What United States loves the most? Saudi Crown Prince or US$134 billion arms sale

At present, the United States and Saudi Arabia are experiencing a new era in their 76-year relationships. The priorities have changed after the release of the CIA findings. The report says Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) had ‘approved’ the 2018 murder of prominent Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.

Historically, an American president has never cut off personal links to the Saudi heir apparent, who has often served as de facto ruler of the kingdom. But the White House declared his intention to make that very heir a ‘pariah’ in Washington and internationally as well.

The State Department has also set a new precedent by issuing visa restrictions on 76 Saudis believed to have been engaged in threatening dissidents overseas’ under a new ‘Khashoggi ban’ created in memory of the Saudi journalist murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

MBS has been deliberately spared from the Khashoggi ban, or any other sanction, to preserve a minimum communication and cooperation between the two governments. Former Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal noted, MBS is destined to live under a lifetime ‘stigma’ for his role in the affair. He is unlikely to be invited to the White House for years to come.     

Biden has said that from now on, he will only talk to King Salman, Mohammed’s father and the American President’s official counterpart. But the king is 85 years old and in failing health. When he dies, would Biden refuse to communicate with the kingdom’s new monarch? It will be an unprecedented situation in the history of US-Saudi relations dating back to World War II.

In the past, the personal relationship between the US President and reigning Saudi monarch has been a key determinant in setting both the tone and substance of ties between the two countries. At this point, the only senior US official authorized to talk to Crown Prince Mohammed, who is also minister of defense, is his counterpart, Secretary of Defense General Lloyd Austin III.

What impact the new Biden doctrine toward the crown prince will have on the overall US-Saudi relationship remains to be seen? It seems likely that the relationship will be reduced mostly to formal state-to-state transactions and to avoid an open break which neither side wants.

It is believed that the focal point of the relationship will remain the massive US arms sales to the Saudi kingdom and covert cooperation in demolishing Iran. Since 2010, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified Congress of US$134 billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has been the most important foreign market for the American defense industry for decades.

The Biden administration has reiterated its commitment to defending Saudi Arabia from foreign aggression and will continue to provide ‘defensive’ arms. However, it has already announced the suspension of ‘offensive’ weapons being used against Houthi rebels, who have seized control of most of Yemen. Forthcoming arms sales to the Kingdom are now under review, presumably to determine which are defensive and which are offensive.

Other than MBS, the most divisive and immediate issue in US-Saudi relations is how to deal with Iran, the kingdom’s arch rival for regional primacy. Iran has proven itself to be the most serious military threat after demonstrating its ability to amass drones and cruise missiles to knock out nearly half of the kingdom’s oil production for several weeks in September 2019.

Biden has begun charting a diplomacy initiative to entice Iran back into the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Acton (JCPOA). This will certainly lead to even more discord in the fraught US-Saudi relationship. The two countries no longer see the personal ties bonding US and Saudi leaders had enjoyed in the past.

Could Iran be blamed for ecological terrorism against Israel?

The ability of a ship to purposely dump oil so that, two weeks later, it harms a country’s coastline appears very complex. The story of the ship – like many things at sea that involve the shipping industry look diabolic. This is because ownership of ships is often murky and involves shell companies and ships registered in one place, flying the flag of a different place, owned by a third party and captained by people from a fourth nation.

A shocking claim by Israel’s environmental protection minister, Gila Gamliel on Wednesday that a Libyan ship dumped containers of crude oil off Israel’s coast, causing one of the country’s worst environmental disasters, is making waves. This is because Gamliel accused that Iran was responsible for the environmental harm.

“This is a crude oil tanker called Emerald, owned and operated by a Libyan company,” Gamliel said. “It was illegally carrying cargo from Iran to Syria. The ship was flying Panama’s flag. Iran is waging terrorism not only by trying to arm itself with nuclear weapons or trying to establish a base near our borders. Iran is waging terrorism by harming the environment.

The ship was allegedly going from Iran to Syria where it was smuggling crude oil, Israel claims. Ships trying to get to Syria from Iran in the past have been interdicted so the transit can be illicit. The vessel also turned off its automatic identification system, a kind of transponder.

Can a ship purposely dump containers of crude oil to harm Israel’s environment? It is not out of the realm of possibility. In the past, Israel has had friction with Syria over water issues, including fishing, and the Jordan River was a cause for conflict in the early years of the state. Disputes over a dam in Ethiopia have led to a war of words in northeast Africa.

However, the ability of a ship to purposely dump oil so that, two weeks later, it harms a country’s coastline appears very complex. That would require study of the currents off the coast and knowledge of where cargo needs to be dumped and at what time to end up in a certain place.

