هل هناك خلاف فعليّ بين الأميركيين وآل سعود؟

د. وفيق إبراهيم

يثير التهديد الأميركي لآل سعود بقطع التعاون معهم على مستويات التغطية السياسية والاستراتيجية والتسليح والتدريب والرعاية وسحب المستشارين والعسكريين الاميركيين المنتشرين في الخليج، الدهشة لأنه لا يتصل بأي توتر سابق بين الطرفين ولا يعكس تاريخاً طويلاً ومتواصلاً من الولاء السعودي الكامل للسياسة الاميركية في كل بقاع الارض.

فهذه العلاقات تطورت بعد توقيع معاهدة كوينسي في 1945 بين الرئيس الاميركي روزفلت والعاهل السعودي عبد العزيز على اساس التغطية الكاملة مقابل الولاء والتسهيلات النفطية والتبعية الاقتصادية بما جعل هذا التاريخ رمزاً لانصياع سعودي كامل وعلني وضع كامل الإمكانات الاقتصادية والدينية في خدمة الجيوبوليتيك الاميركي متيحاً بدوره للسعودية فرصة حيازة ادوار في كبيرة في الخليج والتأثير في جوارهما المباشر في العراق واليمن والعالمين العربي والاسلامي.

على هذا الاساس قامت معادلة القطبية الاميركية التي تشكل السعودية جناحها في محوريها العربي والاسلامي مع أهمية دولية نسبية.

اللافت هنا ان هذا الوضع لا يزال معتمداً حتى هذا التاريخ ويبدو منفصلاً الى درجة غريبة من نوعين من التهديد الأميركي.

الاول اطلقه الرئيس دونالد ترامب محذراً صديقته السعودية ومنافسته روسيا من الاستمرار في رفع انتاجيهما النفطي وإلا فإنه متجه الى فرض ضرائب ورسوم على صادراتهما من البترول.

اما الثاني فكان أشد عنفاً واطلقه الحزب الجمهوري الاميركي الذي ينتمي اليه ترامب معلناً فيه استعداد الدولة الاميركية قطع كامل علاقاتها مع السعودية اذا لم تتراجع عن رفع انتاجها النفطي الى مستويات اقل مما كان عليه قبل شهرين فقط.

وهذا يعني إعادته من 13 مليون برميل يومياً كما هو الآن الى تسعة ملايين كما كان في كانون الثاني الماضي… مع امل على خفضه اضافياً في اطار خفض جماعي لدول منظمة اوبيك يتعادل مع التراجعات الاقتصادية التي فرضها انتشار جائحة الكورونا المتواصل حتى الآن.

المدهش هنا أن الاميركيين يصرون على هذا الخفض رافضين تحديد سقف لإنتاجهم من النفط الصخري الشديد الكلفة والبترول العادي ويبررون بأن نفوطهم تراجعت في الآونة الأخيرة بسبب تراجع اسعار البترول الى 23 دولاراً للبرميل بعد الرفع السعودي – الروسي لإنتاجيهما فكان ان توقفت شركات النفط الصخري عن العمل، لأن كلفة استخراج البرميل الواحد من هذا النوع تتعدى الأربعين دولاراً، ما ادى الى تدهور كبير في اقتصاديات هذه الشركات الاميركية وتريد خفض الاسعار العالمية لإعادة انعاش الشركات الاميركية التي تؤمن وظائف لعشرات آلاف العمال وتؤدي دوراً مركزياً في التفاعلات الاقتصادية الكبرى، لذلك فإن هذه التطورات تدعو الى التساؤل عن اسباب صمت الاميركيين عن رفع السعودية لإنتاجها النفطي في تاريخ رفعه قبل أشهر عدة، ولماذا يعترضون الآن؟

الواضح أنهم في المرحلة الأولى اعتقدوا ان رفع الإنتاج السعودي يؤدي فوراً الى ضرب الاقتصاد الروسي المعتمد على النفط والغاز بمعدل اربعين في المئة من موازناتهم ويضاعف مصاعب ايران التي يقاطعها الاميركيون ويحاصرونها مع نفر كبير من دول تؤيدهم او تخشاهم.

لكن انتشار الكورونا والشلل الاقتصادي في العام احدث شللاً كبيراً وخطيراً وعاماً في الاقتصاد الاميركي وشركات النفط الصخري وذلك عشية انتخابات رئاسية واصبح المشروع الاميركي بضرب روسيا عبر استخدام النفط السعودي كارثة على الاميركيين ايضاً.

وإذا كان إقناع السعوديين بخفض إنتاجهم عملاً ممكناً بسهولة، فإن إقناع الروس هو المشكلة الفعلية لانهم سارعوا الى رفض الطلب الاميركي مصرين على خفض متواز بين دول «اوبيك +» اي اوبيك زائد روسيا مع النفط الأميركي.

في حين أن الأميركيين يريدون خفضاً عالمياً يسمح لشركاتهم بالعودة الى الإنتاج والتوظيف بقوة ما يسمح لترامب بكسب أصوات الفئات الشعبية في الانتخابات المقبلة.

الموضوع اذاً بالنسبة للبيت الابيض هو اقتصادي في جانبه المتعلق بإنتاج النفط وتحديد اسعاره، وهو أيضاً سياسي لعلاقته بالانتخابات الرئاسية في تشرين الثاني المقبل، وهو أيضاً استراتيجي جيوبوليتيكي لتعاطفه مع حالة التنافس الشديد مع روسيا، وتحالفاتها في ايران والصين.

الأمر الذي يوضح ان رفع الانتاج السعودي هو قرار اميركي لكن العودة عنه لم تعد كذلك بل اصبحت معادلة تحتاج الى موافقة روسيا ومنظمة الاوبيك وهناك تكمن المشكلة، لان الروس يقبلون بالخفض بمعدل يواكب تداعيات كورونا على تراجع الاقتصاد العالمي لكنهم يشترطون ان يسري هذا الخفض على النفط الاميركي ايضاً بما يؤدي الى عرقلة عودة النشاط النفطي الى الاقتصاد الاميركي.

لذلك فإن اقتصار هذا الخفض على السعوديين لن يؤدي الى النتائج الاميركية المطلوبة، فجاء التهديدان الاميركيان للسعودية بمثابة إنذار لروسيا لحلحلة تصلبها وخطاباً عاطفياً للناخبين الاميركيين بأن الحزب الجمهوري الاميركي لن يتورع عن معاقبة صديقة بلاده الاساسية اي السعودية اذا اكملت سياسة رفع انتاجها الموازية لشركات النفط الصخري وآلاف الاميركيين العاملين فيها، الامر الذي يكشف انهما ليسا اكثر من دبلجة لغوية غير قابلة للتطبيق العملي لان السعودية هي البقرة الاميركية الحلوب التي تنعش الاقتصاد الاميركي وتؤمن للسياسة الاميركية مدى اسلامياً واسعاً يزداد انصياعاً لواشنطن عندما يستعمل آل سعود أهمية بلادهم الدينية والتغطية في خدمته.

اما على المقلب الآخر الذي يذهب الى التساؤل حول امكانية آل سعود مقاومة الاميركيين بطلب خفض انتاج نفطهم فيثير الضحك لان آل سعود لم يبنوا دولة متماسكة تؤمن بشعبها وتعمل على رفع مستويات النمو والتقدم، بل عملوا على مفهوم من القرون الوسطى يعتبر ان الارض والناس والثروات والمياه هي ملك للسلطان يوزعها على من يشاء ويمنعها عما يريد، فهو ولي الامر واحكامه مطبقة على السمع والطاعة.

هناك نقطة اضافية وهي ان الحكم السعودي لم يؤسس منظومة تحالفات عربية واقليمية تعينه في اوقات الشدة، فهو يعادي ايران معتمداً على اميركا لاسقاط جمهوريتها ويعبث بالامن الاجتماعي والسياسي للعراق متلاعباً بمكوناته وطوائفه ويرتكب مجازر في اليمن تطال مئات الآلاف في هجوم مستمر من خمس سنوات ويدعم الارهاب في سورية ويعادي قطر متدخلاً في ليبيا والسودان والجزائر ومتعاوناً مع «اسرائيل».

فكيف يمكن لبلد من هذا النوع يفتقد لتأييد شعبه مثيراً كراهية جواره السياسي ان يقاوم الاوامر الاميركية وهي اصلاً غير موجودة حتى الآن؟

يتبين ان السعودية لا تزال حاجة ماسة للاميركيين بوضعيتها السياسية الحالية، وهذا يعني ان آل سعود مرتاحون ويواصلون سياسة الاسترخاء السياسي مع خنق شعبهم بأساليب القرون الوسطى.

War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 28, 2020

Global Research 8 January 2009

Eleven years ago, Israel invaded Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”.

The following article was first published by Global Research in January 2009 at the height of the Israeli bombing and invasion under Operation Cast Lead.

***

.

Author’s Note and Update

The purpose of Operation Cast Led was to confiscate Palestine’s maritime natural gas reserves. In the wake of the invasion, Palestinian gas fields were de facto confiscated by Israel in derogation of international law.

A year following “Operation Cast Lead”,  Tel Aviv announced the discovery of  the Leviathan natural gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean “off the coast of Israel.”

At the time the gas field was: “ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.” (i)

Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration. (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant, Global Research, December 30, 2013

The Gazan gas fields are part of the broader Levant assessment area.

What has been unfolding is the integration of these adjoining gas fields including those belonging to Palestine into the orbit of Israel. (see map below).

It should be noted that the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline extending from Egypt’s Sinai to Syria constitutes an area encompassing large gas as well as oil reserves.

While the debate regarding  Trump’s “Deal of the Century” has largely concentrated on the de facto annexation of the Jordan Valley and the integration and extension of  Jewish settlements, the issue of the de facto confiscation and ownership of  Palestine’s offshore gas reserves have not been challenged.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 28, 2020


War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields

by Michel Chossudovsky

January 8, 2009

The December 2008 military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves. 

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. 

British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21,  2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.Will Israel’s Gas Hopes Come True? Accused of Stealing Gas from the Gaza Strip


Map 1

Map 2

Who Owns the Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert  “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government.” (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

 “Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror”. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security?  Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).

Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board

The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:

“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas:

“Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.

The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel’s request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials.” (Globes online- Israel’s Business Arena, June 23, 2008)

The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new “post war” political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.

In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

“Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender.” (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics 

The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.

What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?

What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?

A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?

The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?

The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?

If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. “What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)


Map 3The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2020


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Indigenous Resistance Shakes the Canadian State

Indigenous groups resisting a destructive gas pipeline have blockaded one of Canada’s busiest rail lines bringing business as usual to a grinding halt, reports John Clarke

By John Clarke

Global Research, February 21, 2020

Counterfire 17 February 2020

In early February, the RCMP, Canada’s colonial police force, raided the land defender camps of the Wet’suwet’en people in British Columbia, in order to clear the way for pipeline construction. Clearly, none of the political decision makers responsible for this repressive action ever imagined that it would spark a powerful wave of solidarity actions across Canada. There have been ongoing protests and rallies but the focus has been on the tactic of economic disruption, most notably by blockading the railway network. If the attack on the Wet’suwet’en was driven by the profit needs of extractive capitalism, the resistance that has emerged has targeted the flow of goods and services as the most effective form of counter-attack.

In October of 2018, the provincial government of British Columbia approved the building of a 670 km pipeline to bring liquified natural gas from northern BC to a $40-billion export plant, to be constructed in Kitimat. In BC, the New Democratic Party (NDP) is in power, so it was shameful that Canada’s social democratic party would join with the federal Liberals to provide “a bouquet of government subsidies for BC’s largest carbon polluter.”

