What United States loves the most? Saudi Crown Prince or US$134 billion arms sale

At present, the United States and Saudi Arabia are experiencing a new era in their 76-year relationships. The priorities have changed after the release of the CIA findings. The report says Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) had ‘approved’ the 2018 murder of prominent Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.

Historically, an American president has never cut off personal links to the Saudi heir apparent, who has often served as de facto ruler of the kingdom. But the White House declared his intention to make that very heir a ‘pariah’ in Washington and internationally as well.

The State Department has also set a new precedent by issuing visa restrictions on 76 Saudis believed to have been engaged in threatening dissidents overseas’ under a new ‘Khashoggi ban’ created in memory of the Saudi journalist murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

MBS has been deliberately spared from the Khashoggi ban, or any other sanction, to preserve a minimum communication and cooperation between the two governments. Former Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal noted, MBS is destined to live under a lifetime ‘stigma’ for his role in the affair. He is unlikely to be invited to the White House for years to come.     

Biden has said that from now on, he will only talk to King Salman, Mohammed’s father and the American President’s official counterpart. But the king is 85 years old and in failing health. When he dies, would Biden refuse to communicate with the kingdom’s new monarch? It will be an unprecedented situation in the history of US-Saudi relations dating back to World War II.

In the past, the personal relationship between the US President and reigning Saudi monarch has been a key determinant in setting both the tone and substance of ties between the two countries. At this point, the only senior US official authorized to talk to Crown Prince Mohammed, who is also minister of defense, is his counterpart, Secretary of Defense General Lloyd Austin III.

What impact the new Biden doctrine toward the crown prince will have on the overall US-Saudi relationship remains to be seen? It seems likely that the relationship will be reduced mostly to formal state-to-state transactions and to avoid an open break which neither side wants.

It is believed that the focal point of the relationship will remain the massive US arms sales to the Saudi kingdom and covert cooperation in demolishing Iran. Since 2010, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified Congress of US$134 billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has been the most important foreign market for the American defense industry for decades.

The Biden administration has reiterated its commitment to defending Saudi Arabia from foreign aggression and will continue to provide ‘defensive’ arms. However, it has already announced the suspension of ‘offensive’ weapons being used against Houthi rebels, who have seized control of most of Yemen. Forthcoming arms sales to the Kingdom are now under review, presumably to determine which are defensive and which are offensive.

Other than MBS, the most divisive and immediate issue in US-Saudi relations is how to deal with Iran, the kingdom’s arch rival for regional primacy. Iran has proven itself to be the most serious military threat after demonstrating its ability to amass drones and cruise missiles to knock out nearly half of the kingdom’s oil production for several weeks in September 2019.

Biden has begun charting a diplomacy initiative to entice Iran back into the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Acton (JCPOA). This will certainly lead to even more discord in the fraught US-Saudi relationship. The two countries no longer see the personal ties bonding US and Saudi leaders had enjoyed in the past.

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.

Israel accuses Iran of ecological terrorism

Iran intentionally polluted the Mediterranean Sea and Israel’s shores in an act of ecological terrorism, causing the greatest environmental disaster in Israel’s history, Environmental Protection Minister Gila Gamliel said.

“This pollution has people who are responsible for it and have to pay the price. Our nature is damaged, our animals are harmed, thanks to merciless environmental criminals,” Gamliel added.

Gamliel explained, following a two-week investigation, the Environmental Protection Ministry found that the ship that leaked the crude oil, called the Emerald, was owned by a Libyan company and sailed from Iran to Syria. It departed Iran, turning off its automatic identification system (AIS) – which transmits its location to other ships in the area. It turned the AIS on as it went through the Suez Canal, and then off again as it approached Israel’s shores.

The ship remained within tens of kilometers of Israel’s shores, within Israel’s economic waters, for nearly a full day, spilling large amounts of oil on 1st and 2nd February, with its AIS off.

Then it continued on to Syria, where it turned on its transmitter, and it returned to Iran, turning off its AIS as it passed Israel. It is currently in Iran.

The tar reached Israeli shores on 17th February 2021.

