Can United States shut down Russian gas pipeline?

Democrats are headed for a showdown with Senator Ted Cruz over his bid to force the Biden administration’s hand over a Russian gas pipeline. 

As part of a deal reached by Cruz and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, the Senate will vote next week on legislation from the conservative firebrand to put sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will carry gas from Moscow to Germany. 

Cruz needs help from 10 Democrats to get the bill through the Senate, and said he thinks his prospects for hitting that threshold are good. But Democrats are raising red flags over the bill, even though they’ve previously supported similar sanctions. 

”I’ve been talking to a number of my colleagues, and they have raised some serious questions about the Cruz amendment. … It’s a little much,” said Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, asked if 10 Democrats would support the bill. 

Cruz’s legislation requires the administration to impose sanctions related to the pipeline within 15 days of the bill becoming law, but a big sticking point for Democrats, raised by senators are restrictions on President Biden’s ability to waive the sanctions, including the ability for Congress to vote to reinstate the penalties if they are waived. 

“I’ve been opposed to Nord Stream 2. I am still opposed to Nord Stream 2. There are some things though in the Cruz amendments are unprecedented. That gives me a pause,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. 

Senator Tim Kaine noted that the Foreign Relations Committee, which he serves on with Cruz, had been pretty uniformly against Nord Stream 2 and in support of sanctions but the question is what are the conditions, does the executive get the ability to waive sanctions?

The vote could be politically awkward for Democrats, forcing them to pick between supporting a president they align with politically or cracking down on a pipeline they oppose even if they disagree with Cruz’s tactics. Cruz has also opened the door to releasing part of his blockade on Biden’s nominees if his bill passes the Senate. 

The Biden administration previously waived sanctions on the pipeline’s project company Nord Stream 2 AG, a subsidiary of the Russian-owned company Gazprom. Voting for Cruz’s amendment would effectively be supporting nixing Biden’s decision. 

Democrats have faced pressure from the Biden administration and European allies to reject slapping financial penalties on the pipeline. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken previously lobbied Democrats to quash Cruz’s proposal last year when he offered it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, a sweeping defense policy bill. 

Blinken, during a speech this week, argued that the pipeline could be used as a check on Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine, where Moscow has amassed troops along the border.

“This pipeline does not have gas flowing through it at present and if Russia renews its aggression toward Ukraine, it would certainly be difficult to see gas flowing through it in the future,” Blinken said. 

Germany is unlikely to certify the pipeline for operation in the first half of the year, according to the head of the federal authority for gas and infrastructure, Reuters reported, citing regulation requirements not yet met.  

Ned Price, a spokesman for the State Department, added that the administration is working with members of Congress and European allies “on a package of sanctions … that maximizes the potential costs to Russia if Moscow does continue with aggression against Ukraine.” 

Underlining the complicated diplomatic dance the White House is undertaking, the vote will coincide with diplomatic summits next week with Russia and other partners to address and tamp down the tension on Ukraine’s border. Russia has amassed nearly 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border, prompting fears of an invasion.

Kaine, who said he is still reviewing Cruz’s legislation, acknowledged that the Biden administration was worried about transatlantic tensions at a precarious moment, but noted that both a new German government and heightened Russian aggression could “change the dynamic a little bit.” 

“I want to hear what the administration position is, but President Obama was a friend and I voted for things he didn’t like. We do our job, and then the president gets to do his job. … If he really doesn’t like what we do he can veto it,” he said. 

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has sparked a wide, bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill over concerns that it only bolsters Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hand over Europe.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, for example, recently co-authored an op-ed with Senator Rob Portman urging the Biden administration to “seriously reconsider the imposition of [Nord Stream 2] sanctions.”

The House also previously voted to approve Nord Stream 2 sanctions as part of its defense policy bill. But the provisions were dropped from the final House-Senate agreement. 

If Democrats block his bill, Cruz is already signaling that he’ll weaponize a “no” vote as Democrats being soft on Russia. 

 “Virtually every Democrat has voted for sanctions on Nord Stream 2 multiple times. If this were a vote on the merits it would be unanimous or nearly unanimous. There are multiple Democrats who have told me they are going to vote for it, or they are strongly considering voting for it,” Cruz said. 

Cruz added that supporting his bill “should be an easy vote,” before offering a likely preview of how he’ll characterize a defeat of the legislation.

“Each Democrat is going to have to make a choice,” he said, “whether their partisan loyalty to the White House is greater than their willingness to stand up to Russia and stop Putin’s aggression.”