From the outset, it was clear that there would be a major problem with driving this environmentally destructive project through Indigenous territory. Unlike the rest of Canada, BC has been built up on disputed or ‘unceded’ land over which no treaties between the Crown and the Indigenous nations were ever drawn up. This is because the process of colonization in BC was especially ruthless and lethal. In 1862, when a smallpox epidemic broke out in Victoria, infected Indigenous people were driven back into the interior of the province, spreading the disease. At least 30,000 died as a result, which was about 60% of the Indigenous population at the time. Following this successful genocide, treaties seemed unnecessary to the colonizers. “The Indians have really no rights to the lands they claim,” concluded land commissioner, Joseph Trutch, in 1864.

Trutch and his friends would doubtless be chagrined to learn that, in the 21st Century, an unintended legacy of their handiwork has emerged. The Wet’suwet’en Nation lays claim to a 22,000 square kilometre unceded territory through which the Coastal GasLink project must pass. Moreover, almost twenty five years ago, in the Delgamuukw ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada held that there is, indeed, Aboriginal title over such land. Coastal GasLink and its apologists make much of the fact that they were able to coerce and cajole twenty Indigenous band councils into signing agreements with them. However, these bands only have authority, under the Indian Act, over the reserves they operate. They have no jurisdiction over Wet’suwet’en land as a whole, whereas the hereditary chiefs of the Nation have a claim that predates Canada and that various court rulings have acknowledged is still highly relevant.

The hereditary chiefs remain implacably opposed to the pipeline project and neither the Trudeau Liberals in Ottawa, the BC government or the pipeline company have the “free, prior and informed consent” that is required under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that Canada has signed onto.

Solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en Against the Colonial Policies of the Canadian State

Resistance and Solidarity

The brutal arrogance with which the RCMP were unleashed on the land defenders was so shocking and appalling that it blew up in the faces of those responsible. After a previous assault on the Wet’suwet’en, in January of last year, it was discovered that RCMP planners were ready to shoot to kill. The notes of their meeting included an observation that “lethal overwatch is req’d.,” a reference to the deployment of snipers. After this last raid, a video emerged of a cop training his telescopic sights on the unarmed defenders. The footage and accounts of the militarized police action against people trying to protect their own ancient land was as heartbreaking as it was enraging.

“This is Wet’suwet’en territory. We are unarmed. We are peaceful. You are invaders,” yelled Eve Saint, the daughter of one of the hereditary chiefs. She later told the media that, “I held my feather up and cried because I was getting ripped off my territory and there was nothing I could do about it. That’s the type of violence our people face. It’s embedded in my DNA and hit me in the heart. This is what my people have been going through since contact (with colonizers).”

This ugly use of state power was made all the more vile and disgusting by Justin Trudeau’s hypocrisy. He is fully implicated in the attempt to crush Indigenous rights yet he postures as a champion of ‘reconciliation.’ The response was remarkable and powerful and created a political crisis, as hard-hitting actions took place across the country. BC’s NDP Premier, John Horgan, has been left ‘despondent’ by a solidarity action that disrupted his government’s throne speech. A day of action targeted BC government offices across the province. The Port of Vancouver has been blockaded. On the other side of the country, in Halifax, the Ceres container terminal was blocked by protesters chanting, “Where are we? Mi’kmaqi! Respect Indigenous sovereignty!” as well as, “Shut down Canada!”

It is, however, the rail blockades that have had such a huge economic impact and that have taken things to the level of political crisis. Action taken by residents of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in eastern Ontario has prevented the movement of train traffic along a vital corridor connecting Toronto with Ottawa and Montreal for almost two weeks now and has had a national impact. The Mohawks have refused to obey a court injunction ordering them to leave on the grounds that Canadian courts have no right to tell them what to do on their land and they have made clear that they are going nowhere until the just demands of the Wet’suwet’en have been met. The economic impact of their action, along with a series of other rail blockades across Canada, has been enormous and it is growing. It is reported that “wood, pulp and paper producers have lost tens of millions of dollars so far.” At least 66 cargo ships have been unable to unload in BC and the president of the province’s Chamber of Shipping says, “those line-ups are only going to increase, of course ships are continuing to arrive. Eventually, there will be no space and they’ll be waiting off the coast of Canada, which is a situation we’d like to avoid.”

The federal Indigenous Services Minister, Marc Miller, has now been to Tyendinaga to meet with members of the community. His account of the hours long meeting doesn’t suggest much was resolved at all. Clearly, the Trudeau government is in a very difficult situation. They have seen the response to the RCMP raid on the Wet’suwet’en and they desperately fear the consequences of moving on the rail blockades. Yet the driving of pipelines through Indigenous territory is vital to their strategic priority of exporting dirty oil and gas to the Pacific market. The Coastal GasLink project is the harbinger of much more to come and the resistance of Indigenous people and their allies poses a threat to all their plans.

The considerable ability of the Liberal Party to serve the interests of the capitalists while containing social resistance is being tested to the limit. The vulnerability to disruption of the global supply chain that has been created during the neoliberal era, with its wide ranging sources of raw materials and component parts and its systems of ‘just in time’ inventory, makes the blockades and the economic disruption even more of a threat than they would have been at an earlier time.

The political crisis that has been unleashed by this wave of action in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en is already very serious but if state power is unleashed to remove the blockades, at Tyendinaga or at other locations, especially if a serious confrontation ensues, the mood across the country is such that disruptive actions could intensify dramatically. In that eventuality, the choice for Trudeau and his provincial allies would be between a dangerous escalation or a retreat on so fundamental an objective as the pursuit of environmentally disastrous extractive capitalism. Sparked by the magnificent defiance of the Wet’suwet’en, a struggle is unfolding with the most important implications for the building of resistance in Canada to the colonial project that Indigenous people face. At the same time, however, it is also creating a precious model for the global struggle against the deadly consequences of corporate climate vandalism.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

John Clarke is a writer and retired organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). Follow his tweets at @JohnOCAP and blog at johnclarkeblog.com.

Featured image: Rail blockade. Photo: Twitter/Krystalline KrausThe original source of this article is CounterfireCopyright © John ClarkeCounterfire, 2020https://www.globalresearch.ca/indigenous-resistance-shakes-canadian-state/5704242

Shut Down Canada Until It Solves Its War, Oil, and Genocide Problem

FEBRUARY 20, 2020

Photograph Source: tuchodi – CC BY 2.0

by DAVID SWANSON

Indigenous people in Canada are giving the world a demonstration of the power of nonviolent action. The justness of their cause — defending the land from those who would destroy it for short term profit and the elimination of a habitable climate on earth — combined with their courage and the absence on their part of cruelty or hatred, has the potential to create a much larger movement, which is of course the key to success.

This is a demonstration of nothing less than a superior alternative to war, not just because the war weapons of the militarized Canadian police may be defeated by the resistance of the people who have never been conquered or surrendered, but also because the Canadian government could accomplish its aims in the wider world better by following a similar path, by abandoning the use of war for supposedly humanitarian ends and making use of humanitarian means instead. Nonviolence is simply more likely to succeed in domestic and international relations than violence. War is not a tool for preventing but for facilitating its identical twin, genocide.

Of course, the indigenous people in “British Columbia,” as around the world, are demonstrating something else as well, for those who care to see it: a way of living sustainably on earth, an alternative to earth-violence, to the raping and murdering of the planet — an activity closely linked to the use of violence against human beings.

The Canadian government, like its southern neighbor, has an unacknowledged addiction to the war-oil-genocide problem. When Donald Trump says he needs troops in Syria to steal oil, or John Bolton says Venezuela needs a coup to steal oil, it’s simply an acknowledgement of the global continuation of the never-ended operation of stealing North America.

Look at the gas-fracking invasion of unspoiled lands in Canada, or the wall on the Mexican border, or the occupation of Palestine, or the destruction of Yemen, or the “longest ever” war on Afghanistan (which is only the longest ever because the primary victims of North American militarism are still not considered real people with real nations whose destruction counts as real wars) , and what do you see? You see the same weapons, the same tools, the same senseless destruction and cruelty, and the same massive profits flowing into the same pockets of the same profiteers from blood and suffering — the corporations that will be shamelessly marketing their products at the CANSEC weapons show in Ottawa in May.

Much of the profits these days comes from distant wars fought in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, but those wars drive the technology and the contracts and the experience of war veterans that militarize the police in places like North America. The same wars (always fought for “freedom,” of course) also influence the culture toward greater acceptance of the violation of basic rights in the name of “national security” and other meaningless phrases. This process is exacerbated by the blurring of the line between war and police, as wars become endless occupations, missiles become tools of random isolated murder, and activists — antiwar activists, antipipeline activists, antigenocide activists — become categorized with terrorists and enemies.

Not only is war over 100 times more likely where there is oil or gas (and in no way more likely where there is terrorism or human rights violations or resource scarcity or any of the things people like to tell themselves cause wars) but war and war preparations are leading consumers of oil and gas. Not only is violence needed to steal the gas from indigenous lands, but that gas is highly likely to be put to use in the commission of wider violence, while in addition helping to render the earth’s climate unfit for human life. While peace and environmentalism are generally treated as separable, and militarism is left out of environmental treaties and environmental conversations, war is in fact a leading environmental destroyer. Guess who just pushed a bill through the U.S. Congress to allow both weapons and pipelines into Cyprus? Exxon-Mobil.

Solidarity of the longest victims of western imperialism with the newest ones is a source of great potential for justice in the world.

But I mentioned the war-oil-genocide problem. What does any of this have to do with genocide? Well, genocide is an act “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” Such an act can involve murder or kidnapping or both or neither. Such an act can “physically” harm no one. It can be any one, or more than one, of these five things:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Numerous top Canadian officials over the years have stated clearly that the intention of Canada’s child-removal program was to eliminated Indigenous cultures, to utterly remove “the Indian problem.” Proving the crime of genocide does not require the statement of intent, but in this case, as in Nazi Germany, as in today’s Palestine, and as in most if not all cases, there is no shortage of expressions of genocidal intent. Still, what matters legally is genocidal results, and that is what one can expect from stealing people’s land to frack it, to poison it, to render it uninhabitable.

When the treaty to ban genocide was being drafted in 1947, at the same time that Nazis were still being put on trial, and while U.S. government scientists were experimenting on Guatemalans with syphilis, Canadian government “educators” were performing “nutritional experiments” on Indigenous children — that is to say: starving them to death. The original draft of the new law included the crime of cultural genocide. While this was stripped out at the urging of Canada and the United States, it remained in the form of item “e” above. Canada ratified the treaty nonetheless, and despite having threatened to add reservations to its ratification, did no such thing. But Canada enacted into its domestic law only items “a” and “c” — simply omitting “b,” “d,” and “e” in the list above, despite the legal obligation to include them. Even the United States has included what Canada omitted.

Canada should be shut down (as should the United States) until it recognizes that it has a problem and begins to mend its ways. And even if Canada didn’t need to be shut down, CANSEC would need to be shut down.

CANSEC is one of the largest annual weapons shows in North America. Here’s how it describes itself, a list of exhibitors, and a list of the members of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries which hosts CANSEC.

CANSEC facilitates Canada’s role as a major weapons dealer to the world, and the second biggest weapons exporter to the Middle East. So does ignorance. In the late 1980s opposition to a forerunner of CANSEC called ARMX created a great deal of media coverage. The result was a new public awareness, which led to a ban on weapons shows on city property in Ottawa, which lasted 20 years.

The gap left by media silence on Canadian weapons dealing is filled with misleading claims about Canada’s supposed role as a peacekeeper and participant in supposedly humanitarian wars, as well as the non-legal justification for wars known as “the responsibility to protect.”

