“Iran does not consider Saudi Arabia as enemy”, Dr. Foad Izadi

Dr. Foad Izadi is an associate professor of American Studies for a doctorate program at the University of Tehran, Faculty of World Studies. Having studied in the United States and has a Doctorate in Mass Communication from Louisiana State University. After his studies in US, he returned to Iran in 2009 and started a teaching profession. During an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times he talked about regional geopolitical situation and Iran’s ties with neighboring countries. Following are the excerpts from his interview. 

Tehran Times: How do you see Iran’s ties with countries of the Persian Gulf? Do you see thawing of relations with Saudi Arabia?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Iran does not consider Saudi Arabia to be an enemy. For Iran the United States and Israel are enemies.  Saudi Arabia is a neighbor and Iran has been trying to improve relations with Saudis, especially since President Rouhani came to power. Rouhani has also tried to reduce tensions with the US government.

The problem is that the Saudis are not interested, especially after (Saudi Crown Prince) MBS came to power and started a confrontational policy. The Saudi policy against Yemen and Qatar has also failed with the MBS leadership. In order to mend ties, Iran’s foreign minister has several times proposed to visit Saudi Arabia.

Iran has no intention for a confrontation with Saudi Arabia. The US tried to follow a divide and rule policy, creating tensions between neighboring countries, using its propaganda tools. The idea here is to replace Iran as the main power in the region with Israel.

They have been successful to certain extent. For example when Iran helped the Syrian government to fight ISIS there was a huge propaganda campaign to try to portray Iran as an occupation force. Saudis play with the price of oil to put pressure on Iran by over-exporting and the end result would be for Iran to suffer.

Tehran Times: What about Iranian crude exports?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Iran is presently exporting crude to some Chinese companies unofficially. Officially the export is zero.

Tehran Times: The UN has described the war in Yemen as the biggest humanitarian crisis since WWII. With the UAE giving signals for withdrawing from the conflict do you see a compromise in the near future?

Dr. Foad Izadi: It is not a decision for Iran. It is a decision the two sides have to make. Iran has four-step proposal: 1) Seize hostilities; 2) Humanitarian aid; 3) Establishing Yemeni-Yemeni dialogue without external interference and 4) Reaching a political solution in regards to the Yemen war.

The basic idea is to make sure that the war ends. The problem with the Saudis is that they know they have lost the war but they don’t know how to save face.

Tehran Times: What was the effect of the Houthi Aramco missile attacks on the Yemen conflict?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Since last year the Yemenis are using more sophisticated weapons. The Yemeni side has asked for a long time to stop the war but the UN was unable to stop hostilities because of American UNSC veto power. So Yemenis started to use force, which is the only language that the Saudis understand. The sooner the Saudis start understanding that the sooner the war will end.

Tehran Times: What is the role of Majlis in foreign affairs and do you think there is any chance for the survival of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA)?

Dr. Foad Izadi: JCPOA is almost dead. The only country that is following JCPOA is Iran. Sooner or later Iran will have to abandon the nuclear deal. Even the Rouhani government is getting tired. Majlis has passed a law after the murder of Soleimani. Now they want to confront the US. After the US pulled out from the JCPOA and the murder of Gen. Soleimani, even the most optimistic MPs are anti-American.

Tehran Times: What about independent candidates. How many in the present Majlis and what do you predict for independent candidates for the next Majlis?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Generally during every Majlis election 1/3rd of the votes are for independent candidates, 1/3 reformist and 1/3 principlist. I don’t think this year will be any different.

Tehran Times: What do you think will be the turnout for the 11th Majlis election and which faction will fare well in the upcoming parliamentary election?

Dr. Foad Izadi: Turn out generally for Majlis is about 55-65 percent. I expect that these elections will follow that norm. The fact is that the Rouhani government’s policies have not paid off, including the nuclear agreement. Domestically, they are facing difficulties due to sanctions and mismanagement and currency fluctuations. So support for reformist camp won’t be as before which will give a chance to the principlists.

Tehran Times: What do you predict for the future now that E3 (European Union trio of Britain, France and Germany) has triggered the dispute mechanism?

Dr. Foad Izadi: According to article 36 of the nuclear agreement starting dispute mechanism doesn’t mean that they will finish it. They can take several steps. The last step would be to re-impose previous UNSC sanctions in which case Iran will exit NPT as well.

Iran rejects Deal of the Century proposed by US President Donald Trump

In a move consistent with the Islamic Republic's decades-old policy regarding Israeli-Palestinian issue, Iranian officials have harshly criticized US President Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century".

Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani wrote a letter to the heads of parliaments around the world describing Trump's Deal of the Century as "disgusting," and "in violation of all international agreements and laws including the UN Charter."

Larijani wrote, “The deal ensures the continuation of occupation of Palestine and promised that Muslim nations and countries will confront the imposition of this unilateral deal."

He accused the US President of acting based on his personal interests rather than consulting the UN or the Palestinians.

Larijani also echoed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's idea of holding a referendum in the Palestinian territories to determine the fate of Palestinians.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif slammed the US plan as "a nightmare for the region." He wrote in a tweet that the Vision for Peace "is simply the dream project of a bankruptcy-ridden real estate developer." Zarif hoped that deal would be "a wake-up call for all the Muslims who have been barking up the wrong tree."

In an earlier tweet, Zarif characterized the Deal of the Century as "an illusionist plan that is dead on arrival."

Repeating the idea of holding a referendum in the Palestinian territory, Zarif suggested that “Instead of a delusional ‘Deal of the Century’—which will be D.O.A.—self-described ‘champions of democracy’ would do better to accept Iran's democratic solution proposed by Ayatollah Khamenei.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Abbas Mousavi expressed Iran's official view saying, "The Zionist regime is an occupying regime and the only solution to solve the Palestinian crisis is a referendum among all main residents of the Palestinian land and such vicious plans are doomed to failure."

Mousavi called on "All free nations and governments in the region and across the world to counter Trump's "disgraceful" scheme." However, he regretted that "some Muslim countries have forgotten the Palestinian cause," adding that such an attitude will undermine "the future and prestige of Muslims and Islamic countries."

Khamenei's office belatedly posted a series of tweets on the issue Tuesday afternoon which appear to have been taken out of his previous speeches.