NATO rejects Russian demands to stop expansion

NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg on Friday said the military alliance will not stop its expansion across Europe, denying demands from Russia amid the ongoing security saga with Ukraine.  

“We will not compromise on core principles, including the right for every nation to decide its own path, including what kind of security arrangements it wants to be a part of,” Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, according to The Associated Press.   

Russian President Vladimir Putin last month laid out demands for the US and NATO as part of efforts to ease tensions over Ukraine, where Moscow has amassed tens of thousands of troops outside its border amid fears of an invasion.  

Included in the draft document are asks that the alliance stop all membership plans, including with Ukraine, and to roll back its military deployments near Russia’s borders. The Kremlin also wants guarantees from Washington that the US won't establish any military bases in former Soviet states that are not part of NATO, nor develop bilateral military cooperation with them.  

In exchange, Russia would limit military exercises — a promise the country made through previous international commitments — and stop low-level hostilities, including aircraft buzzing. 

With Stoltenberg’s recent comments, however, NATO and the US seem unlikely to take Russia up on its offers when the sides gather Wednesday in Brussels for the first NATO-Russia Council meeting since July 2019.  

NATO ambassadors are expected to discuss Putin’s security proposals with Russia’s envoy in person at the meeting. 

Stoltenberg said that NATO is willing to discuss arms control but will not allow Putin to restrict how the alliance protects member countries. 

He also said NATO is still worried over Russia’s military buildup, which along with its new demands “sends a message that there is a real risk for a new armed conflict in Europe.”  

Russia has a track record of violence in recent years, including annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and backing a separatist rebellion in the eastern part of the country, a conflict that has left more than 14,000 people dead. 

Kazakh leader orders use of force

According to Associated Press, President of Kazakhstan said Friday he authorized law enforcement to open fire on terrorists and shoot to kill, a move that comes after days of extremely violent protests in the former Soviet nation.

In a televised address to the nation, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev blamed the unrest on terrorists and militants and said that he had authorized the use of lethal force against them.

“Those who don’t surrender will be eliminated,” Tokayev said.

He also blasted calls for talks with the protesters made by some other countries as nonsense. “What negotiations can be held with criminals, murderers?” Tokayev said.

Kazakhstan’s Interior Ministry reported Friday that 26 protesters had been killed during the unrest, 18 were wounded and more than 3,000 people have been detained. A total of 18 law enforcement officers were reported killed as well, and over 700 sustained injuries.

Kazakhstan is experiencing the worst street protests since the country gained independence three decades ago. The demonstrations began over a near-doubling of prices for a type of vehicle fuel and quickly spread across the country, reflecting wider discontent over the rule of the same party since independence.

Protests have turned extremely violent, with government buildings set ablaze and scores of protesters and more than a dozen law enforcement officers killed. Internet across the country has been shut down, and two airports closed, including one in Almaty, the country’s largest city.

In a concession, the government on Thursday announced a 180-day price cap on vehicle fuel and a moratorium on utility rate increases. Tokayev has vacillated between trying to mollify the protesters, including accepting the resignation of his government, and promising harsh measures to quell the unrest, which he blamed on terrorist bands.

In what was seen as one such measure, the president has called on a Russia-led military alliance for help.

The alliance, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, includes the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan and has started deploying troops to Kazakhstan for a peacekeeping mission.

Kazakh officials have insisted that the troops will not be fighting the demonstrators, and instead will take on guarding government institutions.

On Friday, Tokayev declared that constitutional order was mainly restored in all regions of the country” and that “local authorities are in control of the situation.

The president added, however, that terrorists are still using weapons and are damaging people’s property and that counterterrorist actions should be continued.

Skirmishes in Almaty were still reported on Friday morning. Russia’s state news agency Tass reported that the building occupied by the Kazakh branch of the Mir broadcaster, funded by several former Soviet states, was on fire.

However, the Almaty airport — stormed and seized earlier by the protesters — was back under the control of Kazakh law enforcement and CSTO peacekeepers, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said Friday. The airport will remain shut until Friday evening, local TV station Khabar 24 reported, citing the airport’s spokespeople.

In other parts of the country some things started to go back to normal. In the capital, Nur-Sultan, access to the internet has been partially restored, and train traffic has been resumed across Kazakhstan.