In reality, Canada is a major marketer and seller of weapons and components of weapons, with two of its top customers being the United States and Saudi Arabia. The United States is the world’s leading marketer and seller of weapons, some of which weapons contain Canadian parts. CANSEC’s exhibitors include weapons companies from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.

There is little overlap between the wealthy weapons-dealing nations and the nations where wars are waged. U.S. weapons are often found on both sides of a war, rendering ridiculous any pro-war moral argument for those weapons sales.

CANSEC 2020’s website boasts that 44 local, national, and international media outlets will be attending a massive promotion of weapons of war. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada has been a party since 1976, states that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”

The weapons exhibited at CANSEC are routinely used in violation of laws against war, such as the UN Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact — most frequently by Canada’s southern neighbor. CANSEC may also violate the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by promoting acts of aggression. Here’s a report on Canadian exports to the United States of weapons used in the 2003-begun criminal war on Iraq. Here’s a report on Canada’s own use of weapons in that war.

The weapons exhibited at CANSEC are used not only in violation of laws against war but also in violation of numerous so-called laws of war, that is to say in the commission of particularly egregious atrocities, and in violation of the human rights of the victims of oppressive governments. Canada sells weapons to the brutal governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

Canada may be in violation of the Rome Statute as a result of supplying weapons that are used in violation of that Statute. It is certainly in violation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Canadian weapons are being used in the Saudi-U.S. genocide in Yemen.

In 2015, Pope Francis remarked before a joint session of the United States Congress, “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.”

An international coalition of individuals and organizations will be converging on Ottawa in May to say No to CANSEC with a seris of events called NoWar2020.

This month two nations, Iraq and the Philippines, have told the United States military to get out. This happens more often than you might think. These actions are part of the same movement that tells the Canadian militarized police to get out of lands they have no rights in. All actions in this movement can inspire and inform all others.Join the debate on FacebookMore articles by:DAVID SWANSON

David Swanson wants you to declare peace at http://WorldBeyondWar.org  His new book is War No More: The Case for Abolition.

MILITANTS BLEW UP EGYPT-ISRAEL PIPELINE IN NORTHERN SINAI: REPORTS

Illustrative image. Click to see full-size

South Front

On February 2nd, armed militants blew up a gas pipeline in Northern Sinai connecting Egypt and Israel.

At least six masked militants planted explosives under the pipeline in the town of Bir al-Abd. It transfers gas to el-Arish, the provincial capital of North Sinai, and a cement factory in central Sinai, local officials said.

The pipeline allegedly remained “functional” following the attacks.

A statement from the office of Israel’s energy minister, Yuval Steinitz, read:

“At the moment, the natural gas is flowing from Israel through the pipeline and reaching Egypt.

The ministry looked into the reported explosion, such as it was, in coordination with all relevant authorities.”

Another statement from the corporate partners operating Israel’s Leviathan gas field, which supplies the gas to the pipeline in question, issued a statement late on February 2nd said:

“There has not been any damage to the EMG pipeline connecting Israel and Egypt. The flow of gas from Leviathan to Egypt is continuing as normal.”

Thus, it is unclear if the attack even took place.

The reports of the sabotage come just two weeks after Israel started pumping natural gas to Egypt from two massive offshore fields, marking a major milestone and a historic cooperation between the countries, according to a joint January 15 statement by the two countries’ governments.

Steinitz hailed the move at the time as “the most significant cooperation ever between Israel and Egypt, in energy and the economy, since the [1979] peace treaty.”

The gas pipelines running through the Sinai Peninsula have long been a favorite target of jihadist groups in the restive region.


Samer Mosis@Samermosis

@nblenergy and Delek have finalized their acquisition of EMG pipeline, enabling a landmark $15 billion natural gas export deal between #Egypt and #Israel begin next year #oott #lng #energy @EgyptOilandGas

View image on Twitter

7 · Houston, TXTwitter Ads info and privacySee Samer Mosis’s other Tweets

Israel’s Delek Group and the American company Noble Energy – which together own 85% of the Leviathan field – completed the purchase of 39% of the Egyptian gas pipeline in partnership. The purchase was carried out in conjunction with Egypt’s state-owned company EGAS for about $520 million.

Egypt has battled insurgents in Northern and Central Sinai since 2011, with varied intensity.

In late 2017, North Sinai was the scene of the deadliest attack in Egypt’s modern history when fighters killed more than 300 worshippers at a mosque, without any group claiming responsibility.

Following that, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi gave the order that the peninsula must be purged of terrorist elements.

In February 2018, the army launched a military operation aimed at defeating ISIS or related armed groups in the Sinai Peninsula.

Since then Egypt provides regular updates of how the operation is going. In November 2019, which was the most recent report it said that throughout October 2019, 83 suspected terrorist fighters had been killed, and 61 were detained.

According to estimates based on official figures upwards of 700 militants have been killed since the start of the operation, while the army has lost around 50 soldiers.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

قسد وأردوغان توأمان يتقاتلان

 

أكتوبر 11, 2019

ناصر قنديل


– يعتقد الرئيس التركي أنه يملك قوة راكمها خلال سنوات الحرب على سورية يجب أن تحجز له مكاناً في مستقبلها، وهي مجموعة من عشرات آلاف الأخوان المسلمين المنظمين في جيش عميل لتركيا/ وهو يباهي بذلك ويرفع العلم التركي ويقاتل تحت قيادة الجيش التركي، بما يعيد للذاكرة صورة جيش العميل أنطوان لحد الذي كان يمسك بالشريط الحدودي المحتل في جنوب لبنان قبل تحريره. ويرغب أردوغان ببناء شريط مثله يعيد إليه أعداداً من النازحين ويستولي على نفطه، كما طمحت إسرائيل بالاستيلاء على مياه نهر الليطاني في جنوب لبنان، وقوة الارتكاز التركية من السوريين تشبه الجماعات التي تستند إليها قسد الذين كانوا يرفعون الأعلام الأميركية ويباهون بتبعيتهم لواشنطن، ويقدمون هوية الكانتون الذي قاموا ببنائه على هويتهم الوطنية السورية. وبالمناسبة فعشرات الآلاف هنا وعشرات الآلاف هناك يختصرون عملياً ما سُمّي بـ الثورة السورية ذات يوم على ألسنة الأميركيين والأتراك، وهو الآن يتكشف عن مجموعة عملاء سوريين للأميركيين والأتراك يدفعون ثمن عمالتهم الغبية، أو يؤدون مترتبات عمالتهم الأشد غباءً.

– رغم أصوات القذائف وغارات الطيران، تبدو الأصوات الأعلى هي لتحذيرات متشابهة يطلقها أردوغان وقيادة قسد، ووجهة التحذير هي أوروبا، فالفريقان لا يراهنان على كسب الحرب عسكرياً، وقد أظهرت المواجهات الأولى فراراً متبادلاً من الميدان للجيش الأخواني الذي زجّ به أردوغان، ولجيش قسد، فقد أعمت العيون حياة الترف التي عاشها جيش الأخوان في فنادق تركيا، وفي ترف عائدات البلطجة التي أتاحها لهم أردوغان في مناطق تركية متعدّدة أدت إلى انتفاضات استهدفت النازحين السوريين في اسطمبول وغيرها. وبالمقابل وفي حياة لا تقل ترفاً عاشت جماعة قسد وفرضت الخوات على العرب والأكراد، ويزجّون في المعارك بالذين قاموا بتجنيدهم بالقوة خلال السنة الماضية، وليس خافياً أن عشرات الآبار المحاذية للحدود حفرتها جماعة قسد وجماعة أردوغان مقابل بعضهما البعض تربطها أنابيب تحت خط الحدود، يفرغ فيها جماعة قسد بالصهاريج نفط سورية المنهوب، ويعيد تحميله جماعة أردوغان من الجهة المقابلة لبيعه وتقاسم عائداته مع القسديين، والبنية الرئيسية في الفريقين لا تريد أن تحارب.

– الرهان على وصول الأصوات إلى اوروبا، ومَن يسبق يكسب الحرب، بقدر من القصف والصمود، والأصوات متشابهة. القسديون يلوّحون بخطر عودة داعش، وانهيار معسكر الهول وفرار السجناء إذا تواصل الهجوم التركي، وأردوغان يلوّح بدفع مئات آلاف النازحين السوريين نحو أوروبا، إذا بقيت تضغط وتهدّد بالعقوبات الموجّهة لتركيا دفاعاً عن قسد، وأوروبا الواقعة بين شاقوفي الابتزاز بتدفق النازحين وانفلات إرهابيي داعش، هي ما سيقرّر مستقبل الحرب، والفريقان متشابهان في لعبة الابتزاز، توأم من نصفين برأسين وجسد واحد.

لن يُسمح لأردوغان بالتوغل عميقاً، كي يبقى كابوس داعش نائماً، ولن يسمح لقسد بالحفاظ على الإمارة المستقلة كي لا يتدفق النازحون نحو أوروبا، وستبقى المبادرة للدولة السورية التي ستقرر ساعة صفر وحدها تكون فيها قد قلبت الطاولة فوق رأس الفريقين حماية للسوريين عرباً وأكراداً وأشوريين، وحماية للثروة السورية، التي يتقاسمها اللصوص عبر الحدود، وهي ساعة ليست بعيدة.

Related Videos

 

Related Articles

 

Iraqi Unrest: Saudi, US Hands Clear, Iraq won’t be a Milking Cow, Arbaeen won’t be Affected – Political Analyst

Iraqi Unrest: Saudi, US Hands Clear, Iraq won’t be a Milking Cow, Arbaeen won’t be Affected – Political Analyst

By Zeinab Daher

Beirut – As far as the protests engulfing Iraq has turned violent, something suspicious appeared to the surface as the timing seems more or less fishy since the anticipated date of the annual massive Arbaeen visit to the country’s holy cities approaches.

Iraqi Unrest: Saudi, US Hands Clear, Iraq won’t be a Milking Cow, Arbaeen won’t be Affected – Political Analyst

Commenting on the latest development, Iraqi expert and political analyst Mohammad Sadeq al-Hashemi told al-Ahed News that the worsening situation is definitely pushed by foreign intervention, yet Iraq won’t be like Saudi Arabia and won’t submit to the pressures exerted by Saudi Arabia that eyes Iraq’s oil with much greed.

Situation on ground

According to the political analyst, there are a few protests taking place now in Iraq, in which protesters claim that they have rightful demands such as improving services, ending corruption and the political parties’ control of power. The protests, however, are serving other ideologies in favor of the US interests. In fact, what protesters have done, violence, and the slogans they raised don’t reflect that the rallies demand reforming the situation and obtaining services as much as they show how connected they are to foreign agendas.

The protests, in fact, aim at reversing the situation and the political regime in the US favor, Sayyed al-Hashemi noted.

“They also stress the fact that the US is not satisfied with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi after he rejected being part of the ‘Israeli’ and Gulf plots, rejected the ‘Deal of Century’ and many contracts with the United States.”

This happens as Iraq rejected being part of the US mechanism to pressure Iran and the Popular Mobilization Units [Hashd al-Shaabi]. This is why the US mobilized its tools to infiltrate among people who took to the streets to really demand their rights.

Sayyed al-Hashemi didn’t rule out that the Iraqi government derelicts in its duties, and this is confessed by the Iraqi religious leadership on the levels of services, spread of corruption and nepotism. And the responsibility of this is on the political parties that allow the US make use of the already existing gaps inside Iraq.

Protests and the Arbaeen Walk

Asked about the suspicious timing of the breakout of protests ahead of the annual Arbaeen visit for Shia Muslims who walk from the holy city of Najaf to the Holy city of Karbala to visit Imam Hussien [AS] on the 40th day of his martyrdom anniversary, an event that is described as the modern world’s biggest pilgrimage as it gathers millions of Muslims from many countries, Sayyed al-Hashemi said the the Arbaeen visit would never be affected.

