Can sustainable peace be established in Middle East?

One wonders why Middle East and North Africa (MENA) continue to suffer from internal turmoil as well as proxy wars. Some analysts say the single largest reason behind ongoing turmoil can be ongoing attempts to keep crude oil prices high to facilitate other countries to boost their domestic oil production.

The latest evidence was attack on Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia to attract high subscription to Initial Public Offering (IPO). The immediate success was, China opting to take US$10 billion stake in one of the largest energy production facility in the world.

Reportedly, Saudi Arabia is making efforts to negotiate an end to the Yemen war by initiating a dialogue with Iran. This move is not likely to be approved by US President Donald Trump, the biggest proponent of maximum pressure on the Islamic republic.

Saudi officials hope that talks mediated by Oman and Britain between the kingdom and Houthi rebels will lead to a revival of stalled talks between the Yemeni insurgents and the Saudi-backed, internationally recognized government of Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

 Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has tasked his younger brother and Saudi deputy defense minister, Khalid bin Salman, with engineering an end to the Yemeni war as part of a broader revamp of Saudi foreign policy.

The revamp involves a return to a more cautious foreign and defense policy that embraces multilateralism after several years in which the kingdom adopted an assertive and robust go it alone approach that produced several fiascos, including the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen initiated four and a half years ago. The revamp was prompted by attacks in September on two of the kingdom’s key oil facilities as well as doubts about the reliability of the US defense commitment to the Gulf.

The kingdom’s return to a more cautious approach is also intended to project itself in 2020 as president of the Group of 20 (G20) and repair its image tarnished by the Yemen War, the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, and a domestic crackdown on dissent.

 Trump’s response to the September drone and missile attacks for which the Houthis were blames claimed in some ways was the clearest indication that Gulf States may not be able to count on the United States in times of crisis.

Trumph said that the attack was on Saudi Arabia and the US would certainly help them, but his adoption of a transactional attitude towards Gulf security did upset Saudi Arabia.

 It is being propagated by the US that the attacks on Saudi Arabia suggests that escalation of US-Iranian tensions would make them targets in an environment in which the United States may not wholeheartedly come to their rescue.

The US officials are also suggesting that now the Saudi policy is to lessen their involvement in Yemen and to stop Yemen being some version of a proxy so they (the Saudis) can deal directly with Iran.

United Nations Yemen envoy Martin Griffiths told the UN Security Council this week that the number of air attacks by the Saudi-led coalition had dropped by nearly 80% lately.

Griffiths said, “We call this de-escalation, a reduction in the tempo of the war and perhaps a move towards an overall ceasefire in Yemen,". He also expressed hopes that a negotiated end to the war could be achieved early next year.

However, the efforts to end war as well as gestures towards Iran in recent months by the United Arab Emirates did not stop senior Saudi and UAE officials from adopting a hard line.

“Appeasement simply cannot work with Iran. We hold Iran responsible for the attack on Abqaiq. We do not want war, but Iran needs to be held accountable” said Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir at a Bahrain gathering.

Al-Jubeir’s UAE counterpart, Anwar Gargash added, “The key to stability is deterrence and steadfast resolve of the international community was that Iran must change. If not, sanctions must be increased, not loosened.”

Trump's favors to Netanyahu

Washington has always been Israel’s main ally, but support to Tel Aviv during the tenor of President Donald Trump is unprecedented. The US President has offered more favors to Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, from recognizing al-Quds as Israel’s capital to backing settlements.

It may not be wrong to say that Trump has provided Netanyahu all the favors for which former Israeli prime ministers were eager to receive. One should not forget that all these favors are in contravention of international law and UN Resolutions,

For Israel, there was no time more pleasant than 13-year premiership of Netanyahu which coincided with Trump’s presidency. No US president has served the Israeli government like Trump.

Netanyahu, who has been facing corruption trial, has remained in power only because of Trump’s assistance. Despite his failure to form a cabinet in the second parliamentary elections in a year, Netanyahu continues to remain in power.

By shifting the forty-year US stance on Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories, Trump dealt his last blow to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process despite talking about the peace project propagated as “deal of the century”.

From 1979, President Jimmy Carter all US presidents have opposed the settlement, but Trump changed the forty-year policy. In 2016 and last days of Barack Obama’s presidency, the UN passed a resolution against Israel, which condemned the settlements in the West Bank.

The settlement policy was so inconsistent with international law and against peace with the Palestinians that even the United States refused to veto the UN Security Council resolution, contrary to what it had been doing for decades.

An extraordinary favor by Trump was to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over occupied Golan Heights. The action also was in line with reinforcing Netanyahu’s position in the election, a move which was objected by his rivals, who viewed it as interference in Israel’s internal affairs.   

