fiefdoms are also possible.

Terrified Sudanese are fleeing Khartoum, hauling whatever belongings they could carry and trying to get out of the capital, where forces loyal to the country's top two generals have been battling each other with tanks, artillery and airstrikes since Saturday.

 Alex De Waal, a Sudan expert at Tufts University, wrote in a memo to colleagues this week that the conflict should be seen as the first round of a civil war.

“Unless it is swiftly ended, the conflict will become a multi-level game with regional and some international actors pursuing their interests, using money, arms supplies and possibly their own troops or proxies,” he wrote.

Sudan is Africa’s third-largest country by area and straddles the Nile River. It uneasily shares its waters with regional heavyweights Egypt and Ethiopia. Egypt relies on the Nile to support its population of over 100 million, and Ethiopia is working on a massive upstream dam that has alarmed both Cairo and Khartoum.

Egypt has close ties to Sudan’s military, which it sees as an ally against Ethiopia. Cairo has reached out to both sides in Sudan to press for a cease-fire but is unlikely to stand by if the military faces defeat.

Sudan borders five additional countries, Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, Eritrea and South Sudan, which seceded in 2011 and took 75% of Khartoum’s oil resources with it. Nearly all are mired in their own internal conflicts, with various rebel groups operating along the porous borders.

“What happens in Sudan will not stay in Sudan,” said Alan Boswell of the International Crisis Group. “Chad and South Sudan look most immediately at risk of potential spillover. But the longer (the fighting) drags on the more likely it is we see major external intervention.”

Arab Gulf countries have looked to the Horn of Africa in recent years as they have sought to project power across the region.

The United Arab Emirates, a rising military power that has expanded its presence across the Middle East and East Africa, has close ties to the Rapid Support Forces, which sent thousands of fighters to aid the UAE and Saudi Arabia in their war against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Russia, meanwhile, has long harbored plans to build a naval base capable of hosting up to 300 troops and four ships in Port Sudan, on a crucial Red Sea trading route for energy shipments to Europe.

The Wagner Group, a Russian mercenary outfit with close ties to the Kremlin, has made inroads across Africa in recent years and has been operating in Sudan since 2017.

The United State and the European Union have imposed sanctions on two Wagner-linked gold mining firms in Sudan accused of smuggling.

Sudan became an international pariah when it hosted Osama bin Laden and other militants in the 1990s, when al-Bashir had empowered a hard-line Islamist government.

Its isolation deepened over the conflict in the western Darfur region in the 2000s, when Sudanese forces and the Janjaweed were accused of carrying out atrocities while suppressing a local rebellion. The International Criminal Court eventually charged al-Bashir with genocide.

The US removed Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism after the government in Khartoum agreed to forge ties with Israel in 2020. But billions of dollars in loans and aid were put on hold after the 2021 military coup. That, along with the war in Ukraine and global inflation, sent the economy into free-fall.

Sudan’s economic woes would seem to provide an opening for Western nations to use economic sanctions to pressure both sides to stand down.

But in Sudan, as in other resource-rich African nations, armed groups have long enriched themselves through the shadowy trade in rare minerals and other natural resources.

Dagalo, a one-time camel herder from Darfur, has vast livestock holdings and gold mining operations. He’s also believed to have been well-paid by Gulf countries for the RSF’s service in Yemen battling Iran-aligned rebels.

The military controls much of the economy, and can also count on businessmen in Khartoum and along the banks of the Nile who grew rich during al-Bashir’s long rule and who view the RSF as crude warriors from the hinterlands.

“Control over political funds will be no less decisive than the battlefield,” De Waal said. “(The military) will want to take control of gold mines and smuggling routes. The RSF will want to interrupt major transport arteries including the road from Port Sudan to Khartoum.”

The sheer number of would-be mediators — including the US, the UN, the European Union, Egypt, Gulf countries, the African Union and the eight-nation eastern Africa bloc known as IGAD — could render any peace efforts more complicated than the war itself. “The external mediators risk becoming a traffic jam with no policeman,” De Waal said.

 

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? 

 

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.

 

Killing of Muammar Gaddafi: Pepping into the history

A debate is going on in Pakistan; did United States play any role in the toppling of Imran Khan Government? All the arguments being put forward conclude, US didn’t play any role. However, analysts aware of the tactics of the United States are hesitant in accepting these clarifications.

This evening I revisited my blog “Chris Stevens a diplomat or spy” written as back as on September 12, 2012. My point was, killing of the US Ambassador in Libya and his portrayal as friend of ‘freedom’ fighters raises a question, was he a diplomat or an ace CIA operator? In the recent past many countries have been alleging that spies have become an integral part of the US diplomatic core.