“Now we see Iran is not just terrorizing [Israel] with [attempts at attaining] nuclear weapons and entrenching itself in our region, but also by harming the environment,” Gamliel said. “They’re not just hurting Israel. Nature and animals don’t just belong to one nation. This is a battle that crosses borders.”

Gamliel said that Israel will demand compensation from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund and the ship’s insurers.

“We will settle the score with the polluters in the name of all Israelis for the harm to our health, nature, animals and view,” she vowed. “We cannot abandon our sea. Our sea is our natural treasure that we must protect.”

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the European Maritime Safety Agency, as well as Israeli maritime research company Windward, helped the Environmental Protection Ministry investigate the oil spill. None of the agencies knew about the oil spill before the tar reached Israeli shores, over two weeks after it occurred.

Samples of the tar, which the Environmental Protection Ministry examined, showed that it came from crude oil, which sharply reduced the number of suspected ships from 35 to four. Two were found to have been too far away, and another was examined by local authorities in Spain and by Israeli investigators in Greece. The fourth is the Emerald, currently in Iran.

European satellites caught the underwater stain on 5th February, but it was not noticed before the tar reached Israel’s beaches.

ICC prosecutor announces formal investigation into Israeli war crimes

International Criminal Court Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda announced on Wednesday that she is opening a full war crimes probe against Israel and the Hamas terrorist group in the Gaza Strip. "The decision to open an investigation followed a painstaking preliminary examination undertaken by my office that lasted close to five years," Prosecutor Bensouda said in a statement.

"In the end, our central concern must be for the victims of crimes, both Palestinian and Israeli, arising from the long cycle of violence and insecurity that has caused deep suffering and despair on all sides," she added. "My office will take the same principled, non-partisan, approach that it has adopted in all situations over which its jurisdiction is seized."

"This is a long-awaited step that serves Palestine’s tireless pursuit of justice and accountability, which are indispensable pillars of the peace the Palestinian people seek and deserve," the PA foreign ministry said in a statement. 

Israeli Foreign Minister says ICC war crimes probe in Palestinian territories is 'an act of moral and legal bankruptcy.'

Bensouda's announcement comes less than a month after a February decision by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber recognizing a State of Palestine and authorizing her to move forward.

The probe is expected to cover the 2014 Gaza War, the 2018 Gaza border crisis and the Israeli settlement enterprise in the West Bank as well as Hamas' rocket attacks against Israeli civilians.

War crimes suits could be leveled at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense ministers and any other high-level officials involved in such activity since 13th June 2014. Soldiers and commanders could also be targeted.

"The investigation will cover crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are alleged to have been committed in the Situation since 13 June 2014, the date to which reference is made in the Referral of the Situation to my Office," chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said in a statement released on Wednesday.

Bensouda said that the investigation "will be conducted independently, impartially and objectively, without fear or favour." She said that the decision to open an investigation followed a painstaking preliminary examination undertaken by her office that lasted close to five years.

"Having assessed submissions from states, international organizations and other stakeholders, the Chamber was otherwise unanimous in its view that Palestine is a State Party to the Rome Statute. The majority also ruled that Palestine's referral of the Situation obliged the Office to open an investigation, the Office having determined that there existed a reasonable basis to do so in accordance with the Rome Statute criteria," she wrote in a statement.

Bensouda called on Palestinian and Israeli victims and affected communities to be patient.

"The ICC is not a panacea, but only seeks to discharge the responsibility that the international community has entrusted to it, which is to promote accountability for Rome Statute crimes, regardless of the perpetrator, in an effort to deter such crimes," she wrote. "In meeting this responsibility, the Office focuses its attention on the most notorious alleged offenders or those alleged to be the most responsible for the commission of the crimes."

Her primary concern, she wrote, "must be for the victims of crimes, both Palestinian and Israeli, arising from the long cycle of violence and insecurity that has caused deep suffering and despair on all sides."

Bensouda's decision comes only a few weeks after her successor, Karim Khan, was announced to take her place starting in June.

The news will be another blow to Israel, where officials had hoped Bensouda would leave the decision of how to proceed to her successor and that he might be more sympathetic to Israel's many claims against the ICC's jurisdiction.

