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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel designates PFLP international branch as a terrorist organization,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crude oil price caught between Covid and green energy options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will ending war in Afghanistan be ever possible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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