“What is happening will never affect Iraq,” he said. The Iraqi people, according to the expert, really want to change the current situation. They want to improve services, pressure the government and the political parties, stop stealing the Iraqi money, move the industrial and agricultural cycles, but at the same time they don’t want to destroy their country,” the Iraqi political analyst said.

Iraqis, he said, don’t believe that their will can be imposed by certain mechanisms. There is a group of youngsters who are burning banks, governmental buildings, cars and block roads. The government, however, is ready to surround them, as they are few.

“I believe that things will be better in the few coming days although some individuals who are instructed by foreign embassies will remain. In all, the situation is under control and the Arbaeen visit will take place amid a stable security situation,” the Iraqi expert stressed.

Foreign hands behind the situation

Sayyed Mohammad Sadeq al-Hashemi didn’t rule out that the foreign role will continue its efforts, adding that it aims at spoiling the country’s political process. “It aims at destabilizing Iraq to be a field for struggles and a platform for the ‘Israeli’ and American existence, yet the power of internal resistance, the state, the political and security institutions, the presence of the religious leadership, and the cohesion among the Iraqi people and the rejection of the western schemes will definitely thwart them.”

Targeting the PMU

The Popular Mobilization Units are part of the governmental body as provided by the law and the resolutions of the Iraqi Parliament. They are targeted by ‘Israel’, the US and even the Gulf countries, which reject the fact that the PMU are part of the governmental institutions.

However, al-Hashemi noted, the applied Iraqi resolutions provided this and the PMU take orders from the General Commander of the Iraqi Armed Forces and will remain part of the forces that protect Iraq also from the internal riot, by the side of the army and the federal police, adjust the institutions and protect the state.

Is Iraq exporting oil to Saudi Arabia?

There are unofficial narrations and rumors in Iraq that the chaos caused in the country was moved by Saudi instructions in response to the strike against Saudi Aramco Company, al-Hashemi explained. Another official narration is that Saudi Arabia is asking Iraq to supply it with oil to compensate the 50% deficit caused by the Aramco strike. This is because the company has binding obligations with foreign companies in the west and the US that Saudi Arabia shall stay committed to. Until now, Iraq still didn’t accept, but also didn’t refuse. Iraq is not a milking cow that would offer its milk for free and without conditions. Iraq is a sovereign country and has its parliament, and offering 500 million barrels, which represent 50% of Saudi Aramco’s Company, is a process that needs approvals, agreements and something in return.

Saudi Arabia, however, cut off all oil supply lines to the Gulf and turned it in its favor, while it is used with Iraqi money. Saudi Arabia until now finances terrorism. Iraq has so far signed 16 memorandums with Saudi Arabia but it still didn’t implement any of them. There are in Iraqi prisons thousands of Saudi terrorists. Saudi Arabia hasn’t until the moment condemned Daesh [the Arabic acronym for terrorist ‘ISIS/ISIL’ group] officially. It didn’t compensate our victims and losses. Hence, it is impossible to open to such level of economic cooperation without guarantees.

Abdul Mahdi’s China visit

The US is not satisfied with the performance of the Iraqi PM as he supports the PMU and the resistance. The US was not satisfied with our premier’s visit to China and Russia because he wants to buy an S-300 system because he wants to secure the Iraqi airspace from violations. An added cause is that he frankly accused ‘Israel’ of bombing Iraqi camps and weapons warehouses as this is considered an international condemnations that is registered at the United Nations.

Additionally, Mr. Abdul Mahdi refused to be a part of the ‘Deal of the Century’ and the US scheme to starve the Iranian people and pressure them, in addition to the blockade against them.

All the stated reasons push the US scheme to topple the current Iraqi government.

Media’s role in the entire situation

It is well-known that the media outlets related to the US and UK embassies, the Gulf, the Baathists and the betrayers don’t want a stabilized Iraq. They want to provoke the situation inside the country, Sayyed al-Hashemi concluded.

Attacks on Saudi oil make waivers on Iran necessary: Experts

Press Tv

Sat Sep 14, 2019 08:58PM

Smoke billows from an Aramco oil facility in Abqaiq about 60km (37 miles) southwest of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province on September 14, 2019. (AFP photo)
Smoke billows from an Aramco oil facility in Abqaiq about 60km (37 miles) southwest of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province on September 14, 2019. (AFP photo)

Experts say critical oil supplies lost due to Yemeni attacks on Saudi Arabia’s production plants can only be compensated if the United States eases its sanctions on sale of crude by Iran.

Sandy Fielden, an analyst at Morningstar, a global financial services firm based in the US, said on Saturday that the current oil stocks in Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil exporter in the world, would not suffice to compensate for a loss of around 5 million barrels per day (bpd) that could be caused by attacks earlier in the day targeting the kingdom’s vital oil facilities located east of the country.

The attacks “resulted in a temporary suspension of production at Abqaiq and Khurais plants,” Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, the energy minister said in a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency. It led to the interruption of an estimated 5.7 million barrels of crude, or about 50 percent of total production, he added.

Fielden said the disruptions could cause a real jump in the global oil prices, adding that the US, a main player in the oil market and an ally of the Saudis, would have no option but to allow Iran to resume its crude exports after months of a halt that has been caused by Washington’s unilateral bans.

“By all accounts the Iranians have tankers full of storage ready to go,” he said, adding, “The obvious short-term fix would be waivers on Iran sanctions.”

Yemen’s ruling Houthi Ansarullah movement said on Saturday that its drones had successfully attacked two oil plants in Abqaiq, the heart of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, in the kingdom’s Eastern Province.

The Houthis said the attacks were a firm response to Saudi Arabia’s relentless bombardment of Yemen, where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed since Riyadh launched its illegal military campaign four years ago.

James Krane, Middle East energy specialist at Rice University’s Baker Institute, suggested that supplies from a country like Iran would be the best option to replace the lost Saudi production as most of the Kingdom’s exports normally go to countries in Asia that are closer to Iran than any other major oil producer.

“For the United States, the main threat is in the price of oil,” said Krane, adding, “Asian countries are more at immediate risk because they are the big importers from Saudi Arabia, with 80% of Saudi exports going to East Asia.”

Riyadh defenseless against Yemeni strikes

Analysts said Yemeni attacks on Saudi oil installations showed that Riyadh, which pumps just below 10 million bpd of oil into the global market, is effectively defenseless in the face of strikes from its impoverished neighbor.

Fielden said Washington would also find it impossible to try to solve the crisis on its own by sending tankers full of oil to Saudi customers in East Asia.

“It takes 19-20 days to ship Ras Tanura (Saudi) to Singapore, but 54 days from Houston to Singapore. So US ‘relief’ will take time,” he said.

However, US officials said right after the attack that they would try to ensure a smooth supply of oil to the global markets despite the attacks in Abqaiq.

White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement that Washington was committed to well-supplied oil markets while adding that US President Donald Trump had held a phone conversation with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the Saturday attacks.

Oil could rise $10 per barrel

Oil analysts and traders say that the impact of the attack on crude prices could be double digit and the commodity’s price could jump as much as $10 per barrel.

“This is a big deal,” said Andrew Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. “Fearing the worst, I expect that the market will open up $5 to $10 per barrel on Sunday evening. This is 12 to 25 cents per gallon for gasoline.”

Kevin Book, the head of research at Clearview Energy, said the price impact will depend on the repair time which can take weeks to months. “Our baseline assumptions, which incorporate public assessments of strategic petroleum reserve capacity and OPEC spare capacity, imply a net shortfall of ~1 MM bbl/d, or at least a ~$6/bbl premium to the ~$60 Brent close… Exclusive of this supply offset, and assuming a three-week shutdown, our models imply ~$10/bbl of upside.”

US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures settled 0.4% lower at $54.85 on Friday, and Brent crude futures traded 0.2% lower at $60.25 per barrel.

IEA: No real concerns

The International Energy Agency (IEA) also said that in the short term was there were no real concerns about supplies to the markets.

“For now, markets are well supplied with ample commercial stocks,” it said, adding, “The IEA is monitoring the situation in Saudi Arabia closely. We are in contact with Saudi authorities as well as major producer and consumer nations.”

The United Arab Emirates, a close ally of Saudi Arabia and a major oil producer, said it would support measures adopted by the kingdom to safeguard its security following Saturday attacks.

يا شعب لبنان العظيم… تباً لنا!

 ابراهيم الأمين

 السبت 3 آب 2019

يقف اللبنانيون مشدوهين أمام من انتخبوهم وهم يقوّضون ما بقي من البلاد. محاضرات العفة تملأ الأرجاء. لم يبقَ من القتلة واحد إلا وقدّم لنا على مدى أربعة عقود شهادات في حسن تخريب كل شيء. العائلة والقبيلة والطائفة والدولة. وها هم اليوم، يرقصون على جثث ضحاياهم، ويبتسمون لعائلاتهم ويعدون الجميع بموت أفضل. لكن الجمهور لا يبدو أنه ملّ منهم ومن ألاعيبهم، ولذلك، سيكون على الناس الاستعداد لموجة موت جديدة، وهذه المرة الخيارات ستكون واسعة: بالرصاص أو الذبح لمن يرغب، بالمرض والسموم لهواة الصنف، وبالاكتئاب والسأم لمن بقي صامداً. أما الهجرة، فلا يبدو أنها علّمت الناس شيئاً. لأن الانقسامات القائمة خارج البحار لا تقلّ قساوة عمّا هو موجود هنا. والفارق، أنّ شرور اللبنانيين في الخارج يجري التعامل معها بقسوة من قبل مجتمعات لا تعترف بأمراض هذا الشعب المجنون الذي يسميه البعض «الشعبَ الجبّار والخلّاق والعظيم»!

ولأنّ الجميع يرفض فكرة المؤامرة، لا يمكن الحديث عن تلاعب بالمسرح اللبناني. في لبنان، لا يزال من يقول بحروب الآخرين على أرضنا. وفي لبنان، لا يزال من يقول إنها شرارات الإقليم التي تصيب جسدنا. وفي لبنان أيضاً، من يعتقد أنّ العالم ينام ويعيش على أخبار هذه القبيلة اللبنانية، ويتسلى بها، ولذلك لا يريد لها الفناء. ولذلك، من الجنون توهُّم تغييرات جدية على المشهد القائم. حتى ولو قتل الآلاف يومياً، لأنّ الزعران الذين يتحكمون بالبلاد، يعيشون اطمئناناً غير مسبوق. وهذا مهرّجهم الأول وليد جنبلاط يعطي المثال:

Related image

سأقتل من أبناء جلدتي مَن أرغب، وسأرفع الصوت والسلاح بوجه الآخرين، وسيلحق بي أنصاري، لا أحد منهم يسألني ماذا أفعل، أو يلومني على شيء، وهم سيثقون بما أقوله. ولا ضير من أن يقول الخصوم كل ما يقولونه. لقد نجحت وربطت مصير هذه القبيلة بي، وبأفراد عائلتي، ولن يجرؤ أحد على معارضتي، وهاكم الدليل، ما يحصل الآن!