In the tweets Khamenei said, "The Deal of the Century will never bear fruit," and called the "Jewishization of Qods" a "foolish and unwise" act. He reiterated that "The Palestinian nation and all Muslims will definitely stand up to them and not allow the so-called Deal of Century to be realized."

Usually, as it works in Iran, during the first hours after a development like the announcement of the Deal of the Century, everyone who considers himself or herself a politician says something about the matter which may not necessarily reflect the views of the government. Later, the Foreign Ministry Spokesman offers the regime's attestation in the matter.

The spokesman's statement as seen above contains three elements.

First, the regime does not like the Deal of the Century, second, it calls on other Muslim nations to oppose the deal and third, it offers Khamenei's solution which is holding a referendum.

All later comments, including Friday prayers sermons, embodied one or more of the three arguments. Naturally, those who take a more hardliner stance on the issue, including military officials, will focus on the confrontational part, calling on other nations to resist Trump's idea.

However, in this particular case, any comment by officials or any analysis by the media are also mixed with the usual anti-US and anti-Trump jargon while also marking the Islamic Republic's antagonistic opposition to the existence of Israel.

Traditionally, the Islamic Republic has opposed all solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict throughout the past four decades. Ayatollah Khamenei came up with the idea of referendum inspired by former ultraconservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but put it forward after his Presidency.

What has kept Islamic Republic of Iran intact over four decades?

Since the end of WWII, the United States has conducted coups against many nations, including Iran in 1953. The US involvement in toppling Shah in 1953 has been confirmed by unclassified CIA documents. After the revolution in 1979, the US and its allies have been making efforts to topple the regime in Islamic Republic of Iran by establishing and supporting various rebel factions within the country, but all in vain.   

It may be worth probing the factors that have kept the regime intact. These include:

1. Since 1979, the US has become increasingly hostile, causing the general population of Iran to become united in support of the regime. The biggest evidence came recently at the funeral of General Soleimani inside and outside Iran.
2. Iranians are concerned that the US support might bring a regime change that could be worse than the present regime.
3. The current regime has successfully created a semi-welfare state by subsidizing basic necessities, and lately providing free medical insurance to all, a situation that does not exist even in the US.
4. The US threats including a steady increase of sanctions, as economic terrorism have had a direct impact on ordinary Iranians.
5. The US pressure on Iranians to topple the present regime is based on the recent US history of regime changes in many countries, specifically in the Middle East, Central and South America.
6. Trump’s maximum pressure on Iran via sanctions has had a significant impact on ordinary Iranians to remain united.
7. Iranians as well as rest of the world understand that western democracy is based on wealth and is not true democracy.    

Strategic Planning of the incumbent regime moved on many fronts to thwart the US, which are:

1-      Going to Syria and defeating US-created ISIS and elements backed by the west, which include, defeat of ISIS in Syria and containment of devastation in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

2-      Policies and the ability to produce defensive and offensive weapons have made the prospect of a US invasion costly.

3-      Development of strategic alliances with Russia and China, with their UN veto power has effectively made overt US aggression illegal.

4-      Iranian regime making a major strategic shift to the balance of world power in favor of Iran, Russia, and China, against other western imperialists.

5-      In June 2019 Iran surprised the world by shooting down a US drone in the Persian Gulf to which there was no US military response.

6-      In late December 2019 IRI conducted military exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman.

7-      On January 3, 2020 the US assassinated General Soleimani, an act condemned around the world. Following that action, Iran labeled the Pentagon a terrorist organization and US a terrorist state.

8-      The most important strategic achievement of Iran was its response to that killing, shooting 22 missiles into two US military bases in Iraq, again without a US response.

9-      Iran developed a policy of changing US assets into liabilities; also showed that the sole purpose of US weapons has been to increase corporate profit, not for defense.

10-   The US attempts to force Iraqi’s PM to resign, by suggesting he and his defense minister could be killed, failed when the PM refused and made it public, exposing the US as terrorist

Iranians have been gradually uniting as the government counters US provocations, sanctions, sustained hostility, aggression, and existential threats against them. Recently, they have been more critical of the US. There is general support to major strategic achievements including defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and their strategic alliances with the emerging world powers of China and Russia.

Most importantly, the regime has prevented US from invading Iran, made history and changed the world balance of power against US aggression, hopefully moving toward a more peaceful and safer world.

United States making every effort to keep its troops in Middle East

Iraqi Parliament passed a resolution to expel US troops from the country two weeks ago. However, Washington does not seem ready to leave the country. According to some analysts, the US administration knows it very well that leaving Iraq could become the preamble of complete exit from Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

There is growing consensus that the presence of US troops in MENA and South Asia, especially Iraq, is part of greater agenda of fragmentation and establishing a “Feeble Middle East”. The strategy was formed during Bill Clinton’s presidency and it was practically launched by George W. Bush. 

The strategy has been applied in all the tactics and policies of US foreign and defense policies in the past two decades. There seems no ambiguity or disagreement between Democrats and Republicans regarding the necessity of its implementation. Criticizing Donald Trump’s recent behavior in the region by his Democratic rivals is related to the failure of the White House in carrying out the strategy.

The US withdrawal from the JCPOA, exerting pressure for a new deal or at least including new articles in the current deal, and insisting to limit the Iranian influence in the region can be assessed in this regard.

Washington has made great investment in exploiting the terrorist potential of Takfiri groups for the fragmentation in the region. The presence of US troops in the region, under the pretext of the fight against ISIS, is an issue of crucial importance for the White House, which it will not easily ignore.

The United States has witnessed major d.efeats in the political, military and intelligence areas by the axis of resistance. It has failed in executing its plans, despite spending billions of dollars of US tax payers. This became an important matter in Iraq and officials provided the conditions for greater synergy with the axis of resistance, a move that infuriated the White House.

Over the last four months, the US has put the tactic of “creating a power vacuum based on social protest” on its agenda to weaken those leaders who want complete expelling of US troops from the region. Washington has sought to undermine the Iranian-Iraqi strategic unity through anti-Iran slogans and prepare the ground for its troops to remain in Iraq.

The assassination of senior commanders of the resistance movement, Major General Qassem Soleimani, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was the same blunder that the theorists of the partition project were afraid of since they considered it as the loss of all American possessions in the region.

Iraqis agreed upon the expulsion of US troops from the country. The incident was the beginning of the new White House game in Iraq, US administration made every effort to disrupt the implementation of the resolution.

