Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal slams Israel

Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal accused Israel of colonialism and apartheid. “All Israeli governments are the last of the colonizing powers in the Middle East,” bin Faisal said at the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Manama Dialogue in Bahrain’s capital.

The Saudi prince accused Israel of establishing an “apartheid wall” in the West Bank, of “demolishing homes as they wish, and assassinating whoever they want,” of having 20 nuclear weapons and of “denying non-Jewish residents equality under law. What kind of democracy is that?” he said.

He reiterated statements from Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) that Riyadh would only establish diplomatic relations with Jerusalem if the latter accepted the 2002 Arab Peace Plan, which involves a full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines, a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem and a “fair settlement for Palestinians refugees,” which is generally understood to be a euphemism for allowing some to live in Israel.

Prince Turki said that only after making peace with the Palestinians “can we together meet the other colonizing pretender that boasts of its control of Arab capitals, Beirut, Damascus and Sanaa.”

Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi was taken aback by the Saudi prince’s tone, as were his Bahraini interlocutors, who had invited them to a panel on cooperation and partnerships.  Ashkenazi chose not to escalate and merely expressed “regret for the comments” Prince Turki made. “I don’t think they reflect the spirit and the changes taking place in the Middle East,” Ashkenazi added.

He also thanked Saudi Arabia, saying that without the kingdom’s approval, the Abraham Accords, in which Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates normalized ties with Israel, could not have happened. Most of Ashkenazi’s remarks focused on the hope that the Abraham Accords would bring a better future to the Middle East, and called for more countries to join.

 “The months to come will be significant in the future of the region,” Ashkenazi added, a possible reference to Biden’s policies when he enters office next month.

Ashkenazi also called on the Palestinians to enter direct negotiations with Israel without preconditions.

“We believe that Israel moving from annexation to normalization is a window to resolve this conflict,” he stated.

In response to a question soon after, Prince Turki called settlements “a precondition” and suggested that they should all be removed before Israel enters negotiations with the Palestinians.

World moving away from fossil oil and gas

The fight against climate change and the need to curb were already prominent features of government plans. The pandemic has accelerated the momentum as governments pledged all kinds of “Green Deals” and green stimulus packages for economic recovery. All the major oil companies in Europe also announced net-zero emissions targets by 2050 or sooner, committing more investments in renewable energy and other low-carbon energy solutions. 

Yet, all the pledges from government and corporations are just tiny fractions of the true cost of the energy transition. If the world is to come anywhere close to limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or below, it will need, collectively, a bare minimum of US$30 trillion to US$40 trillion of investment in energy systems and de-carbonization of industries where emissions are notoriously hard to abate such as steel and cement making.

Oil giants

Big oil companies have been frequently lambasted for trying to burnish their green credentials through half-hearted investments in renewables. That might have been true for much of the past decade, but it appears to be changing as the oil and gas majors have started putting down big money into clean energy. For instance, European oil majors including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni SpA, Total SA and Norwegian Equinor ASA have already invested billions of dollars in renewable energy and made big clean energy commitments. Yet, Big Oil just can’t seem to catch a break, with stocks of oil and gas companies that are investing heavily in renewables being punished by the markets.

A good case in point is BP, one of the oil majors with some of the largest clean energy commitments. BP has announced plans to achieve net-zero status by 2030 by dramatically increasing its renewables spending. BP stock has, however, cratered 48% in the year-to-date, considerably worse than Europe’s oil and gas benchmark STOXX Europe 600 Oil & Gas Index (SXEP) which is down 32% in the year-to-date or even the Energy Select Sector Fund (XLE) which has lost 41%. 

BP’s European peer Shell has probably done more than any other supermajor as far as investing in renewable energy goes. Recently, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden told investors that the company no longer considers itself an oil and gas company but an energy transition company. Shell has been vocal about the shift to renewables, frequently issuing the clarion call for the industry to switch to cleaner energy sources. In 2016, Shell had announced an ambitious goal to invest up to US$6 billion in clean energy projects by 2020.

US Automakers

A group representing major automakers vowed to work with President-elect Joe Biden on efforts to reduce vehicle emissions. John Bozzella, who heads the Alliance for Automotive Innovation representing General Motors Co, Volkswagen AG, Toyota Motor Corp, Ford Motor Co and most major automakers, said the group “looks forward to engaging with the incoming Biden administration ... to advance the shared goals of reducing emissions and realizing the benefits of an electric future.”