The Golan Heights belong to Syria. Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967 and formally annexed it to the occupied territories in 1981. The annexation has been opposed by the international community. The US is the first country that has recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Syrian territory.

A month later, Netanyahu, in a heavily propagandistic way and in line with his approach of luring Trump, announced that a city will be built after the name of Trump in the Golan Heights. Although, the plan was passed in the Knesset, no budget was approved for its implementation; it did not go beyond propaganda.

 Former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a speech at Harvard University, called Netanyahu “an extraordinarily skilled” politician and said that Trump has been played by Israel’s prime minister.

Trump’s another favor to Netanyahu, but a blow to Palestine was recognition of al-Quds as Israel’s capital and to move the US embassy to the city. The action was considered as a huge success for Netanyahu, especially at a time that he was under political and judicial pressure.

All Palestinian groups, such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, as well as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) opposed Trump’s action, and the relations between United States and Palestinian National Authority nosedived. Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called al-Quds the eternal capital of Palestine.

Now, one should wait and see whether Netanyahu, who has failed to form a cabinet in the last two elections, will remain in power or face the trial.

Afghanistan eyes boosting transit through Iranian Chabahar Port

According to an IRNA report, Afghanistan Ambassador to Iran, Abdul Ghafoor Liwal said his country plans to increase commodity transit through Iranian Chabahar Port. He made these remarks in a meeting with Abdolrahim Kordi, Chairman, Board of Chabahar Free Trade Industrial Zone Organization.

In the meeting, Liwal said expansion of all-out relations won’t be possible without stronger economic ties and “we are determined for stronger presence of our businessmen and traders in Chabahar Port.” 

“Chabahar is an economic and a transit bridge for Afghanistan and we are going to expand our economic relations through increasing exports and imports through Chabahar,” he said.

According to the official, following the country’s plans for boosting trade in Chabahar, setting up an Afghan bank branch in the port is one of the plans that Afghanistan is pursuing along with other programs to resolve issues like residency and certification problems.

Kordi underlined some of the port’s capacities and investment potentials, saying more than 176 Afghan companies have registered with Chabahar Free Trade Industrial Zone Organization for trade activities in the port, however only 32 of them are currently active.

“Chabahar is a strategic port and Afghan businessmen and traders need to have a greater presence in it and increase their investment,” emphasized Kordi.

If one can recall, in 2016, Iran, India and Afghanistan had decided to jointly establish a trade route for landlocked Central Asian countries. India committed up to US$500 million for the development of Iran’s Chabahar Port along with associated roads and rail lines. India launched a trade route to Afghanistan via Iran through shipping its first consignment of wheat to Afghanistan in late October 2017, bypassing longtime rival Pakistan.

Is Lebanon the next target of US lust for oil?

The protests and political upheavals in Lebanon and apprehensions by United States must be read very carefully. The developments in Lebanon have to be viewed with a different perspective after Lebanese Energy and Water Minister Neda Boustani announced the start of drilling of country’s first oil well in the waters off the coast of Beirut.

The oil well is to be drilled in the Mediterranean 30 kilometers from the Lebanese capital in the north. About a year and a half ago, Lebanon awarded its first offshore gas and oil exploration and production agreements to a consortium of France’s Total, Italy’s Eni and Russia’s Novatek for two blocks out of ten.

Ten oil blocks have been identified in the coastal waters of Lebanon with an area about 18,000 square kilometers.

The Americans, who have shown that the smell of oil drives them to the oil-rich countries, these days, pretend that they are really concerned about the situation in Lebanon and its people. Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, has recently claimed that Iraqi and Lebanese people want their countries back from Iran.

The expression of concerns by the US over the situation in Lebanon, in the light of Boustani’s announcement, has led various Lebanese groups, especially Hezbollah, to feel the danger very well. Hezbollah Executive Council Deputy Chief Sheikh Ali Da’mush has warned that the US and its allies are seeking to undermine the political system in Lebanon and restructure it in their own favor.

The US wants a government comes to power which would be under its own control and implement Washington’s plans. For example, it wants Lebanon agree to demarcation of borders based on Israel’s wishes, grant projects for oil and gas extractions to US companies, permanently house the displaced Palestinian people, and target the axis of resistance and its missile power.

In addition to the United States, the Zionist regime is also happy with the unrest because Israel has disputes with Lebanon over common borders as well as oil and gas resources. Such an uprising provides the opportunity for Tel Aviv to plunder Lebanese natural resources.

The Zionist regime which is violating the Lebanese land, airspace and territorial waters frequently will take advantage of the protests in the country while Lebanese officials are doing their utmost to improve and calm the situation. Consequently, the officials will not be able to pay attention to regional issues, which is a matter that Hezbollah has repeatedly warned about.