The US administration termed the resolution illegal and then claimed that the parliament did not have a quorum at the time of voting. The US administration also stated that under the Iraqi constitution, parliamentary sessions will take legal form if more than half of the members plus one person attend the session. This is exactly what happened during the voting.

When they failed in proving the allegation, US officials resorted to bypassing the resolution by bringing up again the old disputes between the Kurdish leaders and Baghdad. 

The US is also trying to convince the UN Security Council of the necessity of continuing its presence in Iraq to fight terrorism, by transferring a number of ISIS leaders (trained at U.S. bases, especially in Syria's Al-Tanaf and Al-Hasakah) to Iraq. In fact, several terrorist operations recently carried out by ISIS elements in Iraq is an example of the US hostility.

A new wave of violent protests has been staged in the past few days, which are allegedly being directly led by the US embassy in Baghdad. Washington is seeking to seize the opportunity and stabilize its presence in Iraq by disrupting the process of appointing a new prime minister. 

It seems that Iraq will witness some unrest due to enmity of the US and its regional and European allies, including Britain, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Lopsided reporting on United States-Iran Conflict

Without mincing words, it may be said that Pakistani readers/viewers get no clue of the current United States-Iran Conflict. To be precise they are lost by reading reports released by international media houses. The reason in most obvious, these media houses are owned and operated by anti-Muslim elements.

Over the years, distorted news reports were released about Pakistan-India conflict that culminated at East Pakistan, becoming Bangladesh. During 1965 and 1971 Pakistanis became addicted to BBC, as they were made to believe that the reporting was ‘fair’. When Saddam Hussein of Iraq attack Kuwait Pakistanis were introduced to another fantasy, CNN, as live coverage were provided by ‘embedded journalists’. After 9/11, United States attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and over the last four decades, Pakistanis have been completely brain washed and now they believe only Western media provides unbiased reports.

Let me point out the deficiency of Pakistani media houses, they hardly have correspondents even in Brother Muslim countries. As a result these media houses are obliged to use tinted reports released by international agencies, numbering less than half a dozen. Interestingly Pakistani news agencies also have arrangement with some foreign agencies and use their content without any deciphering.

Added to this, are the political affiliation of the owners of media houses with countries and sects. It is also not a secret that the successive governments in Pakistan have remained inclined to certain global and regional super powers, as a result some reports are overblown and some are completely blacked out.

Now coming to the current and the most contentious issue of United States-Iran confrontation, no one can deny Pakistan has been towing the US foreign policy, since independence. Over the years Pakistan also faced tenses relations with USSR. It has been facing tense relations with Afghanistan, Iran and India.

The biggest example of US hegemony is non-completion of Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline. The dichotomy of US policy can be gauged from the fact that India was allowed to construct Chabahar Port in Iran as well as rail and road links connecting the port to Central Asian Countries. Was not this hoodwinking aimed at undermining the importance of Pakistan?

I am inclined to infer that the most important aspects of present media system, and yet hardly known to the public that most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.
Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.These news agencies are the most important suppliers of material to mass media around the world and Pakistan cannot be an exception. No daily media outlet can manage without them. They influence our image of the world; above all, we get to know what they have selected.

In view of their essential importance, it is all the more astonishing that these agencies are hardly known to the public: A large part of society is unaware that news agencies exist at all.  On the contrary, they play an enormously important role in the media market.

There is something strange about news agencies. They are little known to the public. Unlike a newspaper, their activity is not so much in the spotlight, yet they can always be found at the source of the story.

In fact, not only the text, but also the images, sound and video recordings that we encounter in our media every day, are mostly from the very same agencies. What the uninitiated audience might think of as contributions from their local newspaper or TV station, are actually copied reports from New York, London and Paris.

Iraqi Parliament votes to expel US troops from Iraq

Reportedly in an extraordinary session on Sunday, the Iraqi parliament voted for a resolution requiring the government to order the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

The session came two days after a US drone strike on a convoy at Baghdad airport which killed Iranian Military Commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) Deputy Chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

“There is no need for the presence of American forces after defeating Daesh,” said Ammar al-Shibli, a lawmaker and member of the parliamentary legal committee.

“We have our own armed forces which are capable of protecting the country,” he said, Reuters reported.

Around 5,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, most of them in an advisory capacity.

During a massive funeral procession for General Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC Quds Force, and al-Muhandis in Baghdad, al- Kadhimiya, Karbala and Najaf, hundreds of thousands of angry Iraqi mourners carried placards demanding an immediate expulsion of “U.S. terrorists” from their country.

In the face of the Iraqi people’s will, the Iraqi parliament made a historic test about by voting to expel the U.S. troops.

Expelling Iraqi troops had turned into a “national demand” after the terrorist attacks on the top Iranian and Iraqi military commanders. 

Following the terrorist attack by the US, Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi had asked the parliament to take a decision based on Article 58 of the Iraqi constitution about the “illegal action” of the US army.

The Prime Minister said the US move was a violation of the Iraqi sovereignty and an affront to national pride.

He called the US act a dangerous move which will trigger another devastating war in Iraq and the region.

Since the US terrorist attack, rival political leaders had been calling for expulsion of US troops from Iraq in an unusual show of unity among factions.

Hadi al-Amiri, the top candidate to succeed al-Muhandis, repeated his call for US troops to leave Iraq on Saturday during an elaborate funeral procession for those killed in the attack.

Iraqi Parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri has expressed anger over the US attack on the military convoy, saying, “What happened around Baghdad airport was an open violation of the Iraqi territorial sovereignty and violation of international agreements.”

He added, “Any security and military operation should be with the agreement of the government.”

Faleh al-Fayad, Iraq’s national security advisor and chief of Hashd al-Shaabi or PMF), has also said it is the duty of the Iraqi government and judiciary to respond to the violation of the Iraqi sovereignty.  

Also, Abdelkarim Khalaf, spokesman for the Iraqi Armed Forces has said "these strikes represent a treacherous stab in the back."

Protests erupt in United States after assignation of Soleimani in a US attack in Iraq

According to a Reuters report, groups of protesters took to the streets in Washington and other cities of United States on Saturday to condemn the air strike in Iraq ordered by President Donald Trump that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Trump’s decision to send about 3,000 more troops to the Middle East.

“No justice, no peace. US out of the Middle East,” hundreds of demonstrators chanted outside the White House before marching to the Trump International Hotel a few blocks away.