هذه حقيقة. قاسية جداً، لكنها حقيقة. وهذا الحال موجود عند الآخرين:

هل يتوقع أحد أن يخسر حزب الله المقعد النيابي في صور؟

أو هل ينتظر أحد اعتذاراً شاملاً من حركة أمل وابتعاداً عن السلطة؟

أم هل تتصورون أنّ سمير جعجع سيترك مقعده لأحد قبل أن يقرر الله ما يريد؟

أم أن جبران باسيل سيترك أحداً يناقشه داخل التيار الوطني، قبل أن يجبر المسيحيين على استعادة شعور الخوف من الآخر، أي آخر لا يهم؟

أم هناك من يعتقد أن سعد الحريري سيخرج من القمقم ويعيد الأموال التي جمعها كل أركان تياره على مدى ربع قرن ولا يزالون؟

أم ستتوقعون أن يتبرع رياض سلامة وصحبه من كبار المصرفيين بفوائد ودائعهم لمعالجة ملف النفايات؟

نحن عنوان التفاهة الكاملة، حكومةً وشعباً ومؤسسات، زعامات وقيادات وجماهير

ماذا ينتظر الناس من هذه المجموعة التي لم تترك شيئاً إلا وقصدته بهدف الاستيلاء أو المصادرة أو الاستخدام؟ هل منكم من يعتقد أنّ المراجع الدينية التي نصبتها الزعامات السياسية هنا وهناك، سترفع الصوت دفاعاً عن وصايا الله؟ هل تسألون الكنيسة المارونية عن هذا العشق الإلهي لتملّك الأراضي ثم التوجه بعظات إلى الناس لئلا يتبادلوا أملاكهم مع غير المسيحيين؟ ومن تعثّر، سيجد الكنيسة وكل منتجاتها الرهبانية في الانتظار لتولي الأمر. أم يوجد بينكم من لا يعرف حال المجلس الشيعي الأعلى، الذي لم يبقَ منه شيء إلا يافطة، يقف تحتها رجال دين يريدون تقرير مصير العائلات باسم الإله الحكيم. وهل منكم من يعرف ماذا يفعل الدروز بأوقافهم، بينما يكاد يموت الناس في الجبل ووادي التيم جوعاً، وينتظرون يوم العطلة ليقصدوا هذا أو ذاك من الزعماء بحثاً عن صدقة آخر النهار؟ أم ترون في دار الفتوى معمل التفكير لمواجهة كل الأفكار النتنة التي نطقت باسم أهل السُّنة والجماعة، فكفّرت وسبَت وقتلت، ولم يخرج من الدار صوت يسأل عن أصل هذا الكلام؟ ثم ترى هذا الجمع من العمامات يقفز إن تعرض مسؤول سياسي لنقد من صحافي أو سياسي آخر؟

ماذا ينتظر الناس بعد؟

هل لأحد فيكم أن يجيبنا ماذا فعلت كل هذه المنظمات غير الحكومية، غير إيواء أفراد باسم الكفاءة ثم تعطيلهم وتحويلهم أدوات لا تنتج غير بيانات وشعارات، ولم يحصل قَطّ، على الإطلاق، إن حظي الناس بمشروع واحد منهم؟ ثم من منكم يسأل عن جيوش المنظمات الدولية المنتشرة في الوزارات والمؤسسات العامة، تغرقنا بالاستشارات التافهة ثم يقبض جنودها من جيوبنا الأموال المكدسة؟ وما بال الناس في حالة دهشة عندما يتجول دبلوماسي غربي، من أقذر خلق الله، موزعاً علينا نصائحه حول الإصلاح والقانون وحقوق الإنسان، بينما لا تترك طائراتهم وجواسيسهم مكاناً هادئاً في العالم؟ هل تصدّقون فعلاً، أنه يمكن العثور على خير في أميركا أو فرنسا أو بريطانيا؟ أم تراكم تتطلعون إلى الثورات العالمية الصادرة من آبار النفط والغاز في السعودية والإمارات والكويت وقطر، أم تصلّون الليل والنهار علّ مصر تستفيق من غفوتها لساعات… هاكم المنظر الجميل من حولكم: فلسطين لم يبقَ منها شيء، والدمار أتى على سوريا والعراق واليمن وليبيا، والأردن يعيش على حافة القبر، بينما يغلي المغرب العربي في انتظار انفجار عسى أن يتأخر.

أيها اللبنانيون، نحن عنوان التفاهة الكاملة. حكومةً وشعباً ومؤسسات. زعامات وقيادات وجماهير. نحن اللاشيء الذي لا يراه أحد بعين الغيرة أو الحسد. نحن لا نستحق الشفقة… تباً لنا!

Related Articles

إبن سلمان يطيح بالسعودية حتى في الخليج

يوليو 29, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

الدور الخارجي السعودي يواصل رحلة انحداره الجنونية في سورية والعراق واليمن وقطر وإيران وتركيا مسجلاَ أزمات قريبة من الانفجار مع الكويت وعمان والإمارات. فلم يعد لديه من أصدقاء سوى البحرين بالاستتباع ومصر بالتأييد الخطابي الفارغ، أما الأميركيون فهم أصدقاء وهميون لا يفعلون إلا مصالحهم مع العودة الدورية لابتزاز مملكة آل سعود وسط سخرية عالمية يطلقها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب في كل مرة ينتزع من الملك سلمان أو ولي عهد محمد أموالاً بالمليارات.

فأين هي المشكلة؟

لا ينتمي النظام السعودي إلى دائرة النظم المتعارف عليها عالمياً. فالوطنية بالنسبة إليه تعني دمج الناس فولكلورياً في عشيرة آل سعود إنّما من دون حقهم الاستحصال على سيطرتها الاقتصادية والسياسية.

كما أنه لا ينتسب إلى دائرة دول جزيرة العرب أو الخليج، فلا يقبل إلا باستلحاقها لبيعة آل سعود كزعامة خليجية وعربية وإسلامية، وإلا فإنه ينصب لها الفِخاخ والمكائد ومشاريع الحروب كما يحدث مع اليمن وقطر حالياً والكويت سابقاً وإيران منذ أربعين عاماً.

ولا ينتسب أيضاً إلى معادلة الدول القومية، ألم يسبق له الاحتراب مع أنظمة البعث في العراق وسورية وليبيا القذافي، مقاتلاً مشروع عبد الناصر بشراسة نادرة وفرت لـ»إسرائيل» فرصة الانقضاض على قواته في 1967.

كما أنه ليس نظاماً إسلامياً، لأنه يستخدم الدين لتقوية نظام آل سعود في ما تعمل الدول الدينية على تدعيم نظامها بتحشيد الناس حوله.

هذا هو النظام السعودي الذي يرفض الأدوار الوطنية والخليجية والعربية والإسلامية والأممية، ما يدل على أنه نظام العائلة الواحدة التي تستبيح لأفرادها السياسة والنفط والمال والدين والمواقع والمناصب.

بهذه المعادلة خرجت السياسة السعودية إلى الجوار العربي والإقليمي والدولي، لكن ما ستر عليها هما النفط والدين في حرميه الشريفين وموسم الحج. هذا إلى جانب الرعاية الأميركية، التي استعملت بدورها الدور السعودي لسببين الاقتصاد ومقارعة الاتحاد السوفياتي في مرحلة ما قبل 1990. هذا ما وفّر للسعودية دوراً وازناً في العالمين العربي والإسلامي، قام على أساس قدرتها على شراء الولاءات بنثر أموال النفط في كل اتجاه يريده أولياء الأمور الأميركيون.

إن ما تسبّب تبديل هذه الوضعية السعودية المريحة هي مرحلة ما بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي في 1989 لأن الأميركيين وضعوا مشروعاً لتفتيت المنطقة العربية، وذلك للمزيد من الإمساك بها وإنهاء الصراع العربي ـ الإسرائيلي والقضية الفلسطينية والتأسيس التدريجي البطيء لعصر الاعتماد على الغاز.

فوضع آل سعود كامل إمكاناتهم الاقتصادية والدينية وعلاقاتهم مع تنظيمات الإرهاب المتقاطعة مع حركتهم الوهابية في خدمة تدمير المنطقة العربية والشرق أوسطية داعمين فيها حصراً الملكية في البحرين لإبادة تيارات معارضة ديمقراطية فيها، وذلك بتثبيت قواعد أميركية وبريطانية وفرنسية وسعودية وأخرى لمجلس التعاون الخليجي ودرك أردني وأدوار استشارية إسرائيلية وقوات آل خليفة.. كل هذا الانتشار موجود على مساحة 500 كلم مربع من أصل 700 كيلومتر هي مساحة البحرين، وبعديد سكان لا يتجاوز 50 ألف نسمة.

ماذا كانت النتيجة؟

أدرك المشروع الأميركي درجة عالية من التراجع والانسداد في سورية والعراق، وانكمش معه الدور السعودي ـ الخليجي الذي خسر كل أدواته، مُخلياً الساح لتقدّم الدور التركي بديلاً منه، أما العنصر الآخر فهو نجاح الصمود الإيراني في مجابهة أقوى مشروع أميركي ـ سعودي ـ إسرائيلي مع الإشارة إلى نجاح اليمنيين في ردع الهجوم السعودي ـ الإماراتي على بلادهم وانتقالهم من الدفاع المتواصل حتى الآن في جبهات متعددة إلى الهجوم داخل الأراضي السعودية بقوات برية وطائرات مسيّرة وصواريخ وصلت إلى مشارف الإمارات.

لقد شكّل هذا التراجع تقلصاً «بنيوياً» في الدور الإسلامي والعربي للسعودية فلم يتبق لها إلا البحرين ومصر، مع الكثير من الخطابات غير المجدية لرؤساء من دول إسلامية في آسيا الوسطى وأفريقيا، معبأة بمديح عاجز عن وقف انهيار دورها.

حتى أن الرئيس المصري السيسي اعتاد على القول إن الخليج جزء من الأمنين القومي المصري والعربي، مضيفاً بأن السعودية هي رأس هذا الأمن، أما عملياً فلا يسمع أحد صوت السيسي في أزمات الخليج حتى أنه يختبئ في قصره ملتزماً صمتاً عميقاً.

هذا ما يدفع بآل سعود لتكثيف دورهم في آخر ما تبقى لهم من زوايا وهي البحرين المطلة على ساحلهم الشرقي، حيث يتعاونون مع ملكها على إيقاع أكبر كمية أحكام بإعدام عشرات المعارضين لأسباب تتعلق بتهم حول نقل أسلحة وتنظيم جمعيات إرهابية، وهي تهم حتى ولو كانت صحيحة لا تستأهل أكثر من بضعة أشهر سجن، لكنه الذعر الذي يدفع السعوديين وآل خليفة إلى إنهاء حياة كل من لا يواليهم، وعلى السمع والطاعة المعمول بها في أراضي الحرمين الشريفين.

من جهة أخرى، أدى هذا الضمور السعودي في الدور إلى انتفاضة دول الخليج على هذه المملكة التي تمسك بهم منذ سبعينيات القرن الماضي، فشعروا أنها فرصة نادرة للخروج من العباءة السعودية وكانت عُمان البادئة، فاستقلت عن الموقف الحربي السعودي والتزمت سياسة حياد بين الأطراف المتعادية، ويتطور موقفها إلى حدود أداء دور وساطة فعلية بين إيران وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة الأميركية، وترفض أي تنسيق مع السعودية.

كذلك الكويت المعتصمة بحياد وازن، والمنفتحة على العراق، أما قطر فتمكنت بدفع أموال للوالي الأميركي من النجاة من خطر الخنق السعودي ـ الإماراتي.

أما الإمارات، فما أن استشعرت اليأس من السيطرة على اليمن وصمود إيران في وجه الأميركيين والسعوديين والإسرائيليين حتى بدأت تحزم حقائب قواتها من اليمن إلى الإمارات، بشكل تدريجي وتحايلي وسط غضب سعودي منها.