On Tuesday, Defense Minister and Acting Justice Minister Benny Gantz alarmed government officials when he warned that hundreds of Israelis could be subject – in the near future – to war crimes probes by the International Criminal Court.

Gantz called that “an estimate,” declining to say that Israel had drawn up a list of officials likely to be investigated. Israel will provide legal assistance to any targeted Israelis and will give them advice regarding travel abroad if necessary, Gantz said.

Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director for the left-wing NGO Human Rights Watch, stated: "The ICC prosecutor’s decision to open a Palestine investigation moves Israeli and Palestinian victims of serious crimes one step closer to obtaining a measure of justice that has for too long eluded them. 

"The court’s crowded docket shouldn’t deter the prosecutor’s office from doggedly pursuing cases against anyone credibly implicated in such crimes. 

"All eyes will also be on the next prosecutor Karim Khan to pick up the baton and expeditiously move forward while demonstrating firm independence in seeking to hold even the most powerful to account. ICC member countries should stand ready to fiercely protect the court’s work from any political pressure," he added.

OPEC and allies likely to raise output

Crude oil futures rallied in the Asian session before paring gains as the European session progressed as traders look ahead to the OPEC+ meeting this week. OPEC and allies meeting is scheduled on 4th March 2021 with market participants looking at likely easing of output constraints.

Going into the meeting, analysts note that global inventories are falling at their fastest rate in two decades. Clearly with the ongoing demand uncertainty there is a risk that OPEC over tightens by maintaining output curbs for too long. The risk is now one of keeping too much oil on the side lines and not pumping enough, which will drive prices sharply higher. Goldman Sachs says Brent will hit US$75 this year.

Thirteen OPEC members pumped 24.89 million barrels per day (bpd) during February 2021, down 870,000 bpd from January 2021 in the first monthly decline since June 2020. In February the largest supply cut came from Saudi Arabia, which pledged an additional, voluntary one million bpd production cut for February and March. As a result, compliance with pledged cuts stood at 121% in February, up from 103% in January.

Current output constraints stand at a little over 7 million bpd, with the 23-country OPEC+ likely to agree to reduce this by another 500,000 bpd from April on Thursday. In addition, it’s likely Saudi Arabia will confirm the additional one million bpd it removed from the market will return in April. This would bring an additional 1.5 million bpd on stream, but even this may not be enough to satisfy the demand. 

OPEC will be mindful of the IEA report that suggested that inventories could start to climb again in the second quarter due to seasonal factors before drawing down again in the second half of the year.

“The rebalancing of the oil market remains fragile in the early part of 2021 as measures to contain the spread of COVID-19, with its more contagious variants, weigh heavily on the near-term recovery in global oil demand,” the IEA’s latest Oil Market Report said.

“But fresh support has been provided by a more positive economic outlook for the second half of the year, along with a pledge from OPEC+ to hasten the drawdown of surplus oil inventories.” The report added

The spread on Brent futures contracts points to significant short-term supply shortage. Six-month spreads are above US$3, while the December contract trades about US$4 below the May contract as the front months are commanding a significant premium over back months, a situation known as backwardation. This implies bullish positioning and tight supplies. Analysts also see similar levels of backwardation on WTI futures, with the April contract trading about US$4 above December contract.

OPEC should be mindful of US shale producers, albeit the conditions for a sharp recovery in output are not what they once were. Nevertheless, OPEC+ could, by keeping output too tight, create conditions for a sharp acceleration in prices that see rivals deliver more. 

Baker Hughes said oil and gas producers added rigs for a 7th straight month for the first time since May 2018, although the rate of growth slowed as the Texas deep freeze hit. The less OPEC does to return the production cut last year the quicker these numbers should rise.

United States backed militants looting 140,000 barrels per day of Syrian oil

Reportedly, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a militant group supported by the United States, is stealing around 140,000 barrels of crude oil on a daily basis from oil fields in Syria’s northeastern province of Hasakah.

Lately, Ghassan Halim Khalil, Governor of Hasakah, announced the grim news in an interview with the Lebanese al-Akhbar newspaper, adding that Syrian oil is being plundered by the SDF militants in various ways, all with the participation and support of the US troops deployed in the region.