Similar protests were held in New York, Chicago and other cities. Organizers at Code Pink, a women-led anti-war group, said protests were scheduled on Saturday in numerous US cities and towns.

Protesters in Washington held signs that read “No war or sanctions on Iran!” and “US troops out of Iraq!”

Speakers at the Washington event included actress and activist Jane Fonda, who last year was arrested at a climate change protest on the steps of the US Capitol.

“The younger people here should know that all of the wars fought since you were born have been fought over oil,” Fonda, 82, told the crowd, adding that “we can’t anymore lose lives and kill people and ruin an environment because of oil.”

“Going to a march doesn’t do a lot, but at least I can come out and say something, that I’m opposed to this stuff,” said protestor Steve Lane of Bethesda, Maryland. “And maybe if enough people do the same thing, he (Trump) will listen.”

Soleimani, regarded as the second most powerful figure in Iran, was killed in the US strike on his convoy at Baghdad airport on Friday in a dramatic escalation of hostilities in the Middle East between Iran and the United States and its allies.

Public opinion polls show Americans in general have been opposed to US military interventions overseas. A survey last year by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found 27% of Americans believe military interventions make the United States safer, and nearly half said they make the country less safe.

Trump administration justifies killing of Soleimani

Qassem Soleimani, Commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was killed in the US air strike in Baghdad, the attack was ordered by President Donald Trump.  His killing has instantly upped the military stakes in the region. Some believe that his killing was an adventurist step that will increase tensions throughout the region and make the world even more dangerous. Others believe that the incident opens the doors of the region to all possibilities, except peace and stability and United States will have to bear the responsibility for that. Let us review what the western media has to say.

According to media reports, Trump administration has justified killing of Soleimani as an act of self defense. This announcement came in response to the accusations that United States has violated international law and concerns raised by legal experts and a senior UN rights investigator.

According to Reuters, Republican and Democratic lawmakers dispute the wisdom of the attack. Some legal experts questioned whether Trump had the legal authority to target Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government, and whether it was legal under international and US law.

Iraq’s prime minister said Washington had with the attack violated a deal for keeping US troops in his country, and several Iraqi political factions united in a call for American troops to be expelled.

The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against other states but there is an exception if a state gives consent to the use of force on its territory. Legal experts said the absence of consent from Iraq makes it difficult for the United States to justify the killing.

Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway, an international law expert, said on Twitter that the available facts “do not seem to support” the assertion that the strike was an act of self-defense, and concluded it was “legally tenuous under both domestic and international law.”

The Pentagon said targeting Soleimani was aimed at deterring “future Iranian attack plans,” while Trump said the Iranian general was targeted because he was planning “imminent and sinister” attacks on US diplomats and military personnel.

Robert Chesney, a national security law expert at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said the administration’s best argument on the UN Charter issue is self defense. “If you accept that this guy was planning operations to kill Americans, that provides the authority to respond,” he said.

Scott Anderson, a former legal adviser to the US Embassy in Baghdad under Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, said Trump’s justification so far under international law is questionable, but he could try to argue that the Iraqi government was either unwilling or unable to deal with the threat posed by Soleimani, giving the United States the right to act without Iraq’s consent.

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter covers an individual or collective right to self-defense against armed attack. The United States used the article to justify taking action in Syria against Islamic State militants in 2014. The US troops in Iraq had been fighting Islamic State, and about 5,000 troops remain, most of them in an advisory capacity.

A strategic framework agreement signed in 2008 between Washington and Baghdad called for close defense cooperation to deter threats to Iraqi “sovereignty, security and territorial integrity,” but prohibited the United States from using Iraq as a launching point for attacks on other countries.

Under historic norms of international law, a country can defend itself preemptively if it acts out of necessity and responds proportionally to the threat.

Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, questioned whether the attack met this threshold.

The targeting of Soleimani “appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defense,” she said. “Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.”

Democratic lawmakers called on Trump to provide details about the imminent threat that he said Soleimani represented.

“I believe there was a threat, but the question of how imminent is still one I want answered,” Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Reuters.

Other critics raised questions about Trump’s authority to kill Soleimani under US law, and whether he should have acted without first notifying Congress.

Legal experts noted that recent US presidents from both parties have taken an expansive view of their unilateral ability to preemptively engage in force, including through targeted killings, a view bolstered by executive branch lawyers in successive administrations.

In the case of Soleimani, the administration’s self-defense arguments may hinge on disclosing specific knowledge of his imminent plans to attack Americans.

Self-defense could allow the administration to act without having to first notify Congress or act under a prior congressional authorization for the use of military force, Chesney said.

Democratic lawmakers did not defend Soleimani, who US officials have said is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, but they called on Trump to consult with Congress going forward.

“This administration, like all others, has the right to act in self-defense,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst who worked in Iraq focusing on Iranian-backed militias. “But the administration must come to Congress immediately and consult.”

US warns of preemptive attack against forces allegedly backed by Iran

The predictable result of the Trump administration’s reckless bluster, escalation and miscalculation in the Middle East is that the super power is now hurtling closer to an unauthorized war with Iran. America has the surprising audacity of attributing to Iran the protests of the Iraqi people against (Washington’s) savage killing of at least 25 Iraqis.

The embassy incident came seven years after the 2012 attack by armed militants on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of the US Ambassador and three other Americans and led to multiple congressional investigations.

The unprecedented attack on an American diplomatic mission in Iraq marked a sharp escalation of the proxy conflict between the United States and Iran - both influential players in the country - and plunged US relations with Iraq to their worst level in years.

Mark Esper, US Defense Secretary said on Thursday that there were indications Iran or the forces it backs may be planning additional attacks and said it was possible the United States might have to take preemptive action to protect American lives.

“There are some indications out there that they may be planning additional attacks, that is nothing new ... we’ve seen this for two or three months now,” Esper told reporters.

“If that happens then we will act and by the way, if we get word of attacks or some type indication, we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces to protect American lives.”

Iranian-backed demonstrators who hurled rocks at the U.S. embassy in two days of protests withdrew on Wednesday after Washington dispatched extra troops.

Donald Trump, US President, who faces a re-election campaign in 2020, accused Iran of orchestrating the violence. He threatened on Tuesday to retaliate against Iran but said later he did not want war.