وهكذا يتضح أن تراجع الدور السعودي لا يقتصر على البلاد العربية والإسلامية، لأنه أدرك مهد السعودية في جزيرة العرب ومداها الخليجي المباشر، ما يضعها أمام احتمالين: أما التخلي عن مساندتها للإرهاب الأميركي واكتفائها بإدارة المملكة حصرياً أو استرسالها ببناء علاقات عميقة مع الإسرائيليين وحكام البحرين، على قاعدة الانصياع للأميركيين والاستمرار في الضغط النفطي على روسيا وشراء بضائع صينية لا تحتاجها، وصفقات مع أوروبا لا تجيد استعمالها، يبدو أن رحلة الانتحار السعودي متواصلة لاعتقاد حكامها بأن انسحابهم من تأييد الأميركيين والإسرائيليين لا يبقي لهم أحداً في العالم فيخسرون الحكم والدنيا والدين، وأراضٍ في شبه الجزيرة العربية يحتلونها منذ مطلع القرن الفائت، ويستعبدون سكاناً، قابلين للتمرّد عليهم عند توافر الظروف المناسبة، وهي لم تعد بعيدة.

روسيا والصين وإيران… وانتصار فيينا

يونيو 29, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– ما شهدته فيينا أمس، خلال الاجتماع الموعود للدول الموقعة على الاتفاق النووي بعد الانسحاب الأميركي منه، جاء على إيقاع تهديدين واحد أميركي لكل من يحاول المتاجرة مع إيران يختصره ما قاله المبعوث الأميركي الخاص حول إيران بريان هوك مخاطباً الأوروبيين، عليكم أن تختاروا بين واشنطن وطهران، وتهديد إيراني بخروج وشيك من موجبات الاتفاق النووي، يتم الاستعداد لتطبيق مفاعيله، عبر عنه الكلام الإيراني عن الصبر الذي نفد وعن رفض التطبيق الأحادي دون شركاء للاتفاق النووي لأكثر من سنة ونيّف كانت كافية لسائر الشركاء لإثبات شراكتهم، وجاءت النتيجة بالإعلان عن تفعيل فوري للآلية الأوروبية المالية البديلة للسويفت الذي تفادت عبره إيران العقوبات قبل الاتفاق النووي والذي سيطرت عليه أميركا مع انسحابها من الاتفاق.

– الآلية التقنية للسداد المسماة أينستيكس ، تقوم على صيغة تعامل مالي باليورو، تبيع بموجبها إيران نفطها لأوروبا، وتسدّد بموجبها اوروبا ثمن البضائع التي تشتريها إيران كحكومة وشركات للسوق الأوروبية، على أن تسدد ما يتبقى لإيران من مستحقات مالية في نهاية كل فترة تقاص بين ثلاثة شهور وستة شهور. ورغم أن الآلية تلحظ كبداية أن تبيع الشركات الأوروبية لإيران منتجات غذائية وطبية، فإن إيران وافقت شرط تفعيل الآلية لأنه ما لم يكن لدى إيران ما تشتريه مقابل كل نفطها المباع فإنها ستحصل على تدفقات نقدية باليورو، هي القضية المهمة في نهاية المطاف. وكان التفاوض الإيراني الأوروبي لا يدور حول الآلية، بل حول كمية النفط التي يمكن ان تستوعبها، فيما كانت إيران تصرّ على الكمية التي سبقت العقوبات والانسحاب الأميركي من الاتفاق النووي كان الأوربيون يعرضون تقريباً نصف الكمية فقط ويقولون إن ذلك مجرد بداية يمكن أن تتطوّر، وتوقفت المفاوضات هنا، بين نصف مليون برميل يومياً تطلب إيران ضمان شرائها وربع مليون برميل يومياً تعرضها اوروبا.

– ما دار في محادثات الرئيسين الفرنسي والإيراني عشية اجتماع فيينا أعاد تأكيد الخلاف على الكمية رغم الاتفاق على المبدأ، لكن المفاجأة كانت لأوروبا في فيينا بأن الصين أعلنت نيتها الانضمام إلى الآلية الأوروبية، بحيث تحتضن الآلية تمويل الكمية التي تشتريها الصين والتي أكدت عزمها على العودة لمواصلة شرائها بعد توقفها لشهرين عن الشراء والدفع واستبدالها بالمقايضة، وتشكل هذه الكمية النسبة الأهم من مبيعات إيران النفطية فهي تقريباً ثلث مبيعات إيران بقرابة ستمئة وخمسين ألف برميل يومياً، ومثلها قال الروس إنهم سيكونون شريكاً في الآلية، وقد سبق لروسيا أن أسست شركات أوف شور محمية بمرسوم رئاسي من العقوبات، مهمتها شراء وإعادة بيع النفط الإيراني كمساهمة في حماية الاتفاق النووي.

– ما جرى عملياً هو أن روسيا والصين وإيران، وقد خاضوا المواجهة على حافة الهاوية تحت عنوان إسقاط التزامات إيران بالاتفاق النووي، نجحوا بجلب أوروبا إلى نقطة أوروبية، تقول لسنا واشنطن ولسنا طهران، فمصلحة أوروبا بأن يبقى الاتفاق النووي لأن واشنطن لا تملك بديلاً له إذا سقط، ولا تملك خريطة طريق لمنع امتلاك إيران للسلاح النووي، وهو ما تقوله واشنطن عن هدفها من الانسحاب من الاتفاق، وسقوط الاتفاق يعني دفع إيران نحو امتلاك ما يكفي للجلوس على مقعد حاملي الأسلحة النووية ولو لم تقم بتصنيعه وبلغت الجهوزية اللازمة للتصنيع، كما يعني دفع السوق النفطية للاشتعال من دون امتلاك وصفة إطفاء، ومع تقديم أوروبا للمنصة المالية للتبادل مع إيران لم يعد مهماً حجم التعامل الأوروبي وفقاً لهذه الآلية بقدر ما يهمّ وجودها، وستجد الشركات الأوروبية أن كل ما تتردّد ببيعه لإيران ستقوم الصين ببيع ما يعادله من منتجاتها، مقابل شراء النفط الإيراني وتحويل المال بواسطة الآلية الأوروبية.

– انتصار روسي صيني إيراني ستتبلور ملامحه بصورة أوضح مع الأيام المقبلة عندما يجتمع وزراء الخارجية لتفاهمات فيينا، ويضعون النقاط على الحروف، وفقاً لما قاله معاون وزير الخارجية الروسية سيرغي ريابكوف، عن أن إنقاذ الاتفاق النووي قد تم فعلياً.

Related Videos

Related Articles

The Economic Entrails at the Heart of the ‘Deal of the Century’

Image result for The Economic Entrails at the Heart of the ‘Deal of the Century’
Alastair Crooke
June 25, 2019

It is nothing new to say that the ‘Deal of the Century’ is – and always was – in essence an economic project. Indeed, it seems that its political ramifications are viewed by the White House as little more than the ineluctable consequences to an a priorieconomic architecture, already in the process of being unfolded.

In other words, it is the economic facts on the ground that are intended shape the political outcome — an attenuated political landscape that anyway has been minimised by Trump’s pre-emptive removal of key pieces of any Palestinian negotiating leverage.

The financial squeeze on the Palestinians is well attested. On the one hand, the Palestinian Authority (historically dependent on Saudi subvention) is gently slipping into bankruptcy; whilst Gaza is held in virtual abject dependency through the drip-feed of subventions channelled into Gaza by Qatar, with Israeli permission — the size of this latter monthly ‘lifeline’ subvention being carefully adjusted by Israel according to what it judges to be the norms of (generally Hamas) ‘good conduct’.

So, on the one hand there is the financial siege that is intended to make the Palestinians pliant to the ‘quality of life package’ which the ‘deal’ is supposed to bring — the Bahrain summit later this month being its shopfront. But there is another less well recognised side to the Deal which is summarised in the title to a McClatchy article entitled, White House sees Egyptian energy forum as a ‘roadmap to Middle East peace’.

In a later piece, McClatchy publishes the newly declassified map of the US East Mediterranean energy ‘roadmap’. And here the fuller picture becomes clear: the US sponsored ‘gas forum’, “according to three senior administration officials, that map [the] declassified one, obtained by McClatchy – has motivated members of the [US] National Security Council to prioritize the formation of a gas forum in the Eastern Mediterranean that would simultaneously boost and entangle the economies of several countries that have been at odds for decades”.

Well, let’s translate that little euphemism: ‘boost and entangle’. What that formula translates into is — the means to integrate Israel into the economic regional sphere is firstly, through energy. Yet, it is not intended to integrate Israel alone into this Egyptian economic sphere, but also to make Jordan, the PA (and maybe even Lebanon), too, partially dependent on Israeli energy – alongside putative partners, Italy, Greece, and (the Greek-linked part) of Cyprus — with the US offering to help flesh out the structure of the ‘gas forum’ with U.S. expertise.

This is the heart of ‘the deal’. Not just political normalisation for Israel into the region, but the making of economic dependencyof the Egyptians, Palestinians, Jordanians (and possibly – but not so likely – Lebanon) on the US East-Med gas ‘hub’.

Source: McClatchy

And, inevitably there is a sub-plot to all this, (as McClatchy notes):

“On this front, the administration enjoys support from unlikely allies. Eliot Engel, the Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee … said the Mediterranean gas forum project was a strategic opportunity for the U.S. to stymie Russian influence efforts over local energy resources. “I think that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and Russia can’t and should not be able to control the situation,” Engel stated”.

So, the US Administration is pursuing two bipartisan congressional efforts to ‘stymie’ Russia in the region: One is a bill promoting energy partnerships in the Eastern Mediterranean; and a parallel bill which threatens to sanction European firms supporting the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline taking Russian gas into Germany.

There are however, two obvious big ‘catches’ to this notion of both ‘stymying’ Russia, whilst simultaneously normalising Israel economically into the region. The first, as Simon Henderson of the Washington Institute notes, [is the notion that] the area’s underlying geology could help Europe offset, or even replace, its dependence on Russian gas “seems farfetched at the present level of discoveries. Several more giant fields like Leviathan or Egypt’s Zohr would have to be found before this reality changes”:

“The idea that East Mediterranean energy could impact on the European energy balance in such a way as to dent Russian market share is a fantasy – Europe’s thirst for gas is so huge, and Russia’s ability to provide that gas is so great, that it’s a wild dream to even hope we can achieve it given the limited reserves discovered thus far,” Henderson said. “Hoping you can find gas is not the same as finding gas”.

In short, an Egyptian ‘hub’ serving exports, might only ‘work’, as matters stand, through patching some of the smaller East-Med discoveries – together with a large Israeli contribution – through pipelines into the two Egyptian gas liquefying plants near Port Said and Alexandria. But LNG availability globally is high, prices are hugely competitive, and it is by no means certain that ‘the hub’ can be commercially viable.

And here is the main catch: Geo-politics. Anything aimed at integrating Israel into the region is bound to be sensitive. So, whilst US officials are optimistic about Egypt’s leadership of their ‘gas forum’ in the wake of President Sisi’s April meeting with Trump – Egypt – a mainstay to the separate US Iran confrontation plan – shortly afterward the visit, rather notably withdrew from the strategic military alliance the Trump administration was trying to build to confront Iran: The Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), to the consternation of US officials.

When it comes to energy deals, however, even having a treaty with Israel does not put an end to public sensitivities about rapprochement with Israel, Henderson notes. Notwithstanding any ‘peace treaty’, many Jordanians still oppose the prospect of using (Israeli) Leviathan gas to provide for large-scale electricity generation, beginning early next year. Amman has tried to deflect such anger by calling the supplies “northern gas” or “American gas”, emphasizing Noble’s role in producing it.