He stressed that precise intelligence collected and received show that the US-backed militants use tanker trucks from Taramish area in the vicinity of Tigris and in al-Malikiyah to smuggle the Syrian oil to neighboring Iraq.

Khalil further noted that many tanker trucks pass through the illegal al-Mahmoudiyah crossing into Iraq every day, adding that the SDF militants also regularly send stolen oil to their controlled areas in Syria.

The Syrian Governor also revealed that the US forces have ordered the SDF militants not to allow the Damascus-controlled areas receive oil.

Khalil added that while the Syrian people are suffering from the cold weather and hunger, these US-supported militants plunder Syria's national oil resources.

The US looting of Syrian oil was first confirmed during a Senate hearing exchange between South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and then US secretary of state Mike Pompeo in July 2020.

During his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo confirmed for the first time that an American oil company would begin work in northeastern Syria, which is controlled by the SDF, which is an alliance of Kurdish militants operating against Damascus and currently controls areas in northern and eastern Syria.

The Syrian government denounced, in the strongest terms, the agreement inked to plunder the country's natural resources, including Syrian oil and gas under the sponsorship and support of the administration of former US President Donald Trump.

Since late October 2019, the US has been redeploying soldiers to the SDF-controlled oil fields in eastern Syria, in a reversal of Trump’s earlier order to withdraw all troops from the war-torn country.

The Pentagon claims that the move aims to protect the fields and facilities from possible attacks by the Daesh terrorists, while Trump openly said that the US seeks economic interests in controlling the oil fields.

A US-led military coalition has been pounding what it claimed was the positions of Daesh inside Syria since September 2014 without any authorization from the Damascus government or a UN mandate. The strikes have on many occasions resulted in civilian casualties and failed to fulfill their declared aim of countering terrorism.

Resolution against Iran at IAEA will disrupt the situation, says Zarif

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iranian Foreign Minister, on Monday warned the three European parties to the 2015 nuclear deal that a resolution against Iran by the IAEA Board of Governors would disrupt the current conditions, reports Tasnim news agency.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting with members of the Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Zarif warned of agitation in case the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board issues a statement against Iran over its decision to suspend the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol of the NPT.

“The Europeans (UK, France, and Germany) have begun a wrong move at the Board of Governors with the backing of the United States. We believe such an action would upset the conditions,” Zarif noted.

He also stressed that Iran’s ambassador to the Vienna-based international organizations has already warned the Board of Governors about the consequences of confusing the status quo.
 
“We hope wisdom would prevail, otherwise, we would have (other) approaches,” Zarif warned.

Speaking at the parliamentary meeting, Zarif also said the US has no right to return to the JCPOA – the official name for the 2105 nuclear deal- until it recommits itself to its obligations.

In accordance with the Iranian Parliament’s legislation on lifting sanctions, Iran has halted the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol because the signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal have failed to fulfill their commitments.

Following last week’s visit to Tehran by the IAEA Director General, Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog issued a joint statement, declaring that Iran will stop its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and will deny IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear facilities beyond the Safeguards Agreement as of 23rd February 2021, for three months.

According to Reuters, Britain, France and Germany have draft a US-backed resolution at the IAEA’s Board to criticize Iran for limiting cooperation with the Agency, despite Russian and Iranian warnings of serious consequences,.

The IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors is holding a quarterly meeting this week against the backdrop of faltering efforts to revive Iran’s nuclear deal with major powers now that US President Joe Biden is in office.

Iran scaled back its cooperation with the IAEA last week, ending extra inspection and monitoring measures introduced under the deal, including the power given to the IAEA to carry out snap inspections at facilities that have not been declared to be related to nuclear energy. Tehran’s move is a response to the US withdrawal from the deal in 2018 and the re-imposition of sanctions that had been lifted under it.

The European trio (E3), all parties to the 2015 nuclear deal, circulated a draft resolution for the Vienna meeting voicing “serious concern” at Iran’s reduction of transparency and urging Iran to reverse its steps.

Iran has warned to cancel a deal struck a week ago with the IAEA to temporarily continue many of the monitoring measures it had decided to end - a black box type arrangement valid for up to three months and aimed at creating a window for diplomacy.