Biden has made boosting electric vehicles (EV) a top priority and pledged to spend billions to add 550,000 EV charging stations. He also supports new tax credits for EV purchases and retrofitting factories for EV production.

 “The long-term future of the auto industry is electric,” Bozzella said in a statement after automakers held a virtual meeting. “We are investing hundreds of billions to develop the products that will drive this electric future, and we are committed to working collaboratively.”

Ford urged automakers to consider backing a framework deal with California on vehicle emissions in a bid to reach industry consensus before Biden takes office, but automakers did not immediately take that step.

Last week, GM abruptly announced it would no longer back the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to bar California from setting its own vehicle emissions rules. In October 2019, GM joined Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and other automakers in backing President Donald Trump in the California fight.

Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said, “by continuing to support this futile fight, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler are signaling their disregard for cleaning our air, curbing the climate crisis and saving motorists millions at the gas pump.”

Ford, Honda Motor Co, Volkswagen and BMW in July 2019 struck a voluntary agreement with California on reducing vehicle emissions that is less stringent than Obama-era rules but higher than the Trump administration’s rollback .

Denmark to phase out oil and gas production

Denmark's parliament has voted to phase out North Sea oil and gas production by 2050. The plan includes cancelling the country's eighth licensing round, which has attracted lackluster interest since its launch in 2018, and all future rounds.

"It is incredibly important that we now have a broad majority behind the agreement. There is no longer any doubt about the possibilities and conditions in the North Sea," Danish climate and energy minister Dan Jorgensen said.

Denmark will continue to review two outstanding applications in the eighth round from UK-based Ardent Oil to ensure "stability", Jorgensen said. But any licences awarded will be subject to the 2050 cut-off date for oil and gas extraction. Total, the largest operator in Denmark's upstream sector, has already withdrawn from the round.

Denmark's decision to end North Sea production comes six months after parliament set a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 70% by 2030.

Denmark began producing oil and gas in its sector of the North Sea in 1972. It has 19 oil and gas fields, 15 of them operated by Total on behalf of the Danish Underground Consortium (Duc), three operated by the UK's Ineos and one by US firm Hess.

The latest figures from the Danish Energy Agency put Danish crude production at 71,500 b/d in October and gas output at 130.9mn ft³/d. Production has been constrained since the Tyra field and its satellites were shut down for a redevelopment project in September last year. The project is not expected to be completed until the second quarter of 2023, having been delayed by a year by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Is OPEC getting control over supply and price of crude oil, once gain?

The contraction of oil industry in the United States this year means the OPEC members probably won’t need to worry too much about losing market share for some time. But the group has a few challenges to consider at the upcoming crucial summit, for the first time in years the shale boom won’t be at the top of the list.

A devastating global pandemic and a reckoning with Wall Street appear to have broken the resolve of the shale wildcatters who made the US the world’s biggest oil producer. Years of breakneck growth, at the expense of crude kingpins in the Middle East and Russia, seems to be coming to the end. If there was ever any doubt, it’s now abundantly clear who has the upper hand in the global oil market.

It is believed that OPEC has got control over oil prices to a large extent. The US oil output will be around 11 million barrels a day in 2021, about the same as it is now. Experts don’t see growth until 2022, 2023, and prospects are lean that the US shale industry will post significant growth.

At the start of 2020, OPEC plus efforts to control prices were facing increasing difficulties. The breakthroughs in horizontal drilling and fracking that ushered in the shale revolution made it look as though US production growth might never end. Output surpassed 13 million barrels a day for the first time in February 2020.

After COVID-19 hit, people around the world stopped driving and flying and the oil market crashed. President Donald Trump brokered a historic deal with OPEC in April to remove almost a 10th of global production from the market. He said the US contribution would come in the form of market-driven cuts.

That pledge was delivered faster than most predicted, and it made a huge difference. Investors who were already tiring of the shale industry’s cash-burning spree retreated from the sector, and several producers went bankrupt. Before the summer was over, the US output had collapsed by 3.4 million barrels a day.

Output from shale wells typically declines in a matter of months, therefore, new ones need to be drilled and fracked just to maintain production at existing levels.  A recent uptick in drilling and fracking doesn’t seem to be enough to ensure production growth.

Since hitting bottom in the summer, the number of rigs searching for crude in shale fields has increased by 69 to 241 lately, still down from 683 in March. 

Similarly, the number of fracking crews in the once vibrant Permian Basin straddling Texas and New Mexico has increased to 63, an improvement from a meager 20 in June. But that’s less than half the 146 teams that were pumping mixtures of water, chemicals and sand into wells in January to release oil from shale rock in the area. 