But here is the other side to the issue: Clearly, Egypt does not want to be a part of any anti-Iranian US-led alliance (MESA). But equally, why should Egypt – or Jordan, or for that matter, or any other member of the ‘gas forum’ – wish to be tightly aligned with an US anti-Russian strategy for the region? Egypt may have signed up to the US ‘gas hub’ project. But at the very same time, Egypt also was signing a $2 billion contract to buy more than twenty Russian Sukhoi SU-35 fighter aircraft. Do ‘hub’ members really judge an Egyptian ‘hub’ to be a rival to Russian gas in Europe?

Probably not: For ultimately, the idea that a putative energy hub can ‘stymie Russia’ indeed is fantasy. Europe’s thirst for gas indeed is so huge, and Russia’s ability to provide that gas so great, that it is a wild dream to even think it. The EU shows, for example, no particular interest in the US supported $7 billion mooted pipeline linking the eastern Mediterranean through Cyprus, to Greece. The undersea terrain is too problematic, and the cost too high.

Israel too, hopes to find more gas (of course). But the deadline for bids on nineteen of its offshore blocks has been pushed back to mid-August – seemingly reflecting a lack of investor interest. For now, the oil majors seem more tempted by the Cypriot blocks – up for bid.

But politics again: being a part of America’s ‘gas forum’ in which the Nicosia (i.e. the Greek-linked) government is a key member, explicitly places the forum and its members on a potential collision course with Turkey, who will not readily yield on its ambitious claims on the East Med basin (it has just announced that it will establish naval and air bases in Northern Cyprus). Nor will Lebanon, either. Sisi and Erdogan share a mutual, personal dislike, but will the others wish to be drawn into that quarrel?

Russia anyway, seems not greatly interested in the production possibilities of the Mediterranean Middle East. Rather it is focused on a pipeline corridor stretching from Iran and Iraq to Europe via Turkey or (eventually) Syria.

In sum then, the Kushner – Trump ‘Deal’, in respect to the integration of Israel into the regional energy economy seems destined to draw the same skepticism and distrust, as does the ‘Deal’s’ other parts.

Iran goes for “maximum counter-pressure”

Iran goes for “maximum counter-pressure”

By Pepe Escobar – with permission and cross-posted with Strategic Culture Foundation

Sooner or later the US “maximum pressure” on Iran would inevitably be met by “maximum counter-pressure”.  Sparks are ominously bound to fly.

For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military capacity to keep the Strait open.

As I previously reported, shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market; and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world’s $80 trillion GDP and causing an unprecedented depression.

Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5 million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.

Soleimani’s intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent “shooting gallery.” Brigadier General Hossein Salami stressed that Iran’s ballistic missiles are capable of hitting “carriers in the sea” with pinpoint precision. The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship missiles – as I confirmed with IRGC-related sources.

We’ll let you know when it’s closed

Then, it happened.

Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri, went straight to the point; “If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces.”

The facts are stark. Tehran simply won’t accept all-out economic war lying down – prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question has been officially addressed. Now it’s time for the derivatives.

Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true. Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk to Warren Buffett.

The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks – is in Basle.

The key point is it doesn’t matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.

It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it’s going to be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.

Another US banking source explains; “The key in the analysis is what is called notional. They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the notional can become real.  For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will go that high.  That is notional.  But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous figure.”

BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an estimate.

The banking source adds, “Even here it is the notional that has meaning.  Huge amounts are interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel, then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world’s GDP is oil. This is what is called in business a contingent liability.”

Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It’s self-evident the world economy would collapse based on just that alone.

War dogs barking mad

As much as 30% of the world’s oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through the roof by now. They aren’t.

Iran’s territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since 1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.

Since 1972, Oman’s territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means, crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other half in Oman’s. There are no “international waters”.

And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz publicly – and not by stealth.

Iran’s indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed,

“even a limited strike will be met by a major and disproportionate response.”

And that means gloves off, big time; anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi’s words,

“Saudi and UAE oil facilities in flames”.

Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As Hezbollah’s secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches,

“war on Iran will not remain within that country’s borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling family.”

It’s quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying. The dogs of war though are barking mad.

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss “regional security concerns and ongoing operations” with – skeptical – generals, a euphemism for “maxim pressure” eventually leading to war on Iran.

Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss – about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove US sanctions.

Iran goes for “maximum counter-pressure”

Pepe Escobar
June 20, 2019
Image result for Iran goes for “maximum counter-pressure”
© Photo: Defense.gov

Sooner or later the US “maximum pressure” on Iran would inevitably be met by “maximum counter-pressure”. Sparks are ominously bound to fly.

For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military capacity to keep the Strait open.

As I previously reported, shutting down the Strait of Hormuz

would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market; and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world’s $80 trillion GDP and causing an unprecedented depression.

Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5 million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.

Soleimani’s intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent “shooting gallery.” Brigadier General Hossein Salami stressed that Iran’s ballistic missiles are capable of hitting “carriers in the sea” with pinpoint precision. The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship missiles – as I confirmed with IRGC-related sources.

We’ll let you know when it’s closed

Then, it happened.

Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri, went straight to the point; “If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces.”

The facts are stark. Tehran simply won’t accept all-out economic war lying down – prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question has been officially addressed. Now it’s time for the derivatives.

Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true. Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk to Warren Buffett.

The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks – is in Basle.

The key point is it doesn’t matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.

It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it’s going to be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.

Another US banking source explains; “The key in the analysis is what is called notional. They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the notional can become real.  For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will go that high.  That is notional.  But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous figure.”

BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an estimate.

The banking source adds, “Even here it is the notional that has meaning.  Huge amounts are interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel, then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world’s GDP is oil. This is what is called in business a contingent liability.”

Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It’s self-evident the world economy would collapse based on just that alone.

War dogs barking mad

As much as 30% of the world’s oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through the roof by now. They aren’t.

Iran’s territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since 1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.

Since 1972, Oman’s territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means, crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other half in Oman’s. There are no “international waters”.

And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz publicly – and not by stealth.

Iran’s indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed, “even a limited strike will be met by a major and disproportionate response.” And that means gloves off, big time; anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi’s words, “Saudi and UAE oil facilities in flames”.

Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As

Hezbollah’s secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches,

“war on Iran will not remain within that country’s borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling family.”

It’s quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying. The dogs of war though are barking mad.

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss “regional security concerns and ongoing operations” with – skeptical – generals, a euphemism for “maxim pressure” eventually leading to war on Iran.

Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss – about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove US sanctions.

 

رهانان أميركيّان استراتيجيّان يسقطان… وتفوّق تكتيكي لمحور المقاومة

 

يونيو 17, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– بات واضحاً أن الأميركيين عندما وضعوا حزمة العقوبات المشدّدة على إيران بنوا رهانهم على سياقين متكاملين: الأول هو الرهان على تأثير العقوبات على جعل القيادة الإيرانية بعد مرور زمن كافٍ يتراوح بين سنة وسنتين، مضطرة للاختيار بين تمويل حاجاتها الاقتصادية الضرورية وتمويل برامج أمنها القومي، أي البرنامج النووي والبرنامج الصاروخي ودعم حركات المقاومة، والرهان الثاني هو خلق إجماع دولي على اعتبار الخروج الإيراني من الاتفاق النووي مساساً بالأمن والسلم الدوليين، يحمّلها تبعات عودة العقوبات من مجلس الأمن الدولي على قاعدة ان موقعها في الاتفاق مختلف عن موقع أميركا. فهي الجهة التي تقع على عاتقها التزامات نووية تمس الأمن والسلم الدوليين والخروج الأميركي من الاتفاق لا يقع تحت هذا البند ولو اختلف معها الشركاء الدوليون في الموقف من خروجها وعودتها الأحادية للعقوبات، وبالتوازي خلق إجماع دولي على اعتبار أي تهديد لأمن أسواق النفط من معابر وممرات الخليج تهديداً للملاحة الدولية، وتحميل إيران تبعات ذلك بالعقوبات وسواها.

– في سياق موازٍ راهن الأميركيون الذين أعلنوا الانسحاب من الاتفاق النووي مع إيران قبل أكثر من عام على خلق دينامية إقليميّة تحاصر إيران عبر حلف أميركي خليجي إسرائيلي يتمكن من فرض حل للقضية الفلسطينية، يرضي أمن «إسرائيل» ويغدق الأموال على الفلسطينيين. وبالتالي وقتوا الحزمة القاتلة من عقوباتهم مع التوقيت الافتراضي لإطلاق كائنهم العجيب المسمّى بصفقة القرن، وكانت الحسابات الأميركية أن يتزامن خلق الإجماع الدولي بوجه خطر خروج إيران من الاتفاق النووي والعودة للتخصيب المرتفع لليورانيوم، مع الإجماع الدولي بوجه أي نشاطات مؤثرة على أسواق النفط العالمية تثبت مقولة إيران بأن نفط الخليج لن يكون متاحاً ما لم تصدر إيران نفطها، مع إطلاق مبهر لصفقة القرن يقف فيه رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو، الذي وضعت واشنطن كل ثقلها لتمكينه من البقاء قوياً، ويقف مثله رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية ومعهما الرئيس الأميركي وقادة الخليج لإعلان نهاية القضية الفلسطينية، وجنباً إلى جنب كان السعي لهدنة طويلة بين حماس وجيش الاحتلال في غزة، تدعمه مجموعة إغراءات اقتصادية، يحيّد أي تأثير لقدرات المقاومة عن إمكانية تعطيل صفقة القرن.

– اليوم يقف الأميركيون أمام لحظة الاستحقاق، فيكتشفون أنهم يحصدون الفشل الاستراتيجي على الرهانين الكبيرين، العقوبات القاتلة على إيران دون تمكينها من العودة للتخصيب المرتفع ودون تبعات على أسواق النفط، من جهة، وإطلاق صفقة القرن بالتزامن بغطاء فلسطيني وحضور إسرائيلي قويّ، من جهة مقابلة. فالرهانان يسقطان سقوطاً مدوياً. العقوبات التي يحتاج الأميركيون لسنتين كي يبدأ حصادها السياسي تنتج مسارات وتحديات تضع الأميركيين امام استحقاقات كبرى سقفها ستة شهور مقبلة، تكون معها أسواق النفط تشتعل في ظل تحوّل المناخ الدولي للوساطة بين واشنطن وطهران، وتكون إيران قد امتلكت من اليورانيوم المخصب على درجة عالية ما يكفي لإنتاج قنبلة نووية في ظل تفهم روسي وصيني وارتباك أوروبي، وبالتوازي يشهدون إجماعاً فلسطينياً على رفض صفقة القرن، وتهاوياً إسرائيلياً سياسياً، يجعلان المشروع عاجزاً عن الإقلاع.

– الفشل الاستراتيجي الأميركي يمنح إيران وقوى المقاومة تفوقاً تكتيكياً. فالمواجهة أظهرت المكانة المميّزة التي تمكن أنصار الله من احتلالها في مشهد الخليج، بصورة ربطت أي تهدئة بتسوية تحفظ مطالب اليمنيين ومكانتهم، والتحالف الروسي السوري الإيراني مع قوى المقاومة ينجز تفوقاً في إدلب، ويجعل ساعة الحسم في سورية أقرب، فتتراجع الأوهام الأميركية حول قدرة البقاء في شرق سورية حتى ساعة المقايضة بين الانسحاب وانسحاب موازٍ لإيران وقوى المقاومة.

Related Videos

Related Article

Convenient “Tanker Attacks” as US Seeks War with Iran

June 13, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO)

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. 

– Brookings Institution, “Which Path to Persia?” 2009 

For the second time since the United States unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal, Western reports of “suspected attacks” on oil tankers near the Stait of Hormuz have attempted to implicate Iran.