The unrest outside the US embassy in Baghdad followed US air raids on Sunday against bases of the Tehran-backed Kataib Hezbollah group. Washington said the air strikes, which killed 25 people, were in retaliation for missile attacks that killed a US contractor in northern Iraq last week.

The protests marked a new turn in the shadow war between Washington and Tehran playing out across the Middle East.

“The game has changed and we are prepared to do what is necessary to defend our personnel and our interests and our partners in the region,” Esper said.

During the same press briefing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said there had been a sustained campaign by Kataib Hezbollah against US personnel since at least October and the missile attack in northern Iraq was designed to kill.

“Thirty-one rockets aren’t designed as a warning shot, that is designed to inflict damage and kill,” Milley said.

Motives behind US air strikes in Iraq and Syria

The fighter jets of United States targeted several bases of the Iraqi popular forces of Hashd al-Shaabi at border with Syria on Sunday evening. In a statement, the US defense secretary confirmed the attacks. Now the question is, which objectives had the US wanted to achieve from the attacks?

There is growing perception that the US was not comfortable with the consolidation of relationship between Iraq and Syria, especially in security and economic fields. Therefore, Washington wanted to seal Iraq-Syria common borders and passageways by targeting military positions in Iraq and Syria as well as providing support for the existing terrorists and creating fresh terrorist group.

Keeping the terrorist groups protected and providing backup for them seems to be the main objective of the US  after a number of reports hinted towards relocation of terrorists from Syria into Iraq or vice versa. In the meantime, the US has raided the Iraqi army several times to provide support for the terrorist groups in the country. 

Certainly, weakening Iraq and turning it into a crisis-hit country is aimed at providing the ground for the US to impose its will on Baghdad. Weakening the Iraqi popular forces and damaging relations and cooperation between the country’s army and the popular forces are also among the main objectives of such plots. 

Other dimensions of the US recent plot against Iraq can be mentioned as spreading chaos and turning peaceful protests of the Iraqis into violence, destabilizing Iraq’s political situation by interfering in the trend of forming the country’s new government, weakening Iraq’s security forces through conducting attacks on the Army centers and Hashd al-Shaabi’s bases and cutting Iraq’s ties with its neighboring countries including with Iran.
The new US plot is also aimed at deviating public opinion from critical situation of the Zionist regime of Israel as well as appeasing the Zionist lobby to continue supporting Donald Trump who is facing the congress impeachment.

By acts, the US proves it is the number one supporter of terrorism. Washington’s claim of campaign against terrorism is only a deception that is why their claimed military coalitions in the Persian Gulf and in the Bab al-Mandab Strait have brought about nothing but enhancing terrorism.   

The US has not been a savior but it has been disruptor of the region’s security and stability. The secret trips of the US officials to Iraq have certainly roots in their fear from the Iraqis’ rage against Americans’ crisis-making behaviors.

Widespread supports of popular and political groups as well as the country’s religious authorities for Hashd al-Shaabi against the US aggressive policies shows nationwide trust of Iraqis in the resistance forces which in turn shows failure of the White House’s anti-resistance project.  

Iran Russia China joint naval drill in Sea of Oman

Naval forces from Iran, Russia and China started a large-scale maritime exercise in the northern part of Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman on Friday, 27th December 2019.The joint exercise is being viewed by some analysts as a show of power and solidarity between Iran, China and Russia. The exercise, named “Marine Security Belt”, will last for four days and cover 17,000 square kilometers and consist of "various tactical exercises"

Earlier, speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi said it was important and vital that security should be established in Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman. Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman are among the world's key trade routes and many countries commute in the (two) regions and therefore establishing security there is important and vital, said Shekarchi.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Friday that the joint military exercises show that Iran and its partners are committed to secure vital waterways. “Our joint military drills in Oman Sea/Indian Ocean with Russian and Chinese partners make clear our broader commitment to secure vital waterways,” Zarif added. Iran has been insisting that it is ready to work with its neighbors on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf to secure maritime trade in the region based on the Hormuz peace initiative. “Iran has long stated its readiness to work with its neighbors to secure the Persian Gulf.

Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, it is the first time that the country has staged such a large-scale drill participated with two huge naval powers in the world. Certainly those countries share security, economic, political, and defense interests and try to restore collective security in the region. Reinvigoration of international maritime trade, countering piracy, exchange of information and experiences in various fields including maritime rescue and relief are among the main objectives of the drill.

Rear Admiral Tahani said peace, friendship and sustainable security under collective unity and cooperation are the main messages of the current naval drill. The message of this exercise is peace, friendship and lasting security through cooperation and unity … and its effect will be to show that Iran cannot be isolated.

China has sent a guided-missile destroyer to the four-day drills, which it called a "normal military exchange" between the three armed forces. It is not necessarily connected with the regional situation. China has close diplomatic, trade and energy ties with Iran, which has friendly ties with Russia.

Russia had sent three ships from its Baltic Fleet - a frigate, a tanker, and a rescue tug boat - to take part in the drills. It is believed that Russia is participating for the first time in such drills, being held in such a format.

The drills are being held at a time that the United States is resorting to every ploy to pressure Iran and isolate it in the world.  It sends a clear signal to the United States that the Iran issue should be addressed through negotiations based on the previous deal rather than military actions. The US should stop fanning the flames.

Certain quarters say that the drill was in response to recent US maneuvers with its regional ally Saudi Arabia. The trilateral drills are the first of its kind and being held at a time when Iran is facing unprecedented sanctions from the US. The joint drills are likely to be perceived as provocative by Washington. 

Divided Kuala Lumpur Summit

Contrary to the expectations of many Pakistanis, Prime Minister Imran Khan opted not to attend Kuala Lumpur Summit. The overwhelming perception is that that Khan decided to stay away from the Summit under the pressure of Saudi Arabia. It is no secret that the Kingdom has been extending help to the incumbent government to avert the economic crisis, ever since Khan came into power.

Reportedly, Khan had telephoned his Malaysian counterpart Mahathir bin Mohammad to express his regrets for not being able to attend the summit. He also conveyed the same to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was also one of the driving forces behind the event.

It is worth noting that Pakistan was one of the first countries with whom Mahathir shared his plans for holding the summit, when he met Khan along with Erdogan on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York in September. Khan formally conveyed his acceptance of the invitation for attending the summit when deputy Foreign Minister of Malaysia called on him in Islamabad on 29th November.