Iran said on Sunday it would not take up a proposal by European Union Foreign Policy Chief, Josep Borrell to hold an informal meeting with the United States.

It is unclear how many countries would support a resolution. Moreover, Russia warned that a resolution could hurt efforts to revive the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and that it would oppose it.
 
“Adoption of the resolution will not help the political process of returning to the normal comprehensive implementation of the JCPOA,” Russia’s note to other member states said.

“On the contrary it will hugely complicate those efforts undermining the prospects for the restoration of the JCPOA and for normal cooperation between Iran and the Agency,” it added. 

Israel designates PFLP international branch as a terrorist organization,

As part of the campaign against the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and its global organizational infrastructure, Defense Minister of Israel, Benny Gantz has signed an order designating the Samidoun organization, which acts abroad on the group’s behalf, as a terrorist organization.

According to a Defense Ministry press release, representatives of the organization are active in many countries in Europe and North America.

The Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity organization, also known as Samidoun (Arabic for holding ground), was designated as a terrorist organization because it is part of the PFLP. It was founded by members of the front in 2012.

The designation was made following the recommendation of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and the National Bureau for Counter Terror Financing, the Defense Ministry said in a press release.

Representatives of the organization are active in many countries in Europe and North America, led by Khaled Barakat, who is part of the leadership of the PFLP abroad, press release stated.

Barakat is involved with establishing terrorist cells in the West Bank and abroad, the Defense Ministry said. The formal goal of Samidoun is to help Palestinian prisoners secure their release from prison, it said, adding that in practice, it serves as a front for the PFLP abroad.

Samidoun also plays a leading and significant role in the PFLP’s anti-Israel propaganda efforts, fundraising and recruiting of activists, the Defense Ministry said. These activities complement PFLP terrorist attacks against Israel, it said.

Gantz and the defense establishment will continue to take measures to foil terrorist activity and enforce the law against the attempts of the PFLP terrorist organization and its associated bodies to harm the security of Israel, the Defense Ministry said.

What could be likely quantum of Iranian oil exports even if United States eases sanctions?

According to some of the analysts, one of the reasons for lingering imposition of sanctions on Iran by the United States is pressure of large oil producers from the Middle East. Thanks to Israel which has drilled into their minds, “Iran is a bigger threat as compared to Israel”.

As Joe Biden seems adamant at joining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), anti Iran elements have once again started talking about adverse impacts of re-entry of Iran in oil trade.

Fitch Solutions, a subsidiary of Fitch Ratings, which is one of three biggest credit rating agencies of United States, has forecasted a 6.8% growth in Iranian oil exports in 2021 if the US comes back to the 2015 nuclear deal.

In one of its latest reports dubbed “Iran Oil and Gas Report”, Fitch has stated that crude oil exports of Iran would double in 2022 compared to 2020.

“The prospects for the Iranian oil sector have brightened significantly following Joe Biden's victory in the US presidential election, He has indicated re-entry of the US into the Iranian nuclear deal, paving the way for a roll-back of secondary sanctions and recovery of around 2.0 million barrels per day (bpd) in oil production,” the report said.

Fitch also stated that Iranian gas production is also expected to rise in the coming years considering the new developments in the country’s giant South Pars gas field that Iran shares with Qatar in the Persian Gulf.

“However, Iran needs to find new export markets in neighboring countries to maximize the productivity of the new output capacities,” the report reads.

Fitch further mentioned development of the Iranian oil and gas industry’s downstream sectors saying, “The outlook on the downstream is relatively robust, with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) making continued investments to expand and upgrade its refined fuels production, and with a robust demand outlook for both oil and gas as the market recovers from the combined effects of Covid-19 and US nuclear related sanctions.”

Also, the study of the risk index of the upstream sectors of the country’s oil and gas industry in this report shows that, given the huge oil and gas resources, these sectors are reasonable options for investment in the country.

According to the report, Iran ranks fourth among 12 countries in the region in terms of the oil and gas industry’s risk-return index, while the country occupies 20th place among the world’s top 72 oil-producing countries.