The airport in the capital is operating as usual, Khabar 24 reported. According to the TV channel, airlines will resume domestic flights to the cities of Shymkent, Turkestan and Atyrau, as well as flights to Moscow and Dubai, starting from 0900 GMT.

 

Petition to strip Tony Blair of Knighthood

A petition calling for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's knighthood to be rescinded has been signed by more than a quarter of a million people. The ex-Labour leader was appointed a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter - the highest possible honour - in the New Year's Honours List. 

But the accolade has sparked a backlash from critics, with some saying he doesn't deserve an honour, and others going further and branding him a "war criminal" for his decision to take Britain to war in Iraq. 

 The petition, started by Angus Scott, says, "Tony Blair caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation's society.

"He was personally responsible for causing the death of countless innocent, civilian lives and servicemen in various conflicts. For this alone he should be held accountable for war crimes.

"Tony Blair is the least deserving person of any public honour, particularly anything awarded by Her Majesty the Queen.

"We petition the Prime Minister to petition Her Majesty to have this honour removed."

Tony, who was British Prime Minister between 1997 and 2007, has come under fire repeatedly for his involvement in the war in Iraq.

Knighthoods have been bestowed regularly on former prime ministers.

Following the announcing, Tony said, "It is an immense honour to be appointed Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, and I am deeply grateful to Her Majesty the Queen.

"It was a great privilege to serve as prime minister and I would like to thank all those who served alongside me, in politics, public service and all parts of our society, for their dedication and commitment to our country."

Blair has come under fire since receiving a Knighthood, with some branding him a war criminal for his decision to take Britain to war over Iraq.

Amid the backlash against his honour, Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said he thought all former prime ministers should be offered a knighthood. 

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today program he said, "Whatever people might think, it is one of the toughest jobs in the world and I think it is respectful and it is the right thing to do, whether it is to Tony Blair or to David Cameron. They should all be offered that knighthood when they finish as prime minister."

Israeli overindulgence becoming headache for United States

For decades, the primary concern of the United States, under both democratic and republican administrations, is to make sure that Israel is able and ready to defend itself. 

The US citizens pay for expansionist policies and influential lobbies of Israel in the US political power structure, under the justification of securing the country's interests.

The truth is, contrary to what US officials constantly claim, unilateral and unconditional support for Israel always has the opposite effect. Not only has it not resolved the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it also has made the United States ousting from the region a uniting objective for Western Asian populations, giving rise to terrorism and extremism.

Israel's opposition to the US returning to the Iran deal is another classic example of the Zionists' attempt to turn its concerns with removing Iran sanctions into a global one. They argue to the European and the US governments that the deal is flawed and that Plan B ‑ military option ‑ is inevitable. According to the US strategic national security documents, it is in its best interest to establish peace and stability in West Asia and the Persian Gulf.

It is necessary to reiterate that the unequivocal and unwavering support for Israel not only does the United States interests disservice, but it also runs counter to it. It further angers the Muslim nations and encourages masses to oppose and actively target the US interests in the region.

Perhaps it is time for the members of Congress and the Federal government to pay closer attention to Israel playing the victim card and manipulatively globalizing its interests. It is wasting the US tax-payers’ money and putting the lives of the US soldiers in danger, to only secure Israel’s security and its interests.

Therefore, it is clear that the Israeli regime manipulates the US administration to achieve its most wanted objective and interest of taking a strike on Iran by removing its key player. Sadly, the Trump administration succumbed to Israel's demand to make an unlawful killing, leaving Iran with no retaliatory option other than firing a barrage of rockets at Ain Al-Assad Base housing the US troops. The attack, unprecedented as it was, led to several wounded US soldiers, and, above all, it discredited and humiliated the United States in regional and global arenas.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never recognized Israel as a legitimate state. Therefore, Israeli officials and the Zionist lobbyists in Washington direct their destabilizing activities toward the Islamic Republic and never miss an opportunity to turn the US administrations against the Islamic Republic.

One of the many tipping moments when Israeli officials proved most influential in the US foreign policy decision-making was the unlawful assassination of General Soleimani, which has been admitted to by Israeli intelligence officials.

In an interview with the Israel Channel 12, Tamir Hayman, a former Israeli intelligence chief, acknowledged that the Israeli intelligence services informed the US officials that the Iranian Quds General had been planning on an extensive military operation, in the Persian Gulf, against the American forces. Accordingly, the US forces were on alert for possible Iranian aggression.