Prior to the commencement of Summit, a statement issued by Malaysian Prime Minister’s Office saying, “Dr. Mahathir appreciates Prime Minister Imran Khan’s call to inform of his inability to attend the summit where the Pakistani leader was expected to speak and share his thoughts on the state of affairs of the Islamic world.”

There is a dire need to read the explanation put forward by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. He confirmed that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had concerns about the Kuala Lumpur Summit. They were worried that the event could cause fragmentation of Ummah and lead to setting up of another organization parallel to the existing Saudi-dominated Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

It is on record that prior to the commencement of Summit, Mahathir told reporters in Kuala Lumpur that Saudi King; Salman bin Abdul Aziz was averse to the Summit discussing issues facing the Muslims. Saudi King was of the view that the OIC should continue as the platform for discussing such matters.

In view of the reservations about the event, Qureshi said, it was decided that Pakistan would first attempt to bridge the gap between Riyadh and Kuala Lumpur and if that did not work there would be no participation in the Summit.

Foreign minister explained that Pakistan did attempt to patch up the differences and succeeded not only in getting invites for Saudis and Emiratis, but also convinced Mahathir to personally visit Riyadh and directly invite King Salman. Mahathir’s visit could not be scheduled because the dates proposed by Riyadh were not convenient for him to undertake the trip.

He also informed that Khan visited Saudi Arabia in an attempt to bringing Saudi Arabia and Malaysia closer, and not for getting a permission to attend the summit. Qureshi was of the view that by staying back, Pakistan had underscored its neutrality on the issue and conveyed that it was not inclined towards one side or the other.

According to media reports from the Malaysian capital, Mahathir and King Salman held a video conference to discuss Saudi reservations even after Pakistan had officially pulled out, but no common grounds could be found.

It was anticipated that two of the world's most outspoken leaders, Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan would be giving their views during the four-day summit. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamid Al-Thani, two countries having tense relations with Saudi Arabia, were invited to attend the Summit.

Saudi Arabia was of the opinion that Summit was the wrong forum to discuss matters of importance to the world's 1.75 billion Muslims.  Saudi King Salman believed that such issues should be discussed through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

However, some analysts suspected the Kingdom feared being diplomatically isolated by regional rivals Iran, Qatar and Turkey. A quote of James Dorsey, a senior fellow at S Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Middle East Institute in Singapore just can’t be overlooked.

He said, “The issue is that you've got blocs. “You've got a Saudi-UAE bloc, Turkey-Qatari bloc, and Pakistan in the middle trying to hedge their bets.”

Defending the summit, Mahathir's office issued a statement saying there was no intention to create a “new bloc as alluded to by some of its critics”.

“In addition, the Summit is not a platform to discuss religion or religious affairs but specifically to address the state of affairs of the Muslim Ummah,” it said.

However, one just can’t ignore what Mahatir had told Reuters. He had expressed frustration with the OIC's inability to forge a united front and act decisively.

United States having inflicted hunger around the world faces the same fate

In July of 2013, Rose Aguilar wrote a wonderful article for al-Jazeera, discussing the dire hunger crisis prevailing in the United States. In her article, she brought back a memory of something people had long forgotten, an event that so outraged the American public that the government was temporarily forced to respond with more humane policies. That event was a 1968 CBS special hour-long documentary called Hunger in America, in which viewers literally watched a hospitalized child die of starvation. The then president, Nixon responded because the public outrage left him no choice, but Reagan quickly dismantled those improvements.

When Reagan came to power in 1980, there were 200 food banks in the US; today there are more than 40,000, all overwhelmed with demand and forced to ration their dispersals. Before 1980, one out of every 50 Americans was dependent on food stamps. Today, it is one out of four. Before Reagan, there were 10 million hungry Americans; today there are more than 50 million and the number is increasing with the passage of time.

A substantial part of the Great Transformation included not only tax cuts and other benefits for the wealthy, but a simultaneous massive reduction in budgets for social programs – in spite of the fact that Reagan and the secret government were creating the conditions that would desperately require those same social programs.
That 50 million hungry Americans today includes the 25% of all children in the US who go to sleep hungry every night. About 25% of the American population today cannot buy sufficient food to remain healthy, with most of these being hungry for at least three months during each year. It is so bad that many college students have resorted to what is called “dumpster-diving” – looking in garbage bins for edible food.

According to a WFP and FAO investigation, food shortages and food insecurity deteriorate in areas affected by conflict. The most critical situation is recorded in Yemen, plagued by wars and epidemics. Syria and Lebanon are also of concern. Food insecurity and famine in conflict-affected countries, especially in the Middle East, continue to worsen in the face of growing problems in the delivery and distribution of aid to the population.

The latest report prepared by the UN agencies focuses on food insecurity in 16 countries in the world: Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon (Syrian refugees), Liberia, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, in addition to the Lake Chad Basin. The joint FAP-WFP survey shows that in over half of these nations, a quarter or more of the population live in crisis situations or in levels of emergency regarding hunger.

Economically destroyed, socially unstable and now hungry, Venezuela is undergoing turbulent times. Known as “Saudi Arabia” of South America, today Venezuela more closely resembles Syria. Economically destroyed and socially unstable, the country is now fighting an ever more alarming specter hunger. In the slum of Petare in the metropolitan area of the capital, Caracas, refrigerators remain empty, supermarket queues grow longer and the necessity of procuring something to eat drives young people to violence. 

Many come together in armed gangs, plunder houses and shops, rob food from passersby and are paid in foodstuffs. Unsustainable inflation has caused prices to double week after week; today, nine out of 10 Venezuelans do not feel they have the sufficient resources to buy food. For some time now the government has been trying to remedy ‘Clap plan’, which distributes food to civilians. But this does not seem to be enough and hunger is now one of the greatest threats to Venezuela’s fragile national security.

Turmoil in China and Iran

From Hong Kong to Tehran to Buenos Aires, the world seems in turmoil. A question is getting louder, what is triggering global unrest. There is so much unrest throughout the world at any point that it would appear to be merely the normal chaos. However, a point is very clear reasons for turmoil are unique for each country and often multiple. China and Iran are very different places, each with its own geopolitical circumstances.

One of the conspiracy theories suggests single element that is common to all countries, economic chaos of 2008 that originated from the United States. More than a decade ago the international economic system got a jolt and the turmoil continues to date. The weakness in the global economy is magnified by the unsolved problems lingering since 2008. It is also evident that economic problems have transformed into political ones. Add to this the shift in US strategy, away from military interventions to economic confrontations. The shift in US strategy is affecting the global economic system in general abut China and Iran in particular.