Iranian oil production and exports have been both increasing over the past few months despite the US sanctions. Iranian Oil Ministry has announced its readiness for boosting the country’s crude oil output to the pre-sanction levels in case of the US rejoining JCPOA.

Back in January this year, the data from SVB International and two other firms indicated that Iranian oil exports were climbing in January after a boost in the fourth quarter despite US sanctions.

Iran’s Deputy Oil Minister Amir Hossein Zamaninia had said earlier that the country started boosting its oil production and would be able to reach pre-sanction levels within two months.

Iranian oil won’t create any surplus in the oil market and the market will be able to accommodate the country’s maximum oil output of around 3.9 million to four million barrels a day, Bloomberg quoted Zamaninia as saying on the sidelines of the Iran Oil Show in Tehran in late January.

 

No alternative to two state solution, says King Abdullah of Jordan

Speaking at the Brookings institute webinar, King Abdullah of Jordan said, “It is time to turn toward conflict resolution not management of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” He urged upon all parties to “focus on the end goal instead of losing ourselves in the process.”

“We owe this to our world” adding “Let us learn from past mistakes and take the higher path of peace.”

He noted that he spoke 19 years ago during the institution’s inaugural event about the need to solve the conflict, which he called the core issue in the Middle East. “You can only imagine the frustration of the people still living in the midst of this protracted conflict, unable to move forward,” the king said.

“Occupation and peace simply cannot coexist,” he continued. “The Palestinian people have a right to an independent, viable and sovereign state on the June 4, 1967, lines, to live alongside Israel in peace and security.”

He declared that there is no alternative to the two-state solution, “and continued unilateral steps will only kill the prospects of peace.”

“Occupation, injustice, despair, apartheid – history has shown us there are no winners in this formula, only losers and tragedy,” King Abdullah said.

“There is an opportunity to build on recent positive developments, and we need to restore hope in the viability of peace and bring our youth closer to a future that for so long has been tantalizingly out of reach – and United States leadership here is essential.”

Jordan, he said, will always be ready to play its part in any effort to re-launch peace negotiations.

He also addressed the regional challenges of COVID-19, saying, “The pandemic has taken away from our focus on fighting terrorism and extremism. Although the battle may be won, the war is not yet over. Rising inequalities and emerging crises caused by the pandemic will fuel the recruitment efforts of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and al- Qaeda.”

Crude oil price caught between Covid and green energy options

Prospects for global oil products markets this year are in flux, with major uncertainties surrounding the pace of vaccination program, rationalization in refining and the adoption of alternative fuels. Most forecasts for products demand and prices have been steadily revised upwards as vaccination programs have got underway and this has created positive market sentiment.

Argus' global head of oil products Stephen Jones told the forum held recently. Any actual demand recovery will depend on how quickly governments lift lockdown measures. One major unknown is how well the vaccines will deal with new variants of Covid-19.

In Europe, major oil products margins to the North Sea crude benchmark coalesced around $5/barrel by the end of January, according to Argus' European oil products editor Elliot Radley. This came in between a third and a half of their five-year averages.

A recovery toward pre-pandemic margin levels could be stimulated by lifting of lockdown measures and by major cuts to European production. Low margins have forced Europe's refiners to begin a phase of rationalization, and almost one million barrel per day of crude distillation capacity is either mothballed, shut down permanently or marked for various conversions to renewable-fuel processing.

European utilization has increased marginally since the second half of 2020, but remains close to 30-year lows, said Radley, with many refineries either offline or operating close to technical minimum rates. This reflects an oversupplied market, and oil product inventories are close to 30-year highs.

The third major uncertainty surrounding is how quickly environmental policies are adopted internationally, said Argus' head of European business development Josefine Ahlstrom. Argus Consulting — a division of Argus Media that provides forecasts and analyses separate and independent of Argus' news and price-assessment business — expects electric vehicles will make up 20% of the European vehicle fleet by 2030 and 50% by 2040. This could reduce gasoline demand by a third by 2030 as compared to 2019 levels.

Diesel demand is likely to be safer because commercial vehicles, which are more likely to retain internal combustion engines, make up a greater share of demand.

The EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) II calls for 14% of transport energy to be renewable by 2030, although this target could be increased as member states aim to meet ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emission targets. In the United States, the recent change of presidency could signal a revival of political momentum behind environmental legislation.

Overall, oil products demand is likely to fall slightly, and the share of renewables to increase rapidly.

Will ending war in Afghanistan be ever possible?

Speaking in Kabul on 14th February at the 32nd anniversary of withdrawal of the Soviet Union troops from Afghanistan, President, Ashraf Ghani, made an important distinction. 

The civil war that devastated Afghanistan after the withdrawal was caused not by the departure of Soviet troops, but by the failure to formulate a viable plan for Afghanistan’s future. As the United States intends to pull outs its troops from the country, it should keep in mind that lesson.

After withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan in 1989, the Soviet Union continued to provide financial support to the communist-nationalist regime, led by President Mohammad Najibullah. But, lacking domestic legitimacy, Najibullah’s regime quickly collapsed when Soviet Union withdrew its financial support in 1992, triggering the civil war. In 1996, the Taliban gained control of Kabul and, ultimately, the country.

The Taliban remained in power until 2001, when a US-led invasion—spurred by the 9/11 terrorist attacks—ended its rule. In February 2020, US President Donald Trump’s administration reached a deal with the Taliban intended to end the nearly 20-year-long war. The US and its NATO allies agreed to withdraw all troops by May 2021 if the Taliban fulfilled certain commitments, including cutting ties with terrorist groups and reducing violence.

The Taliban also have to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Afghan government, which was not involved in the deal. The Trump administration apparently hoped that an intra-Afghan peace agreement would materialize by the designated withdrawal date, ending the fighting and minimizing the risk that Afghanistan would become a haven for terrorists.

That hasn’t happened; the number of US troops has been reduced to around 2,000 troops, fighting in Afghanistan hasn’t decreased. On the contrary, a US watchdog agency reports that the Taliban carried out more attacks in the last quarter of 2020 than during the same period in 2019. Moreover, the latest intra-Afghan talks, which began in Doha in September, have produced virtually no results.

It seems that the Taliban’s plan was to keep fighting until US troops left, at which point they might be able to secure a victory in the long war. Now they face another possibility that US troops won’t leave nearly as expected. President Joe Biden’s administration has announced that it is reviewing the deal to determine whether the Taliban is ‘living up to its commitments’.

The Biden administration also has to decide the role NATO allies, which together have substantially more troops in Afghanistan than the US does. Keeping in view the post-Soviet experience, the US has to devise a plan for influencing the situation in Afghanistan and the region after the withdrawal.

The challenge is formidable; Afghanistan is one of the world’s poorest countries. Afghanistan’s state income amounts to little more than a third of what the US pays to sustain its various security forces, to say nothing of US aid to the civilian sector (it amounts to less than half of Europe’s contributions). In fact, Afghanistan has remained depended on outside support to sustain its statehood since Russia and Britain played their ‘Great Game’ in the 19th century.

It seems that the US is leaning towards maintaining some sort of security presence, focused on fighting the terrorists of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, beyond the May deadline, an approach German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has also advocated.

But there are risks. The Taliban could reject this solution, leading to an intensification of fighting and renewed attacks on international forces. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, is most likely already working to assess this risk.

The Taliban’s acceptance of a continued security presence may depend on progress in the intra-Afghan talks, though no one seems to have a clear vision for a power-sharing agreement. The gap between today’s Afghanistan and the Taliban’s desired Islamic Emirate is wide, and narrowing it will require a recalibration of the diplomatic process concerning Afghanistan.

The regional powers—including Iran, Russia and China—should be engaged in all talks about the country’s future, with one or two also taking a more active role in facilitating the intra-Afghan political dialogue. In this process, managing the dynamics between India and Pakistan, for which developments in Afghanistan hold profound national security implications will undoubtedly emerge as a key challenge. Indeed, at the moment Russia is taking the initiative in this regard.