It seems that the US has gone from being a thorn for OPEC to being an unofficial member of the cartel’s alliance with Russia and other producing nations. Since June, benchmark US oil prices have been remarkably stable, hovering around US$40 a barrel.

While shale’s retreat has made OPEC’s life easier, for the US oil industry it’s been brutal. There have been 43 bankruptcies of exploration and production companies this year through October, according to a report. Shale may be down but it’s certainly not out, though. The US is still an oil superpower, and will remain so for years to come. And there’s always the possibility that higher prices will get explorers drilling and fracking relentlessly like before.

Joe Biden reaffirms support for JCPOA, vows to engage Iran

Joe Biden has said that he still stands by his views on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that were articulated in a mid-September op-ed, but a US return to the deal would be “hard.” In an interview with The New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman, Biden addressed a variety of domestic and foreign policy issues, including the Iran nuclear deal, which President Donald Trump quit on May 8, 2018.

Asked whether he still stands by his views on the Iran deal that he expressed in a September 13 op-ed for CNN, Biden answered, “It’s going to be hard, but yeah.”

This is the first statement on Iran; Biden said in the op-ed that he will return to the nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

“I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy. If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations. With our allies, we will work to strengthen and extend the nuclear deal's provisions, while also addressing other issues of concern,” then-presidential candidate Biden said.

According to Friedman, the view of Biden and his national security team is that once the deal is restored by both sides, there will have to be, in very short order, a round of negotiations to seek to lengthen the duration of the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program — originally 15 years — as well as to address Iran’s regional activities.

The columnist also said that the Biden team may involve Iran’s Arab neighbors, namely Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in follow-on negotiations on Iran's regional activities.

“Ideally, the Biden team would like to see that follow-on negotiation include not only the original signatories to the deal — Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union — but also Iran’s Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,” wrote Friedman.

A few days ago, Friedman wrote a column urging a Biden administration to address Iran’s precision-guided missile before restoring the JCPOA. But this column seems to have failed to influence the Biden team. “But for now they insist that America’s overwhelming national interest is to get Iran’s nuclear program back under control and fully inspected,” Friedman admittedly said.

Biden himself expressed less enthusiasm about addressing Iran’s missiles. “Look, there’s a lot of talk about precision missiles and all range of other things that are destabilizing the region,” Biden noted, adding that “the best way to achieve getting some stability in the region” is to deal “with the nuclear program.”

If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, Biden claimed, it puts enormous pressure on the Saudis, Turkey, Egypt and others to get nuclear weapons themselves. “And the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability.”

Then, Biden said, “In consultation with our allies and partners, we’re going to engage in negotiations and follow-on agreements to tighten and lengthen Iran’s nuclear constraints, as well as address the missile program.” The US always has the option to snap back sanctions if need be, and Iran knows that, he added.

It’s worth noting that Iran has always said that it is not seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, and it even considers this kind of bomb religiously indecent.

UN Security Council session on JCPOA

The United Nations Security Council will hold a briefing session on the latest development in the West Asia region, including the situation around the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

“Before the Christmas break, the Council will hear briefings on the Middle East [West Asia] peace process, including the question of Palestine, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program,” the UN said in a statement on Tuesday.

Council President Jerry Matthews Matjila said the Council will not discuss the recent assassination of prominent Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh because the 15-member UN body has not received any request concerning the assassination.

“As for the recent killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist, he said the Council has not received any request to act on that matter, but the meeting on Iran’s nuclear program later this month will be held in ‘a new global environment,’” the UN statement said.

Israel usually informs the US administration of information about its targets and the operations it intends to carry out prior to carrying out, but he refused to confirm whether the Israeli government had done so this time.

Iran's retaliatory step against the Americans will make Biden's job difficult regarding lifting sanctions on Tehran and launching the diplomatic process.

Additional sanctions will be imposed on Tehran within the next week and the following, as Trump has given Pompeo a “Carte Blanche” to continue imposing a policy of maximum pressure on Tehran over the next two months.

But slapping new sanctions on Iran could ratchet up tensions in the region especially after the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist significantly raised the tension in the region.

The UN has called for restraint hours after the assassination of Fakhrizadeh.

“We have noted the reports that an Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated near Tehran today. We urge restraint and the need to avoid any actions that could lead to an escalation of tensions in the region,” Farhan Haq, the deputy spokesman for the UN secretary-general, said.