Let the analysis begin with riots in Hong Kong. In 2008, China was a powerful exporter, but also dependent on exports for social stability. The financial collapse created a profound crisis. An economy built on efficient exporting staggers when its customers are unable to buy its goods. The export crisis compounded the financial crisis, as cash flow from exports contracted. This followed a series of purges designed officially to weed out corruption and unofficially to find scapegoats for China’s problems and to intimidate potential opposition. Chinese government promising prosperity started opting austerity. The purges were the beginning of a systematic repression in China that sought to retain Chinese economic dynamism without an equivalent political dynamism.

Things got worse when the United States, China’s biggest customer, imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese goods and demanded access to China’s markets. There was also an implied demand for political concessions. The pressure from the United States increased the pressure still present from 2008. It in turn intensified suppression. Chinese insecurity compelled the Communist Party to seek increased control over Hong Kong, with an extradition law that would permit China to extract Hong Kong citizens. This triggered the worst instability in Hong Kong.

Let us move from China to Iran, the two countries having no similarities. The 2008 crisis triggered a slowdown in consumption and therefore in production. In the long run, this inevitably caused major declines in the prices of commodities, the most important being crude oil. Iran continued to export despite economic sanctions. However, low oil prices weighed on it, causing pressure on the economy, and eventually restlessness in the society. As with China, the US imposed economic penalties on Iran for reasons that have little to do with the economy. Regardless, the effect of the global shift in oil pricing, coupled with intense economic pressure from the US, over the time generated intense unrest and government repression.

There has been unrest in countries in which the US has strategic interest. Lebanon, Argentina, Chile and others all went into crisis for idiosyncratic reasons – including an emerging global economic slowdown. In all these countries, there are political problems that do not derive from 2008 economic crisis but certainly by US pressure. In some, such as Lebanon, there are economic problems that are mostly caused by external forces.

According to some analysts, while no general theory of unrest seems plausible, a special theory gets credential. The countries most dependent on either industrial exports or the sale of industrial commodities were harmed the most, though some have recovered. The addition of US economic pressure as a tool of foreign policy has compounded this problem, generating unrest. The US pressure would not have been nearly as effective without 2008. It is now triggering internal political consequences that are threatening the ability of regimes to cope.

Iran faces a difficult time and the stakes are high, from potential war with the United States to reversal of its gains across the Middle East to future of its revolutionary state. It is a defining moment for Tehran – perhaps the most critical since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that has been prompted by the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions. On top of all protests in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have also charged the atmosphere.

What’s clear is that the growing scale of the challenge makes it difficult for Iran to pursue its earlier approach toward mounting US pressure. It is also not clear how Tehran will respond to this historic test with more military escalation, diplomatic compromise – or a combination of both.

Diplomats in the Middle East argue that the United States has put itself in a good position to shape that choice. They argue Washington could take advantage of Iran’s increased difficulties by working more closely with European and Mideast allies to frame an offer that would ease sanctions but put in place a process that would block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon and end its foreign policy of regional meddling.

However, that sounds like wishful thinking in the world of Washington’s distractions, transatlantic distrust and Iranian outrage. Trump administration officials are sanguine, arguing that at the very least the sanctions have cut deeply into the resources Iran can invest in its proxies. Protests at home and abroad are usefully soaking up regime energies.

History of protests in Iran spread over four decades

The protests of 1979 which led to return of religious cleric Ruhollah Khomeini to Iran and end to the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi still mesmerize the United States. Over the last four decades the United States imposed economic sanctions, but failed in forcing Iran to accept its hegemony. Over the years United States has sponsored and orchastered movements similar to 1979 protects to bring the change the prevailing administrative structure of Iran, but all in vain. In this article I have used details mostly published in the western media, some of the numbers may look exaggerated.   

Islamic Revolution (1979)

Major protests against the rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi began in January 1978 after an Iranian newspaper, Ettelaat, published a front-page editorial insulting Ruhollah Khomeini, a well-respected cleric, at the direction of the Shah. In reaction to the publication, several thousand protesters attacked symbols of the monarchy and clashed with security forces in the conservative city of Qom.

The opposition movement attracted millions of Iranians from all social strata. The monarchy was brutal, repressive and did not have popular support. Leftists wanted a more democratic system of government. Conservatives opposed the monarchy’s rapid westernization and secular outlook. High unemployment and inflation after 1977 economic collapse exacerbated tensions.

Between March and May 1978, the unrest spread to more than three dozen Iranian cities. On September 8, 1978, a day known as “Black Friday,” the regime imposed martial law and security forces opened fire on demonstrators in Tehran’s Jaleh Square, killing more than 100. By December 1978, protests had spread to nearly all of Iran’s major cities and dozens of smaller towns.

The Shah and his family fled the country for Egypt on January 16, 1979. Khomeini returned from exile and was welcomed by millions of people in the streets of Tehran. Khomeini officially took control of the government after a referendum establishing the Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979.

Price Hike Protests (2019)

In a surprise announcement on November 15, 2019, Iran hiked gas prices—by up to 300 percent—and introduced a new rationing system. The prime objective of the seemed raising funds to help the poor, but it backfired. The protests swept 100 cities over four days. They first broke out in oil-rich Khuzestan province, in Iran’s southwest but quickly spread to other regions, including Mashhad, a conservative stronghold and Iran’s second largest city, in the northwest. Demonstrators reportedly chanted anti-government slogans, including, "Have shame Rouhani, Leave the country alone!"

The regime used tear gas, water cannons and live ammunition to disperse the protesters. The government also nearly completely shut down the internet for five days to prevent images of the protests and crackdown from spreading over social media.

According to an Amnesty International report by December 2, at least 208 protesters had been killed. The Center for Human Rights in Iran estimated that 4,000 people were arrested. Iran rejected the reports by outside groups. The US State Department estimated that the regime killed more than 1,000 people, including at least a dozen children, but acknowledged that verification was difficult. Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, said US officials “know for certain” that the death toll was in the “many, many hundreds.”