I also managed to pick the following lines from Wikipedia on the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed leader of Libya.

He was captured and killed on October 20, 2011 after the Battle of Sirte. Gaddafi was found west of Sirte after his convoys were attacked by NATO aircraft. He was then captured by National Transitional Council (NTC) forces and was killed shortly afterwards.

The NTC initially claimed Gaddafi died from injuries sustained in a shootout when loyalist forces attempted to free him, although a graphic video of his last moments shows rebel fighters beating him and one of them sodomizing him with a bayonet before he was shot several times.

The killing of Gaddafi was criticized as a violation of international law. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called for an independent autopsy and an investigation into how Gaddafi died.

Moments after it was reported that Gaddafi was killed, Fox News published an article titled "US Drone Involved in Final Qaddafi Strike, as Obama Heralds Regime's 'End'", noting that a US Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Gaddafi's convoy in the moments before his death. An anonymous US official subsequently described their policy in hindsight as "leading from behind".

Because Libyan rebels had consistently told American government officials that they did not want overt foreign military assistance in toppling Gaddafi, covert military assistance was used (including arms shipments to opposition). The plan following Gaddafi's death was to immediately begin flowing humanitarian assistance to eastern Libya and later western Libya, as the symbolism would be critically important. US sources stressed it as important that they would "not allow Turkey, Italy and others to steal a march on it".

Many Western leaders and foreign ministers in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States made statements hailing Gaddafi's death as a positive development for Libya. The city-state of Vatican City responded to the event by declaring it recognized the National Transitional Council as Libya's legitimate government. World leaders such as Italy's prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, and Australian prime minister Julia Gillard suggested that the death of Gaddafi meant the Libyan Civil War was over. Some officials, such as UK foreign secretary William Hague, expressed disappointment that Gaddafi was not brought back alive and allowed to stand trial. In a candid moment while filming a TV interview, Hillary Clinton, at the time the United States' secretary of state, laughingly stated "We came. We saw. He died." — a variant of a Roman phrase alluding to the swift military victory.

Reactions from the governments of countries including Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua were negative. Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez described the former Libyan leader's death as an "assassination" and an "outrage", and Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega later called Gaddafi's killing a "crime" during his inauguration on 10 January 2012. Government officials and politicians in Iran showed considerably diverse reactions

The video reportedly left a particularly strong and consequential impression on Russian head of state Vladimir Putin. A senior diplomat who had served at the US embassy in Moscow under the Obama administration reportedly claimed that "Putin had been appalled by Gaddafi's fate" to the extent that "Putin had watched a video of Gaddafi’s savage death three times, a video that shows him being sodomised with a bayonet."

Referring to the US coalition's lobbying efforts for the airstrikes at the United Nations, the US diplomat was quoted as saying that a later US intelligence assessment concluded that "Putin blamed himself for letting Gaddafi go, for not playing a strong role behind the scenes" and that the video may have even influenced Putin's decision to support Syrian president Bashar al-Assad during the Syrian Civil War since "Putin believed that unless he got engaged Bashar would suffer the same fate – mutilated – and he'd see the destruction of his allies in Syria."

Putin also lashed out at the US for what he perceived as the illegal killing of Gaddafi and asked "They showed to the whole world how he (Gaddafi) was killed; there was blood all over. Is that what they call a democracy?"

Iraq fails in meeting oil production quota

Iraq, second-largest producer of OPEC and one of the leading OPEC plus members is struggling to boost its oil production as much as its quota in the pact allows. 

However, with January output of 120,000 barrels per day (bpd) was lower than its production ceiling, according to data from state marketing firm SOMO, according to a Reuters report.

The figures from SOMO showed that instead of rising, oil production in Iraq dropped in January by 63,000 bpd from December 2021. This was due to insufficient storage capacity, an oil official in Iraq told Reuters.

Exports from the second-largest OPEC producer after Saudi Arabia declined in January because of bad weather, maintenance of export terminals and technical issues, the official said.

Unplanned outages and a lack of capacity to pump more led to lower or stagnant production in January at OPEC members Iraq, Iran, Angola, Congo, and Libya, a Reuters survey showed earlier this week.

Iraq and several other producers among OPEC and OPEC plus are not pumping as much quantity as the pact allow. This is tightening the market and distorting analyst assumptions about market balances.

For half a year now, OPEC plus has actually added lower volumes to the market each month than the 400,000 bpd nominal monthly increase announced in each of the OPEC plus meeting since August 2021.

At its latest monthly meeting on Wednesday, the OPEC+ group announced another 400,000 bpd increase in production for March.