Also on Friday, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi sent a letter to the UN secretary-general and Security Council, warning against any “adventurist” steps by the US and Israel against Iran in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Warning against any adventurist measures by the United States and Israel against my country, particularly during the remaining period of the current administration of the United States in office, the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its rights to take all necessary measures to defend its people and secure its interests," Ravanchi said in the letter.

Is the world ready to condemn murder of Iranian Nuclear Scientist?

Israel used all the four years of Trump’s presidency to entrench its systems of occupation and apartheid. Now that Joe Biden has won the US election, the assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, likely by Israel with the go-ahead from the US administration, is a desperate attempt to use Trump’s last days in office to sabotage Biden’s chances of successful diplomacy with Iran. Biden, Congress and the world community shouldn’t let that happen.

On Friday, November 27, Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was assassinated in the Iranian city of Absard outside of Tehran. The immediate speculation was that Israel had carried out the attack, perhaps with the support of the Iranian groups.

In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu identified Fakhrizadeh as a target of his administration during a presentation in which he claimed that Israel had obtained secret Iranian files that alleged the country was not actually abiding by the Iran Nuclear Deal.

During 2010 and 2012, four Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated that included: Masoud Alimohammadi, Majid Shahriari, Darioush Rezaeinejad and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan. Though Israel never accepted responsibility of these murders, reports suggested that Israel, working with Iranian rebel groups, was behind the killings. The Israeli government also never denied the allegations. 

The assassination of Fakhrizadeh also follows reports that the Israeli government recently instructed its senior military officials to prepare for a possible US strike on Iran, likely referring to a narrowly averted plan by President Trump to bomb Iran’s Natanz nuclear site. Furthermore, there was a clandestine meeting between Netanyahu and Saudi ruler Mohammed bin Salman.

Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear activities are particularly annoying given that Israel, not Iran, is the only country in the Middle East in possession of nuclear weapons, and Israel refuses to sign the International Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons and it has opened itself up to the most intrusive international inspections ever implemented. Adding to this absurd double standard is the intense pressure on Iran from the United States, a nation that has more nuclear weapons than any country on earth.

Given the close relationship between Netanyahu and Trump, and the seriousness of this attack, it is very likely that this assassination was carried out with the green light from Trump himself. Trump has spent his time in the White House destroying the progress the Obama administration made in easing the conflict with Iran. He withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed an unending stream of crippling sanctions that have affected everything from the price of food and housing, to Iran’s ability to obtain life-saving medicines during the pandemic. He also blocked Iran from getting an IMF US$5 billion emergency loan to deal with the pandemic. In January, Trump brought the US to the brink of war by assassinating Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, and in an early November meeting with his top security advisors, and right before the assassination of Fakhrizadeh, Trump himself reportedly raised the possibility of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

After the news broke of the assassination, Trump expressed implicit approval of the attack by re-tweeting Israeli journalist and expert on the Israeli Mossad intelligence service, Yossi Melman, who described the killing of Fahkrizadeh as a “major psychological and professional blow for Iran.”

Iran has responded to these intense provocations with extreme patience and reserve. The government was hoping for a change in the White House and Biden’s victory signaled the possibility of both the US and Iran going back into compliance with the nuclear deal. This recent assassination has further strengthens the hands of Iranian hardliners who say it was a mistake to negotiate with the United States and that Iran should just leave the nuclear deal and build a nuclear weapon for its own defense. 

Iranian-American analyst Negar Mortazavi lamented the chilling effect the assassination will have on Iran’s political space. “The atmosphere will be even more securitized, civil society and political opposition will be pressured even more, and the anti-West discourse will be strengthened in Iran’s upcoming presidential election,” she tweeted.

The hardliners already won the majority of seats in the February parliamentary elections and are predicted to win the presidential elections scheduled for June. So the window for negotiations is a narrow one of four months immediately after Biden’s inauguration. What happens between now and January 20 could derail negotiations before they even start. 

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council said that US and Israeli efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program have now morphed into Trump and Netanyahu sabotaging the next US President. They are trying to provoke Iran to accelerate nuclear work—exactly what they claim to oppose.

That is the reason US members of Congress, and President-elect Joe Biden himself, must vigorously condemn this act and affirm their commitment to the US rejoining the nuclear deal. When Israel assassinated other nuclear scientists during the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the murders, understanding that such illegal actions made negotiations infinitely more difficult.