Economic Protests (2017)

On December 28, 2017, demonstrators in Mashhad, Iran’s second largest city took to the streets to protest the government’s economic policies and the high prices of basic goods and commodities. The demonstrations quickly spread across the country to over 140 cities in every province, organized largely through social media messaging apps. The scope of the protests also expanded from economic woes to Iranian involvement in the Middle East and calls for regime change. Slogans included “not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran,” “leave Syria, think about us,” “Khamenei, shame on you, leave the country alone!" and "death to the dictator.” The protests were the largest and most intense since the 2009 Green Movement. But unlike the Green Movement, the 2017-18 protests were largely leaderless and disorganized. After two weeks of protests, at least 22 protesters were killed and more than 3,700 were detained. 

Green Scarf Movement (2009)

The Green Scarf Movement took its name from a green sash given to Mir Hossein Mousavi by Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s two-term president and the reform movement’s first standard-bearer. It reached its height when up to 3 million peaceful demonstrators turned out on Tehran streets to protest official claims that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the 2009 presidential election in a landslide. Their simple slogan was: “Where is my vote?” The movement soon embodied the frustrated aspirations of Iran’s century-old quest for democracy and desire for peaceful change.

Over the next six months, the Green Movement evolved from a mass group of angry voters to a nation-wide force demanding the democratic rights originally sought in the 1979 revolution, rights that were hijacked by radical clerics. Every few weeks, protesters took to the streets to challenge the regime and its leadership. But by early 2010, the regime had quashed public displays of opposition. The Green Movement retreated into a period of soul-searching and regrouping.

Riot police and Basij paramilitary forces violently suppressed the demonstrations immediately following the election, which attracted more than 40,000 Iranians. Between June 2009 and February 2010, more than 30 protesters were killed and 4,000 were arrested.

Student Protests (1999)

On July 8, 1999, students at Tehran University gathered to protest the government’s closure of a popular reformist newspaper, Salaam. The student groups supported then President Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) and his reformist political faction, the Association of Combatant Clerics, which operated Salaam. The demonstrations were initially peaceful. But later that evening, security forces attacked a Tehran University dormitory where the student protesters were holed up. Riot police beat the students with clubs and set several rooms on fire. At least one student was killed and hundreds more were wounded. Police arrested more than 1,500 of the protesters. The attack on the student dormitory sparked widespread anger and protests that spread across the country. More than 10,000 demonstrators chanted slogans against government hardliners and clashed with police in the streets.

Protests continued for six days. By the end of the unrest, at least four protesters were killed and an estimated 1,200 to 1,400 were detained. Khatami seemed helpless to protect his base of supporters. His silence when security forces and thugs beat up protesting students at Tehran University were indicators that he had lost the initiative. Control had passed to the hardliners. The government finally quelled the protests on July 13 after a ban was announced on rallies. But the student protests laid the foundation for the Green Movement a decade later.

Is OPEC the other name of Saudi Arabia?

A meeting of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is scheduled for 5th December 2019; the day Aramco is also due to announce the final offer price. The producers are expected to extend their supply pact at the meeting. It is anticipated that delegates may discuss deeper supply cuts amid forecasts of supply glut in 2020.

Analysts are pinning hopes on the meeting because oil prices slipped to US$63 a barrel after spiking to US$72 in the aftermath of 14th September 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities. The current price is below the levels many OPEC countries need to balance their budgets and below the levels officials say they favor.

OPEC, Russia and other allies, known as OPEC+, had agreed to reduce supply by 1.2 million bpd. OPEC’s share of the cut is about 800,000 bpd, to be shared by 11 members, except Iran, Libya and Venezuela.

United States the game spoiler

Voracious appetite for oil of United States has always been a strategic Achilles’ heel, with that vulnerability put on display to the world to during the 1973 Oil Crisis. A chronic hypersensitivity to oil supply crunches and price volatility helps US shape its foreign policy – it has been the driving force behind US partnership with the historic oil market maker Saudi Arabia. That is the reason the US Navy’s 5th Fleet patrols the critical choke points of the Gulf (the Strait of Hormuz), the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab al Mandeb – the southern entrance to the Red Sea.

US has reached a record breaking 12.8 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil production in November in 2019 – a new high watermark for the industry. Earlier in September, US had achieved something yet more impressive when it exported more petroleum products than it imported. For the world’s leading oil buyer this is a big deal. America consumes over 20% of the global production of 99 million bpd of daily crude production, with China holding the number 2 spot at 13% and India in a distant 3rd at 5%.

Today the US leads the world in the production of petroleum products, including crude oil, petroleum liquids and biofuels with 17.9 million barrels per day, or 18% of the petroleum market. At present the US is ahead of Saudi Arabia, with 12.4 million bpd or 12% of the world's total output, and Russia producing 11.4 million bpd or 11% of the global market.

According to a Reuters report, oil output by OPEC fell in November mainly because Saudi Arabia kept a lid on supply to support the market before the initial public offering (IPO) of state owned Saudi Aramco. It was also supported by reduced production by Angola due to maintenance.

At an average, the 14-member OPEC pumped 29.57 million barrels per day (bpd) during November, down 110,000 bpd from October’s revised figure. Production from the two other exempt producers, Libya and Iran, was reported unchanged.

During November 2019, Saudi Arabia pumped 9.85 million bpd, down 50,000 bpd from October. Riyadh’s output had jumped by 850,000 bpd in October after the September attacks, but remained below its stipulated quota by OPEC. In November, the country pumped around 400,000 bpd less than the agreement allows.

OPEC’s largest production drop of 140,000 bpd was because Angola exported less crude in November due to maintenance. The African producer was already pumping far below its OPEC quota due to a natural decline in production and a lack of new fields coming online, rather than due to voluntary restraint.

The 11-OPEC members bound by the agreement, which for now runs until March 2020, have easily exceeded the pledged cuts. Compliance has been encouraging, although Iraq and Nigeria remain laggards among larger producers.

OPEC’s second-largest producer Iraq has pumped slightly less, but continues to overshoot its target.

Nigeria, which has consistently pumped more than its OPEC target, continued to do so in November, although output edged lower this month.

Among countries pumping more, the largest increase was in Kuwait, which increased output by 70,000 bpd to 2.72 million bpd, reaching its exact quota level.

Ecuador also pumped more after a decline in October, when protests against government austerity measures led to several fields being shut down.

Venezuela, which is contending with US sanctions imposed on state oil firm PDVSA and a long-term decline in output, managed a small boost to supply with exports increasing in November.