Undoubtedly, one cannot have a positive view of sudden unrest in oil-rich countries in the Middle East under the shadow of US intervention. History has shown that oil-rich countries have always suffered from domestic tensions and crises so that Western powers, that usually lead the riots, can easily plunder their oil resources. 

In any case, it seems that after Syria, the US has specified Lebanon as its next destination for oil robbery, and US officials are expected to make specific comments on the developments in the country in future days.

Can OPEC opt for production cut?

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies face a major challenge in 2020 as demand for crude is expected to fall sharply.

The IEA estimated non-OPEC supply growth would surge to 2.3 million barrels per day (bpd) next year as compared to 1.8 million bpd in 2019, based on production hike in the United States, Brazil, Norway and Guyana.

The hefty supply cushion that is likely to build up during the first half of next year will offer cold comfort to OPEC+ ministers gathering in Vienna at the start of next month.

While US supply rose by 145,000 bpd in October, the IEA said, a slowdown in activity that started earlier this year looks set to continue as companies prioritize capital discipline.

Demand for crude oil from OPEC in 2020 will be 28.9 million bpd, the IEA forecast; one million bpd below the exporter club’s current production.

The recovery by OPEC’s de facto leader Saudi Arabia from attacks on the country’s oil infrastructure contributed 1.4 million bpd to the global oil supply increase in October of 1.5 million bpd.

With plans underway for the Aramco IPO and the persistent need for revenues to fund the government budget, Riyadh has every incentive to keep oil prices supported.

Saudi state oil company Aramco, the world’s most profitable firm, scheduled to start its share sale on 17^th November in an IPO that may help in mobilizing between US$20 billion to US$40 billion.

The IEA said that if some or all tariffs were lifted in coming months, world economic growth and oil demand growth would both rise significantly, though the rebound may not be immediate.

Sluggish refinery activity in the first three quarters has caused crude oil demand to fall in 2019 for the first time since 2009, but refining is set to rebound sharply in the fourth quarter and in 2020.

Washington looting Syrian oil

Recently released satellite images by the Russian Defense Ministry show tank trucks guarded by US military servicemen and private military companies were busy in smuggling oil from fields in the eastern part of Syria to other countries. It suggests that Washington is looting Syrian oil and transporting it to outside Syrian territories under American military guard. The revenues of the US government from the theft were estimated more than US$30 million per month.

Washington is capturing and holding oil fields under its control in the eastern part of Syria. This is a clear international state-sponsored gangsterism, say Russians. These resources inside the Syrian territories belong to the Syrian Arab Republic. They neither belong to Daesh nor to the American protectors. The cost of one barrel of oil smuggled from Syria estimated at US$38 generates monthly revenue for the private business exceeds US$30 million.

While US President Donald Trump has ordered a partial withdrawal of the approximately 1,000 US troops from Syrian territory, who have been enforcing an illegal military occupation under international law. The US President himself and US officials have admitted that some will be staying in Syrian. They will remain on Syrian soil not to ensure the safety of any group of people, but rather to maintain control over oil and gas fields. Donald said openly, “We want to keep the oil.”

The US military has already killed hundreds of Syrians, and possibly even some Russians, precisely in order to hold on to these Syrian fossil fuel reserves. Washington’s obsession with toppling the Syrian government refuses to die. The US remains committed to preventing Damascus from retaking its own oil, as well as its wheat-producing breadbasket region, in order to starve the government of revenue and prevent it from funding reconstruction efforts.

It is for the first time, Trump has openly confirmed the imperialist ulterior motives behind maintaining a US military presence in Syria. “We want to keep the oil,” Trump confessed in a cabinet meeting on October 21. “Maybe we’ll have one of our big oil companies to go in and do it properly.”

Few days earlier, the president had tweeted, “The US has secured the Oil.” “President Trump is leaning in favor of a new Pentagon plan to keep a small contingent of American troops in eastern Syria, perhaps numbering about 200, to combat the Islamic State and block the advance of Syrian government and Russian forces into the region’s coveted oil fields.

“We secured the oil (in Syria), and therefore a small number of US troops will remain in the area where they have the oil,” Trump said. “And we’re going to be protecting it. And we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future.”

“We have troops in towns in northeast Syria that are located next to the oil fields. The troops in those towns are not in the present phase of withdrawal. Our forces will remain in the towns that are located near the oil fields.

Unlike Trump, others offer an excuse to justify the continued US military occupation of Syria’s oil fields. He insisted that American soldiers remain to help the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) hold on to the resources and prevent ISIS jihadists from taking them over.

