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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crude oil price caught between Covid and green energy options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will ending war in Afghanistan be ever possible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netanyahu terms Iran Nuclear agreement worthless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia and Russia once again on opposite sides

Saudi Arabia and Russia once again seem to be propagating opposite stance prior to OPEC plus meeting scheduled in March. While Riyadh is publicly urging fellow members to be extremely cautious, Moscow is demanding increase in output.

When OPEC plus gathers on 4th March, it will discuss increasing output in April. There will be two crucial decisions.

First, the group as a whole must choose whether to restore as much as 500,000 barrels a day. Second, Saudi Arabia must decide the fate of one million barrels a day of extra voluntary cuts and clearing surplus inventories even more quickly.

The kingdom initially announced this reduction would be reversed in April, but their latest thinking is fluid and the next move hasn’t been finalized. Offering to maintain some part of this voluntary cut in April could give Riyadh a useful bargaining chip if it’s seeking to limit the group’s overall output increase.

Some easing in production restraint is likely at the March meeting. The real bargaining has yet to start and no decision has been pre-baked.

Having differed over the pace of supply increases at the last two ministerial meetings, public comments from Riyadh and Moscow indicate that another debate looms.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said on 14th February that the market was balanced. While he hasn’t publicly expressed a policy preference for the March discussions, Novak argued at the last two OPEC+ meetings for production increases.

Acknowledging his stance might be unpopular; Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman warned his fellow producers against complacency. The group must recall the scars of last year’s crisis and be extremely cautious in its next move, he said.

This year’s 20% rally in crude prices has been sharp enough for major consumers such as India to complain about the squeeze, and for Wall Street banks and trading houses to predict further gains.

Global inventories are falling very fast and are set to diminish sharply later this year, according to the International Energy Agency. Demand for petroleum products that cater to societies working and consuming at home is booming.

After freezing storms in Texas shuttered as much as 40% of US crude production in the past week, the clamor for barrels from refiners in some regions has grown stronger. There’s also the risk for OPEC plus that, once the weather-related disruption in the shale heartlands abates, high prices would provoke a new flood of supply.

At the same time, inventories remain significantly above average levels and the IEA forecasts they could pile up again next quarter. The supply disruption from the US freeze won’t last long enough to cause a shortage.

Prices are still below the levels most OPEC members need to cover government spending. Saudi Arabia’s one million barrels cut is a gift. If an attempt is made to snatch back this gift, prices would decline only.

Can Russia and China restore balance to JCPOA?

As the United States doubles down on its diplomatic effort to reach a common consensus with Europe on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, pundits raise speculation on how the European Union, particularly EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell, can save the day by setting the stage for Iran and the US to ultimately implement the nuclear deal in full.

These pundits rarely point to the fact that the European signatories to the nuclear deal – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – have lost the neutrality needed to act as a go-between since Joe Biden won the US presidential election in November. The Europeans are now harboring even more hawkish views than Washington itself.

During the Trump administration, the European parties to the JCPOA – France, Germany and the UK (E3) – had been calling on Iran to fully implement the nuclear deal in the hope that Trump would lose the presidential election and then they will revive the JCPOA in collaboration with a more favorite Democratic administration.

Trump lost the election and was replaced by someone who had played a direct role in negotiating the JCPOA in the first place. But the Europeans were quick to renege on their promise to salvage the nuclear deal. They called for a new negotiation with Iran after Biden assumed office, one that would expand the JCPOA and add other thorny issues such as Iran’s defensive missile program and its regional activities to it.

The top diplomats of the E3 and the US reiterated this position during a recnt joint meeting.

“The E3 welcomed the prospect of a US and Iranian return to compliance with the JCPOA. The E3 and the United States affirmed their determination to then strengthen the JCPOA and, together with regional parties and the wider international community, address broader security concerns related to Iran’s missile programs and regional activities. We are committed to working together toward these goals,” the chief diplomats said in a joint statement after the meeting.

The Europeans are now planning an informal meeting of all JCPOA participants and the US. Citing a European official, Reuters said that the date of this meeting is yet to be set.  The official also pointed to a US willingness to accept an invitation from the EU to participate in a meeting of the P5+1.

Earlier, US State Department spokesman Ned Price said Washington was willing to attend a meeting of the P5+1, although the US is not a member of this group of major world powers.

“The United States would accept an invitation from the European Union High Representative to attend a meeting of the P5+1 and Iran to discuss a diplomatic way forward on Iran's nuclear program,” Price noted, referring to the UN Security Council's five permanent members and Germany.

Price’s remarks signified a U.S. desire to walk into the P4+1 with the help of the E3 even before lifting its sanctions on Iran.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh reminded the West that the US is still not a JCPOA member and the only way to get the JCPOA membership is to lift sanctions.

Because of US withdrawal from JCPOA, there is NO P5+1. It is now only Iran and P4+1. Remember, Trump left the room and tried to blow it up. Gestures are fine. But to revive P5+1, US must act lift sanctions. We will respond, Khatibzadeh said on Friday.

But while the E3 tries to sneak the US in the JCPOA without lifting the sanctions, two JCPOA parties, namely China and Russia, can ensure that the US would rejoin the nuclear deal after correcting the mistakes Trump made against Iran.

China took a step in this regard by saying that US should unconditionally return to the JCPOA and lift all sanctions.

Speaking at a news conference, China’s Foreign Ministry Hua Chunying said, “Currently the Iranian nuclear issue is at a critical stage with both opportunities and challenges. China holds that the return of the United States to the JCPOA is the only correct approach to resolve the impasse on this issue. All parties should act with greater urgency, work together to implement consensus reached at the foreign ministers' meeting last December, and push for the unconditional return of the United States to the JCPOA as soon as possible and the lifting of all sanctions on Iran. On its part, Iran should resume full compliance with the JCPOA. In the meantime, we call on all sides to remain calm and exercise restraint, avoid taking actions that will escalate the situation and reserve space for diplomatic efforts.”

Russia, for its part, reminded the West why the JCPOA ended up a failed deal. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Kremlin, has welcomed a US decision to rescind the Trump administration’s restoration of all UN sanctions on Iran in September.

Peskov also said that the main reason for the non-implementation of the JCPOA is the sanctions pressure that the US put on Iran.

Also, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told TASS that Iran cannot be suspected of carrying out a covert nuclear weapons program as the E3 and the US ramped up pressure on Iran, accusing it of pursuing nuclear activities that have no civil justifications.

“We have always said and are saying now that a state, which has an agreement on comprehensive guarantees with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and which has been committed to this deal - and Iran has such an agreement, and a state, which has been fully observing the JCPOA for a long time, cannot be suspected of carrying out a covert program on weaponization in the nuclear field,” Ryabkov noted.

With the E3 working to pave the way for a US return to the JCPOA without lifting the sanctions, Russia and China have a unique opportunity to ensure that the dispute around the JCPOA is resolved reasonably. They need to make it clear to the West that a dispute settled unfairly is bound to break out in the not-so-distant future.