Contrary to what the Israeli officials claimed, General Soleimani and his associates flew to Iraq on a civilian airplane to carry a message about “the Baghdad Initiative” to reduce regional tensions, according to Adil Abdul-Mahdi, the former Iraq Prime Minister.

Iran demands lifting sanctions

Indirect talks between Iran and the United States on salvaging the 2015 Iran nuclear deal resumed with Tehran focusing on one side of the original bargain, lifting sanctions against it, despite scant progress on reining in its atomic activities.

The seventh round of talks, the first under Iran's new hard-line President Ebrahim Raisi, ended after adding some new Iranian demands to a working text. Western powers said progress was too slow and negotiators had ‘weeks not months’ left before the 2015 deal becomes meaningless.

Little remains of that deal, which lifted sanctions against Tehran in exchange for restrictions on its atomic activities. Then-President Donald Trump pulled Washington out of it in 2018, re-imposing US sanctions, and Iran later breached many of the deal's nuclear restrictions and kept pushing well beyond them.

"If we work hard in the days and weeks ahead we should have a positive result.... It's going to be very difficult; it's going to be very hard. Difficult political decisions have to be taken both in Tehran and in Washington," the talks' coordinator, European Union envoy Enrique Mora, told a news conference.

He was speaking shortly after a meeting of the remaining parties to the deal - Iran, Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany and the European Union - formally kicked off the round.

"There is a sense of urgency in all delegations that this negotiation has to be finished in a relatively reasonable period of time. Again, I wouldn't put limits but we are talking about weeks, not about months," Mora said.

Iran refuses to meet directly with US officials, meaning that other parties must shuttle between the two sides. The United States has repeatedly expressed frustration at this format, saying it slows down the process, and Western officials still suspect Iran is simply playing for time.

The 2015 deal extended the time Iran would need to obtain enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb, if it chose to, to at least a year from around two to three months. Most experts say that time is now less than before the deal; though Iran says it only wants to master nuclear technology for civil uses.

"The most important issue for us is to reach a point where, firstly, Iranian oil can be sold easily and without hindrance," Iranian media quoted Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian as saying.

Iran insists all US sanctions must be lifted before steps are taken on the nuclear side, while Western negotiators say nuclear and sanctions steps must be balanced.

US sanctions have slashed Iran's oil exports, its main revenue source. Tehran does not disclose data, but assessments based on shipping and other sources suggest a fall from about 2.8 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2018 to as low as 200,000 bpd.

Mora said he decided to reconvene the talks during many officials' holidays between Christmas and the New Year so as not to lose time, but he added that talks would stop for three days as of Friday "because the facilities will not be available", referring to the luxury hotel hosting most meetings.

When the seventh round wrapped up, incorporating some Iranian demands, negotiators from France, Britain and Germany said in a statement: "This only takes us back nearer to where the talks stood in June", when the previous round ended.

"We are rapidly reaching the end of the road for this negotiation," they added.

 

OPEC Plus to add 400,000 bpd oil production in February

OPEC Plus decided on Tuesday to add another 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) to its total oil production in February. The move was widely expected by the market, but oil prices rose 1% just after the meeting concluded

At the end of a very short ministerial meeting, the cartel did not deviate from its current plan to ease the production cuts by 400,000 bpd each month until it unwinds all the supply curbs. The move was widely expected by the market, and oil prices were up by around 1% just after news of the decision broke.

Before the meeting started, Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, officially closed the previous meeting from December 2, which OPEC Plus had left in session, signaling it could revisit last month’s decision to raise production by 400,000 bpd in January if Omicron hits global oil demand hard.

At 33 days, the meeting that opened on December 2 was the longest ever, at least on paper, in the history of OPEC and OPEC Plus.

The meeting opened and closed and didn’t produce any surprises about the OPEC+ group’s immediate oil supply policy. The cartel is anticipated to continue to raise production by 400,000 bpd in February and extend the compensation period until June 2022.

During the meeting, non-OPEC producer Kazakhstan was called out for its low compliance with the cuts, and was pressured to improve its conformity level, Amena Bakr, Deputy Bureau Chief and Chief OPEC Correspondent at Energy Intelligence, reported, citing delegates.

Days before Tuesday’s meeting, the general market sentiment, and expectations were that the cartel would likely proceed with its oil production policy of the past few months by deciding to add another 400,000 bpd to production quotas in February.

The next meeting of OPEC Plus is scheduled to be held on February 2, 2022 when the group is expected to decide production levels for March.