While the nominal increase is modest, as in the previous seven months, many producers within the OPEC plus group are struggling to pump to their quotas, leaving an increasingly large gap between production increase on paper and actual growth in output, which leaves the market tighter than many analysts and forecasters, had anticipated just a few months ago.

Going forward, the market will be closely looking at how much of that increase OPEC plus can actually deliver, considering that half of its members have lagged in ramping up output to their quotas so far, while more producers­—with few exceptions such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE—will be struggling to raise production.

Could Iran be blamed for ecological terrorism against Israel?

The ability of a ship to purposely dump oil so that, two weeks later, it harms a country’s coastline appears very complex. The story of the ship – like many things at sea that involve the shipping industry look diabolic. This is because ownership of ships is often murky and involves shell companies and ships registered in one place, flying the flag of a different place, owned by a third party and captained by people from a fourth nation.

A shocking claim by Israel’s environmental protection minister, Gila Gamliel on Wednesday that a Libyan ship dumped containers of crude oil off Israel’s coast, causing one of the country’s worst environmental disasters, is making waves. This is because Gamliel accused that Iran was responsible for the environmental harm.

“This is a crude oil tanker called Emerald, owned and operated by a Libyan company,” Gamliel said. “It was illegally carrying cargo from Iran to Syria. The ship was flying Panama’s flag. Iran is waging terrorism not only by trying to arm itself with nuclear weapons or trying to establish a base near our borders. Iran is waging terrorism by harming the environment.

The ship was allegedly going from Iran to Syria where it was smuggling crude oil, Israel claims. Ships trying to get to Syria from Iran in the past have been interdicted so the transit can be illicit. The vessel also turned off its automatic identification system, a kind of transponder.

Can a ship purposely dump containers of crude oil to harm Israel’s environment? It is not out of the realm of possibility. In the past, Israel has had friction with Syria over water issues, including fishing, and the Jordan River was a cause for conflict in the early years of the state. Disputes over a dam in Ethiopia have led to a war of words in northeast Africa.

However, the ability of a ship to purposely dump oil so that, two weeks later, it harms a country’s coastline appears very complex. That would require study of the currents off the coast and knowledge of where cargo needs to be dumped and at what time to end up in a certain place.

It leads to further questions about why such activity wasn’t judged to be suspicious when it was happening, rather than almost a month later.

The chance that Iran would risk damaging the coastline of Gaza or its Hezbollah friends in Lebanon – they all share a coastline with Israel – would appear to be a major risk for Tehran.

United States Fueling Iran Arab Animosity

There exists an overwhelming perception that Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are deeply worried about Iran and ask the United States to take care of the problem.  The usual causes of conflict are cited to be Sunni-Shiite divide, Iranian subversion, its support for Hezbollah, and omnipresent fear about Iran's nuclear energy program.  United States has been successful in creating these fears and also doing well in projecting Iran as a growing monster that can eat Arab monarchs.

Reading an article of Stephen M. Walt printed in Foreign Policy reveals that oil producing Arab countries are keen in keeping oil prices high to finance budgets in a period where heightened social spending and other measures are being used to insulate these regimes from the impact of the Arab Spring. According to the IMF, these states need crude prices to remain above U$80 a barrel in order to keep their fiscal house in order. 

The Article also discusses the potential interest of Saudi Arabia that wants to keep Iran in the doghouse, so that Iran can't attract foreign companies to refurbish and expand its oil and gas fields and also make it more difficult for Iran to market its petroleum in the global markets. It is but obvious that if UN and other sanctions are lifted and energy companies start operating freely in Iran, its oil and gas production would boom, overall supplies would increase, and the global price would drop.

If this happens Iran can emerge a more formidable power in the Gulf region but lower oil and gas prices would make it much harder for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to stave off demands for political reform through social spending. Saudi Arabia could cut production to try to keep prices up, but that would still mean lower overall revenues and a budget shortfall.

When one hears how worried the Gulf states are about Iran, and how they support the efforts to keep tightening the screws, remember that it's not just about geopolitics or historical divide between Sunnis and Shiites or between Arabs and Persians. It is only to keep inflow of petro dollars high but why should United States be conniving with Arabs?

However, Stephen forgot to mention one point.  By keeping Iranian threat high United States is able to sell more arms to Arab countries. It is on record that United States is the biggest arms seller in the world and Arab monarchies are the major buyers, Saudi Arab being the biggest buyer.