It leads to further questions about why such activity wasn’t judged to be suspicious when it was happening, rather than almost a month later.

The chance that Iran would risk damaging the coastline of Gaza or its Hezbollah friends in Lebanon – they all share a coastline with Israel – would appear to be a major risk for Tehran.

Israel accuses Iran of ecological terrorism

Iran intentionally polluted the Mediterranean Sea and Israel’s shores in an act of ecological terrorism, causing the greatest environmental disaster in Israel’s history, Environmental Protection Minister Gila Gamliel said.

“This pollution has people who are responsible for it and have to pay the price. Our nature is damaged, our animals are harmed, thanks to merciless environmental criminals,” Gamliel added.

Gamliel explained, following a two-week investigation, the Environmental Protection Ministry found that the ship that leaked the crude oil, called the Emerald, was owned by a Libyan company and sailed from Iran to Syria. It departed Iran, turning off its automatic identification system (AIS) – which transmits its location to other ships in the area. It turned the AIS on as it went through the Suez Canal, and then off again as it approached Israel’s shores.

The ship remained within tens of kilometers of Israel’s shores, within Israel’s economic waters, for nearly a full day, spilling large amounts of oil on 1st and 2nd February, with its AIS off.

Then it continued on to Syria, where it turned on its transmitter, and it returned to Iran, turning off its AIS as it passed Israel. It is currently in Iran.

The tar reached Israeli shores on 17th February 2021.

“Now we see Iran is not just terrorizing [Israel] with [attempts at attaining] nuclear weapons and entrenching itself in our region, but also by harming the environment,” Gamliel said. “They’re not just hurting Israel. Nature and animals don’t just belong to one nation. This is a battle that crosses borders.”

Gamliel said that Israel will demand compensation from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund and the ship’s insurers.

“We will settle the score with the polluters in the name of all Israelis for the harm to our health, nature, animals and view,” she vowed. “We cannot abandon our sea. Our sea is our natural treasure that we must protect.”

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the European Maritime Safety Agency, as well as Israeli maritime research company Windward, helped the Environmental Protection Ministry investigate the oil spill. None of the agencies knew about the oil spill before the tar reached Israeli shores, over two weeks after it occurred.

Samples of the tar, which the Environmental Protection Ministry examined, showed that it came from crude oil, which sharply reduced the number of suspected ships from 35 to four. Two were found to have been too far away, and another was examined by local authorities in Spain and by Israeli investigators in Greece. The fourth is the Emerald, currently in Iran.

European satellites caught the underwater stain on 5th February, but it was not noticed before the tar reached Israel’s beaches.

ICC prosecutor announces formal investigation into Israeli war crimes

International Criminal Court Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda announced on Wednesday that she is opening a full war crimes probe against Israel and the Hamas terrorist group in the Gaza Strip. "The decision to open an investigation followed a painstaking preliminary examination undertaken by my office that lasted close to five years," Prosecutor Bensouda said in a statement.

"In the end, our central concern must be for the victims of crimes, both Palestinian and Israeli, arising from the long cycle of violence and insecurity that has caused deep suffering and despair on all sides," she added. "My office will take the same principled, non-partisan, approach that it has adopted in all situations over which its jurisdiction is seized."

"This is a long-awaited step that serves Palestine’s tireless pursuit of justice and accountability, which are indispensable pillars of the peace the Palestinian people seek and deserve," the PA foreign ministry said in a statement. 

Israeli Foreign Minister says ICC war crimes probe in Palestinian territories is 'an act of moral and legal bankruptcy.'

Bensouda's announcement comes less than a month after a February decision by the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber recognizing a State of Palestine and authorizing her to move forward.

The probe is expected to cover the 2014 Gaza War, the 2018 Gaza border crisis and the Israeli settlement enterprise in the West Bank as well as Hamas' rocket attacks against Israeli civilians.

War crimes suits could be leveled at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defense ministers and any other high-level officials involved in such activity since 13th June 2014. Soldiers and commanders could also be targeted.

"The investigation will cover crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court that are alleged to have been committed in the Situation since 13 June 2014, the date to which reference is made in the Referral of the Situation to my Office," chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said in a statement released on Wednesday.

Bensouda said that the investigation "will be conducted independently, impartially and objectively, without fear or favour." She said that the decision to open an investigation followed a painstaking preliminary examination undertaken by her office that lasted close to five years.

"Having assessed submissions from states, international organizations and other stakeholders, the Chamber was otherwise unanimous in its view that Palestine is a State Party to the Rome Statute. The majority also ruled that Palestine's referral of the Situation obliged the Office to open an investigation, the Office having determined that there existed a reasonable basis to do so in accordance with the Rome Statute criteria," she wrote in a statement.