The pressure in the US and elsewhere to end the ‘forever war’ in Afghanistan is understandable. But, as Ghani has warned, simply withdrawing international forces is unlikely to yield that result. To avoid a new spiral of violence, all stakeholders must first deliberate what may happen after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

Netanyahu terms Iran Nuclear agreement worthless

Israel will not rely on efforts to return to a nuclear deal with Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday. “Israel isn’t pinning its hopes on an agreement with an extremist regime like (Iran),” he said at a memorial service for the 1920 Battle of Tel Hai.

“With or without an agreement, we will do everything so Iran isn’t armed with nuclear weapons,” he added.

Referring to the story of Purim, which begins on Thursday night, Netanyahu said, “2,500 years ago, a Persian oppressor tried to destroy the Jewish people, and just as he failed then, you will fail today… We didn’t make a journey of thousands of years to return to the Land of Israel to allow the delusional ayatollahs’ regime to finish the story of the rebirth of the Jewish People.”

On Monday, Netanyahu met with Defense Minister Benny Gantz, Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Mossad Director Yossi Cohen, National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat, Ambassador to the US Gilad Erdan and others to discuss Israel’s strategy and response to the Biden administration’s attempted rapprochement with Iran.

The United States is seeking to start a dialogue with Iran and move toward a return to the 2015 Iran deal, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said in a statement with the European countries that were party to the deal. Officials in Washington have called on Iran to return to compliance with the deal before the US would remove sanctions.

Officials in the meeting were split on whether Israel should advocate for the US to stay out of the Iran deal until it can get a better, more-secure agreement, or be more supportive of what US President Joe Biden’s stated plan is, to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the 2015 Iran deal is officially called, and then negotiate tougher terms.

Netanyahu reportedly took the first, harder line, while Gantz and Ashkenazi supported a less-confrontational approach.

As indicated by Netanyahu’s remarks, open opposition to a return to the JCPOA is still on the table.

Rejoining “the old nuclear deal of 2015 that paves Iran’s path to an arsenal of nuclear bombs will be a mistake,” Erdan told KAN Reshet Bet on Tuesday.

If the US returns to the JCPOA by lifting sanctions, it won’t have any leverage to convince Iran to reopen negotiations for a stricter deal, he said.

Nevertheless, “a diplomatic solution is always preferable to a military solution,” Erdan said, adding that “the question is whether there will be an agreement that blocks any way Iran can get a nuclear weapon.”

The officials at Monday’s meeting agreed Israel should continue its ongoing dialogue with the Biden administration rather than opt for open confrontation, as it did in former US president Barack Obama’s second term.

Erdan emphasized the importance of dialogue during his interview with KAN Reshet Bet.

“The new US administration has shown a very honest and deep will to hold organized consultations with Israel, led by US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan,” he said. “Israel is in a process of full dialogue with the Biden administration and they are listening to our stance – the American government and also central countries in Europe.”

Also Tuesday, the European parties to the JCPOA, known as the E3, said Iran’s decision to block snap inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency was dangerous and a violation of the Iran deal.

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and the UK said they “deeply regret” that Iran suspended what is known as the Additional Protocol of the JCPOA.

“Iran’s actions are a further violation of its commitments under the JCPOA and significantly reduces safeguards oversight by the IAEA,” they said. “The E3 are united in underlining the dangerous nature of this decision.”

The foreign ministers said stopping snap inspections would limit IAEA access to nuclear sites and its ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear program and related activities.

“We urge Iran to stop and reverse all measures that reduce transparency and to ensure full and timely cooperation with the IAEA,” they said.

The foreign ministers said they seek to preserve the JCPOA and negotiate for Iran and the US to return to it.

The JCPOA’s additional protocol said the IAEA could hold short-term inspections in locations that Iran had not declared as nuclear sites.

Iran announced it would stop the inspections on Tuesday, going back on a prior agreement to extend them for three more months. The move was a response to the US not lifting sanctions on the regime.

Israel views the E3 as more open to the Israeli position than in the past due to Iran’s repeated violations of the deal’s limitations, KAN reported.

In recent weeks, Iran announced it would enrich uranium up to 20% and produce uranium metal, which the E3 said has no credible civilian use.

Israel has increased pressure on the E3 to try to talk them out of rejoining the old Iran deal, with many more discussions about Iran than usual, KAN reported.