Diverting attention of Arabs towards Iran also helps in saving Israel. At a recently held conference some of the Arab countries termed Iran a threat bigger than Israel. In the latest bid of the United State is fully supported by Arabs to topple government in Syria, and earlier in Libya. Over the years Arabs have been giving charity to Palestinians living in refugees’ camps but not supporting in the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Syria ‑ The Bitter Truth

According to an editorial published in Pakistan’s The Financial Daily, “Reports about Syria by the Western media were often said to be tinted but little was there to refute. One of the allegations is that they are not reporting what’s happening in Syria correctly because at times propaganda prevails over truth and disclosures are incomplete.”

It has also pointed, “Syrians are struggling to prevent Western conquest, exploitation, and control. They’re fighting for their lives to stay free. Followers of this policy say the issue isn’t whether Assad’s government enjoy public support or not but its sovereign independence has made it vulnerable.”

Even bigger accusations have been leveled by the Syrian authorities. They have accused regional powerhouses Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey of trying to destroy the country and vowed Sunday that they would defeat rebels who have captured large swathes of the commercial hub Aleppo.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, on a visit to Iran, leveled some rare public criticism of Sunni powers in the Middle East, saying Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are supporting a plot hatched by Israel to destroy Syria. "Israel is the mastermind of all in this crisis," Moallem told a joint news conference in Tehran with his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi.

Syrian opposition had appealed on Sunday its foreign allies to provide with heavy weapons to fight President Bashar al-Assad's killing machine and said it would soon start talks on forming a transitional government to replace him.

"The rebels are fighting with primitive weapons. We want weapons that we can stop tanks and planes with. This is what we want," Abdelbasset Sida, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) opposition alliance, told a news conference.

However, criticism about the SNC's legitimacy is likely to complicate its efforts to form a transitional government. It backs the Free Syrian Army rebel force, despite having not always overtly supported it in the past.

Last week, Brigadier General Manaf Tlas, one of the highest ranking defectors to flee Syria, said he would try to help unite Syria's fragmented opposition inside and outside the country in order to agree a roadmap for a power transfer.

Reportedly al Queada has joined and supporting the rebels. A question is being raised is this the same as the US supporting the Taliban when USSR attacked Afghanistan but turning hostile once the motive was achieved.

Observers say Syria was calm and peaceful until Washington imposed violence, mass killing and destruction. They say Syrian conflict isn’t an uprising, revolution or civil war but Western media orchestrated by Washington is distorting the reality.

The Financial Daily has rightly concluded, “Insurgents are fully supported by Washington proxies. Subjugating is termed liberating the oppressed. In fact they are aiming at assault if other methods fail. Opponents of Assad are being provided funds and arsenal to initiate a full scale war. This is exactly what they did in Libya.”

Colonialism proliferating, though in a different form

It may not be wrong to say that the World War-III started no sooner did World War-II ended. Under the new arrangement countries are not conquered using military but by subjugating their sovereignty.

In the past the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund used to take control of policy making of recipient countries but now power of these countries to make decision are curtailed by establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).

After the World War-II, super powers namely USA, USSR, and later on China have emerged. While USSR faced disintegration after its failed attempt to get access to warm waters by attacking Afghanistan, China preferred to focus on becoming an economic power. The USA got a free hand to establish its hegemony.

China is a perfect example of ‘If you can’t kill your enemy, make him friend but never forget you have to kill him one day’. USA has emerged a major investor in China and also a major buyer of made in China products. The policy is driven by the lust to control Chinese economy.

Economic sanctions are imposed on countries trying to the US policy but all the decisions are driven by protecting its own interest and/or its peripheries. This is evident from the latest US decision to exempt India, Malaysia, South Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Taiwan buying oil from Iran. These countries are either the major buyers of made in USA arsenal or supplier of goods and services to the super power.

United Nations (UN) has also become subservient as most of the decisions are made by the permanent members enjoying veto powers. Any decision by the international community can be turned down by these countries.  However, if a rubber stamp is needed, UN endorses military action, the most recent examples being Libya and Syria. Iran has been facing economic sanctions for more than three decades.

Different blocs have been created for the collective exploitation and now to establish US hegemony and developing regional powers. India has been given the status of regional super power. Commonwealth keeps on reminding the sovereign countries that they were British colonies and are still under the thumb of Monarchy.

Economic assault has been initiated under the WTO that gives legal cover to the financial atrocities of the developed countries. These countries control economies of poor sates through multinational companies (MNCs). This is best understood when one looks at the balance sheets and profit and loss statements of Fortune-500, which has further reduced to Fortune-50 companies,

But armies still play key role in conquering countries, with US leading Nato member counties. Usually the campaign starts in the name of restoration of democracy. Regime Change Plans are executed by funding rebels and proving them arsenal. This is in no way any attempt to make their lives better but to keep the armament factories running at full capacities.