Bensouda called on Palestinian and Israeli victims and affected communities to be patient.

"The ICC is not a panacea, but only seeks to discharge the responsibility that the international community has entrusted to it, which is to promote accountability for Rome Statute crimes, regardless of the perpetrator, in an effort to deter such crimes," she wrote. "In meeting this responsibility, the Office focuses its attention on the most notorious alleged offenders or those alleged to be the most responsible for the commission of the crimes."

Her primary concern, she wrote, "must be for the victims of crimes, both Palestinian and Israeli, arising from the long cycle of violence and insecurity that has caused deep suffering and despair on all sides."

Bensouda's decision comes only a few weeks after her successor, Karim Khan, was announced to take her place starting in June.

The news will be another blow to Israel, where officials had hoped Bensouda would leave the decision of how to proceed to her successor and that he might be more sympathetic to Israel's many claims against the ICC's jurisdiction.

On Tuesday, Defense Minister and Acting Justice Minister Benny Gantz alarmed government officials when he warned that hundreds of Israelis could be subject – in the near future – to war crimes probes by the International Criminal Court.

Gantz called that “an estimate,” declining to say that Israel had drawn up a list of officials likely to be investigated. Israel will provide legal assistance to any targeted Israelis and will give them advice regarding travel abroad if necessary, Gantz said.

Balkees Jarrah, associate international justice director for the left-wing NGO Human Rights Watch, stated: "The ICC prosecutor’s decision to open a Palestine investigation moves Israeli and Palestinian victims of serious crimes one step closer to obtaining a measure of justice that has for too long eluded them. 

"The court’s crowded docket shouldn’t deter the prosecutor’s office from doggedly pursuing cases against anyone credibly implicated in such crimes. 

"All eyes will also be on the next prosecutor Karim Khan to pick up the baton and expeditiously move forward while demonstrating firm independence in seeking to hold even the most powerful to account. ICC member countries should stand ready to fiercely protect the court’s work from any political pressure," he added.

OPEC and allies likely to raise output

Crude oil futures rallied in the Asian session before paring gains as the European session progressed as traders look ahead to the OPEC+ meeting this week. OPEC and allies meeting is scheduled on 4th March 2021 with market participants looking at likely easing of output constraints.

Going into the meeting, analysts note that global inventories are falling at their fastest rate in two decades. Clearly with the ongoing demand uncertainty there is a risk that OPEC over tightens by maintaining output curbs for too long. The risk is now one of keeping too much oil on the side lines and not pumping enough, which will drive prices sharply higher. Goldman Sachs says Brent will hit US$75 this year.

Thirteen OPEC members pumped 24.89 million barrels per day (bpd) during February 2021, down 870,000 bpd from January 2021 in the first monthly decline since June 2020. In February the largest supply cut came from Saudi Arabia, which pledged an additional, voluntary one million bpd production cut for February and March. As a result, compliance with pledged cuts stood at 121% in February, up from 103% in January.

Current output constraints stand at a little over 7 million bpd, with the 23-country OPEC+ likely to agree to reduce this by another 500,000 bpd from April on Thursday. In addition, it’s likely Saudi Arabia will confirm the additional one million bpd it removed from the market will return in April. This would bring an additional 1.5 million bpd on stream, but even this may not be enough to satisfy the demand. 

OPEC will be mindful of the IEA report that suggested that inventories could start to climb again in the second quarter due to seasonal factors before drawing down again in the second half of the year.

“The rebalancing of the oil market remains fragile in the early part of 2021 as measures to contain the spread of COVID-19, with its more contagious variants, weigh heavily on the near-term recovery in global oil demand,” the IEA’s latest Oil Market Report said.

“But fresh support has been provided by a more positive economic outlook for the second half of the year, along with a pledge from OPEC+ to hasten the drawdown of surplus oil inventories.” The report added

The spread on Brent futures contracts points to significant short-term supply shortage. Six-month spreads are above US$3, while the December contract trades about US$4 below the May contract as the front months are commanding a significant premium over back months, a situation known as backwardation. This implies bullish positioning and tight supplies. Analysts also see similar levels of backwardation on WTI futures, with the April contract trading about US$4 above December contract.

OPEC should be mindful of US shale producers, albeit the conditions for a sharp recovery in output are not what they once were. Nevertheless, OPEC+ could, by keeping output too tight, create conditions for a sharp acceleration in prices that see rivals deliver more. 

Baker Hughes said oil and gas producers added rigs for a 7th straight month for the first time since May 2018, although the rate of growth slowed as the Texas deep freeze hit. The less OPEC does to return the production cut last year the quicker these numbers should rise.

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.