But any observer who carefully witnessed the press confirmation during his press conference would have been able to detect the real goal behind the prolonged US presence in northeastern Syria. It seems the purpose of those troops, working with the SDF, is to deny access to those oil fields by ISIS and others who may benefit from revenues that could be earned.

It is clear that the US strategy is to prevent Syria’s UN-recognized government and the Syrian majority that lives under its control from retaking their own oil fields and reaping the benefits of their revenue. US military massacred hundreds to keep control of Syrian oil fields. This is not just speculation. CNN made it plain when reported the following in an undeniably blunt passage, citing anonymous US senior military officials:

The oil fields are assets that have also been long sought after by Russia and the Assad regime, which is strapped for cash after years of civil war. Both Moscow and Damascus hope to use oil revenues to help rebuild western Syria and solidify the regime’s hold. CNN acknowledged that the US military had killed up to “hundreds” of Syrian and Russia-backed fighters seeking to gain access to Syria’s oil fields. It massacred these fighters not for humanitarian reasons, but to prevent the Syrian government from using “oil revenues to help rebuild western Syria.”

This shockingly direct admission flew in the face of the popular myth that the US was keeping troops in Syria to protect Kurds from an assault by NATO member Turkey. The CNN report was an apparent reference to the Battle of Khasham, a little known but important episode in the eight-year international proxy war in Syria.

The battle unfolded on February 7, 2018, when the Syrian military and its allies launched an attack to try to retake major oil and gas reserves in Syria’s Deir ez-Zour governorate, which were being occupied by American troops and their Kurdish proxies. The US has aimed to prevent Damascus from retaking profitable territory, starving it of natural resources from fossil fuels to basic foodstuffs.

In 2015, the then President Barack Obama deployed US troops to northeastern Syria on the grounds of helping the Kurdish militia the People’s Protection Units (YPG) fight ISIS. What started as several dozen US special operations forces quickly ballooned into some 2,000 troops, largely stationed in northeastern Syria.

While Trump has pledged to bring US soldiers home and end their military occupation of Syrian territory, it is evident that the broader regime change war continues. A brutal economic war on Damascus is escalating, not only through sanctions but through the theft of Syria’s natural treasures by foreign powers.

Malaysia likely next victim of trade sanctions by United States

Lately, Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad has expressed concerns that his exports-reliant country could be hit with trade sanctions amid rising protectionism highlighted by the Sino-US tariff war. While Mahathir did not mention the source of possible sanctions on the Southeast Asian country, he expressed disappointment the way proponents of free trade were now indulging in restrictive trade practices on a grand scale.

“Unfortunately, we are caught in the middle,” said Mahathir referring to the Sino-US trade war. “Economically we are linked to both markets, and physically we are also caught in between for geographical reasons. There are even suggestions that we ourselves would be a target for sanctions,” he added

The US and China were two of the three biggest export destinations for Malaysia between January and August this year. Singapore was the top destination.

To cushion the impact of the collision between the superpowers, Mahathir said Malaysia was collaborating more with its regional neighbors.

Mahathir also complained of being bullied by powerful nations, referring to a campaign by European countries against Malaysia’s agricultural mainstay, palm oil. The edible oil contributed 2.8% of Malaysia’s gross domestic product last year and 4.5% to total exports.

“Having cleared most of their forests and refusing to reduce their noxious emissions, they now try to impoverish the poor by preventing them from clearing their forest for living space and earning a living,” he said.

The European Union passed an act earlier this year to phase out palm oil from renewable fuel by 2030 due to deforestation concerns.

There are also concerns that India, one of the biggest buyers of Malaysian palm oil, would restrict imports of the product due to a diplomatic row over comments made by Mahathir on New Delhi’s recent actions in the disputed South Asian region of Kashmir.

Moreover, countries are reeling under the pain inflicted by a trade war between the most powerful economies; there is international political turmoil; savage conflicts and widespread terrorism are killing millions; and budgets that should be devoted to helping the poor are being used to buy and maintain expensive weapons of war, he said.

“There is something wrong with our way of thinking, with our value system … we still believe that conflict between nations can be resolved with war,” added the Malaysian Prime Minister.

He went on to say that “free trade” means “no protection” for small countries and their small industries, with simple products of the poor subjected to clever barriers that prevent their sale to rich markets. At the same time, globalization, despite its benefits, has imperilled the independence of smaller countries.

Applauding the efforts of the UN to end poverty, protect the environment and bring peace to all countries, Prime Minister Mahathir, underscored the need for reform in the Organization, particularly the Security Council.

“Five countries on the basis of their 70-year-old war victories cannot claim to have a right to hold the world to ransom forever,” he said, underling the need to reform the veto rights in the Security Council.