The European Union, as well as some important US figures have already condemned the attack. Senator Chris Murphy pointed out the risks involved in normalizing assassinations, how the killing will make it harder to restart the Iran Nuclear agreement, and how the assassination of General Soleimani backfired from a security standpoint. Former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes tweeted that it was an “outrageous action aimed at undermining diplomacy,” and former CIA head John Brennan called the assassination “criminal” and “highly reckless,” risking “lethal retaliation and a new round of regional conflict,” but rather than putting the responsibility on the US and Israel to stop the provocations, he called on Iran to “be wise” and “resist the urge to respond.”

Many on Twitter have raised the question of what the world response would be if the roles were reversed and Iran assassinated an Israeli nuclear scientist. Without a doubt, the US administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would be outraged and supportive of a swift military response. But if we want to avoid escalation, then we must hope that Iran will not retaliate, at least not during Trump’s last days in office.

The only way to stop this crisis from spiraling out of control is for the world community to condemn the act, and demand a UN investigation and accountability for the perpetrators. The countries that joined Iran and the United States in signing the 2015 nuclear agreement —Russia, China, Germany, the UK and France—must not only oppose the assassination but publicly recommit to upholding the nuclear deal. President-elect Joe Biden must send a clear message to Israel that under his administration, these illegal acts will have consequences. He must also send a clear message to Iran that he intends to quickly re-enter the nuclear deal, stop blocking Iran’s US$5 billion IMF loan request, and begin a new era of diplomacy to dial back the intense conflict he inherited from Trump’s recklessness.

Human rights groups condemn sale of US arms to UAE

Human rights groups and arms control organizations have condemned sale of arms by United States to the United Arab Emirates, asking the Congress to block the mega deal. The groups signed a letter opposing the sale of US$23 billion worth of missiles, fighter jets, and drones, raising concern about the UAE’s role in the Saudi-led devastating war on Yemen and Libya conflict.

"The hope is to stop these sales altogether," said Seth Binder, advocacy officer at the Project on Middle East Democracy, who spearheaded the effort.

"But if that is not possible in the short term, this sends an important signal to the incoming Biden administration that there is a diverse group of organizations that oppose delivery of these weapons."

The letter, sent to US lawmakers and the State Department, said the planned arms sale would fuel continued harm to civilians and exacerbate humanitarian crises due to conflicts in war-wracked Yemen and Libya.

Signatories include human rights organizations from the region, including the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies and Mwatana for Human Rights.

The US-UAE arms deal includes F-35 fighter jets, Reaper drones, air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, and more than 14,000 bombs.

The sale was approved following a US-brokered agreement in September in which the UAE agreed to normalize relations with Israel.

Several US senators, including Murphy, earlier this month proposed legislation to halt the weapons sale to the UAE, setting up a showdown with President Donald Trump weeks before he is due to leave office.

Trump administration officials briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the deal on Monday evening.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, a sponsor of the resolutions of disapproval, responded later on Twitter: "Just a mind blowing number of unsettled issues and questions the Administration couldn't answer. Hard to overstate the danger of rushing this."

Murphy had said, "I support the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, but nothing in that agreement requires us to flood the region with more weapons and facilitate a dangerous arms race."

Iran’s Zamaninia elected as chairman of OPEC Executive Board for 2021

Iranian Deputy Oil Minister for International Affairs and Trading Amir-Hossein Zamaninia, who is the country’s governor at the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been elected new Chairman of the OPEC Executive Board for 2021. The decision was made during the 180th meeting of the OPEC Conference which was held on Monday, the meeting lasted for more than four hours.

The mentioned Board is the executive body of OPEC which directs the Organization's affairs, implements the decisions made at meetings, reviews and decides on the reports submitted by the Secretary General, submits reports and recommendations to the ministerial meetings, prepares the budget for each calendar year and submits it to the ministerial meetings for approval and etc.

In the meeting, extending the oil output cut of 7.7 million barrels per day was discussed. Although, some OPEC members complained that some members had not complied with the previous decisions, there was a consensus that the organization’s complaint was not in a way that could prevent an extension of the existing deal.

OPEC members’ main concern was how non-OPEC members would cooperate? Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said in a press conference following the 180th OPEC meeting which was held through video conference.

The 12th meeting of the oil and energy ministers of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies, a grouping known as OPEC plus, was due to be held on Thursday in Vienna but it was postponed to Thursday December 03, 2020

“What is important is that we negotiate and have the patience to reach a conclusion,” Zanganeh said announcing the adjournment of the ministerial meeting.