The London Guardian in an article titled, “Two oil tankers struck in suspected attacks in Gulf of Oman,” would claim:

Two oil tankers have been hit in suspected attacks in the Gulf of Oman and the crews evacuated, a month after a similar incident in which four tankers in the region were struck.

The article also claimed:

Gulf tensions have been close to boiling point for weeks as the US puts “maximum economic pressure” on Tehran in an attempt to force it to reopen talks about the 2015 nuclear deal, which the US pulled out of last year. 

Iran has repeatedly said it has no knowledge of the incidents and did not instruct any surrogate forces to attack Gulf shipping, or Saudi oil installations.

The Guardian would admit that “investigations” into the previous alleged attacks in May carried out by the UAE found “sophisticated mines” were used, but fell short of implicating Iran as a culprit.

The article would note US National Security Advisor John Bolton would – without evidence – claim that Iran “was almost certainly involved.”

All Too Convenient 

This news of “attacked” oil tankers near the Stait of Hormuz blamed by the US on Iran – comes all too conveniently on the heels of additional steps taken by Washington to pressure Iran’s economy and further undermine the Iranian government.

The US just recently ended waivers for nations buying Iranian oil. Nations including Japan, South Korea, Turkey, China, and India will now face US sanctions if they continue importing Iranian oil.

Coincidentally, one of ships “attacked” this week was carrying “Japan-related cargo,” the Guardian would report.

Also convenient was the US’ recent designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) just ahead of this series of provocations attributed to Iran.

AP in a May 2019 article titled, “President Trump Warns Iran Over ‘Sabotaged’ Oil Tankers in Gulf,” would claim:

Four oil tankers anchored in the Mideast were damaged by what Gulf officials described as sabotage, though satellite images obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday showed no major visible damage to the vessels.

Two ships allegedly were Saudi, one Emirati, and one Norwegian. The article also claimed:

A U.S. official in Washington, without offering any evidence, told the AP that an American military team’s initial assessment indicated Iran or Iranian allies used explosives to blow holes in the ships.

And that:

The U.S. already had warned ships that “Iran or its proxies” could be targeting maritime traffic in the region. America is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf to counter alleged, still-unspecified threats from Tehran. 

This more recent incident will likely be further exploited by the US to continue building up its military forces in the region, applying pressure on Iran, and moving the entire globe closer toward war with Iran.

The US has already arrayed its forces across the Middle East to aid in ongoing proxy wars against Iran and its allies as well as prepare for conventional war with Tehran itself.

All of this amounts to a renewed push toward a more direct conflict between the United States and Iran after years of proxy war in Syria Washington-backed forces have decisively lost.

It is also a continuation of long-standing US foreign policy regarding Iran put into motion over a decade ago and carried out by each respective presidency since.

Washington’s Long-Standing Plans 

Continued sanctions and the elimination of waivers are part of Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the “Iran Nuclear Deal.” The deal was signed in 2015 with the US withdrawing in 2018.

While the decision is portrayed as political differences between former US President Barack Obama and current US President Donald Trump – in reality – the plan’s proposal, signing, and then withdrawal from by the US was planned in detail as early as 2009 as a means of justifying long sought-after war with Iran.

In their 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF), the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution would first admit the complications of US-led military aggression against Iran (emphasis added):

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. 

The paper then lays out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran’s betrayal of a “very good deal” as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added):

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offerone so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

And from 2009 onward, this is precisely what the United States set out to achieve.

First with President Obama’s signing of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, up to and including President Trump’s attempts to backtrack from it based on fabricated claims Iran failed to honor the agreement.

The 2009 policy paper also discussed “goading” Iran into war, claiming (emphasis added):

With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion [of Iran] would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.

Unmentioned directly, but also an obvious method for achieving Washington’s goal of provoking war with Iran would be the US simply staging an “Iranian provocation” itself.

As the US had done in Vietnam following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or US fabrications regardings “weapons of mass destruction” Washington claimed Iraq held in its possession, the US has a clear track record of not just simply provoking provocations, but staging them itself.

The Brookings paper even admits to the unlikelihood of Iran falling into Washington’s trap, lamenting (emphasis added):

…it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.

The alleged sabotaging of oil tankers off the shore of the UAE in May and now additional “attacks” this month could be the beginning of a series of staged provocations aimed at leveraging the recent listing of the IRGC as a “terrorist organization” coupled with increased economic pressure as a result of US sanctions re-initiated after the US’ own withdrawal from the Iran Deal.

Synergies Toward War 

The US has already attempted to leverage allegations in May of “Iranian sabotage” to further build its case against Iran. Washington hopes that either war – or at least the impending threat of war – coupled with crippling economic sanctions, and continued support of political and armed sedition within Iran itself will create the synergies required for dividing and destroying Iran’s political order.

In a wider regional context, the US has seen political losses particularly in Iraq where Iranian influence has been on the rise. Militarily, US-backed proxy forces have been defeated in Syria with Iran and Russia both establishing permanent and significant footholds there.

Despite the setbacks, the success of Washington’s designs against Tehran still depends mainly on America’s ability to offer political and economic incentives coupled with equally effective threats to friend and foe alike – in order to isolate Iran.

How likely this is to succeed remains questionable – decades of US sanctions, covert and overt aggression, as well as proxy wars have left Iran resilient and with more influence across the region now than ever. Still, Washington’s capacity for sowing regional destruction or dividing and destroying Iran should not be underestimated.

The intentional creation of – then withdrawal from the Iran Deal, the US’ persistent military presence in the Middle East, and sanctions aimed at Iran all indicate that US policymakers remain dedicated isolating and undermining Iran. It will continue to do so until its geopolitical goals are met, or until a new international order creates conditions in the Middle East and throughout the global economy making US regime change against Iran impossible.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

ماذا سيفعل الأميركيون لضمان أسواق النفط؟

يونيو 14, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– ليس من إثبات قانوني على مسؤولية إيران عن أي من الحوادث التي تصيب سوق النفط وتتسبب بالمزيد من التدهور في استقراره والمزيد من الصعود في أسعاره، لكن الأكيد أن ما تشهده منطقة الخليج من حوادث تستهدف سوق النفط يتمّ على خلفية النظر إلى مشهد التوتر الناتج عن الاستهداف الأميركي لقدرة إيران على تصدير نفطها من جهة، والرد الإيراني القائم على معادلة، إذا لم نستطع تصدير نفطنا فإن غيرنا لن يستطيع ذلك أيضاً، والعالم كله ينظر للتصعيد القائم الآن وفقاً لمعادلة أبعد من كيف تثبت واشنطن قوتها، أو كيف تردّ واشنطن على ما تتهم إيران به، فالسؤال الكبير دولياً هو مَن يضمن عودة الاستقرار إلى سوق النفط وإلى أسعاره؟

– إذا سلكت واشنطن طريق الاستهداف العسكري المباشر أو غير المباشر، الضيّق والمحدود أو الأوسع، فإن ذلك سيعني تصاعد الوضع أكثر واستدراج ردود على الردود من نوعها، مباشرة أو غير مباشرة، محدودة أو واسعة النطاق، لكن الأكيد هو أن سوق النفط ستبلغ المزيد من الاضطراب والأسعار ستبلغ المزيد من السقوف العالية، وإذا سلكت واشنطن طريق التجاهل واكتفت بالتحذير والسعي لردود دبلوماسيّة، فإن ذلك يقول إن الخط البياني للأحداث التي استهدفت سوق النفط سيتصاعد وبات هو الحاكم المسيطر على معادلات هذا السوق، وعنوانها، إن لم تستطع إيران تصدير نفطها فإن غيرها لن يستطيع.

– بالتوازي تتبقى ثلاثة أسابيع أمام نهاية مهلة الستين يوماً التي ستبادر إيران بنهايتها إلى التخصيب المرتفع لليورانيوم والتخزين لليورانيوم المخصب، وصولاً لامتلاك ما قالت واشنطن ودول الغرب إنه نقطة الخطر، اي امتلاك إيران ما يكفي لإنتاج أول قنبلة نووية، رغم قرارها بعدم فعل ذلك. والسؤال الموازي ماذا ستفعل واشنطن عندها، أو ماذا ستفعل واشنطن قبلها لمنع بلوغ تلك اللحظة، وبمعزل عن المسؤوليات القانونية التي لا تفيد في مثل هذه الحالات تواجه واشنطن أخطر اختبار لمشهد قوتها على الساحة الدولية حيث تبدو كل الخيارات صعبة، ويبدو الزمن الذي تحتاجه واشنطن لاختبار فعالية إجراءاتها الاقتصادية التصعيدية بوجه إيران أكبر بكثير من الزمن الذي وضعت فيه طهران واشنطن أمام اللحظات الحرجة لضمان استقرار سوق النفط ومواجهة مستقبل ملفها النووي.

– الطريق السالك الوحيد أمام واشنطن لتفادي الأسوأ هو استغلال الوقت المتبقي قبل دخول مهلة الستين يوماً حيّز التنفيذ في الشق النووي، والذهاب إلى قمة العشرين في نهاية الشهر الحالي بخريطة طريق، لتأجيل متبادل أميركي وإيراني للحزمة الأخيرة من الخطوات التصعيديّة لستة شهور تمنح خلالها الوساطات الفرص المناسبة للوصول إلى مبادرات سياسية بديلة. وهذا يعني تراجع واشنطن عن كل ما صدر عنها من عقوبات منذ نهاية شهر نيسان الماضي عندما قامت بإلغاء الاستثناءات الممنوحة على شراء النفط والغاز من إيران لثماني دول، وما تلاها من عقوبات على المعادن والبتروكيماويات الإيرانية، مقابل تراجع إيران عن مهلة الستين يوماً، وتوصل الدول المعنية لضمانات للتعاون في منع أي استهداف لأسواق النفط، وسيتلقف الروس والصينيّون والأوروبيّون واليابانيّون هذه المبادرة وتتجاوب معها إيران، التي كان مدخل خيارها التصعيدي التصعيد الأميركي الجديد.

– تبريد التصعيد سيفتح الطريق للبحث عن سقوف منخفضة لتسويات واقعية في سورية واليمن بعيداً عن المطالب الأميركية الوهمية والخيالية. ويفتح طريق تجميد النزاع حول الملف النووي الذي لا يزعج إيران خروج واشنطن منه ولا يريح واشنطن عودتها إليه، ويصعب على الطرفين التنازل في بنوده، وإلا فإن الرعونة الأميركية التي كانت وراء الخطوات الأخيرة في التصعيد تحتاج لخريطة طريق نحو الحرب والفوز بها، وادعاء واشنطن بامتلاكها كذبة ستفضحها كل محاولة للعب بالنار في منطقة تقف على برميل بارود، ربما تكون كلفة الحروب فيه أعلى بكثير من كلفة التسويات، مع فارق أن بين خاسر وخاسر سيختلف الوضع كثيراً. فهناك مَن سيخسر مكانته العالمية كحال أميركا ووجوده كحال «إسرائيل» ونظام حكمه كحال أنظمة الخليج، فوق الخسائر البشرية والمادية المؤلمة التي سيتساوى فيها مع إيران وحلفائها.

Related Videos

RELATED NEWS

من يقف وراء استهداف ناقلتي النفط… وما هي الآفاق؟

يونيو 14, 2019

حسن حردان

في لحظة اجتماع رئيس الوزراء الياباني شينزو آبي مع مرشد الثورة الإسلامية في إيران الإمام علي الخامنئي ناقلاً رسالة من الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب في محاولة لإقناع طهران بالتفاوض مع واشنطن لإنهاء التوتر الحاصل، والذي افتعلته إدارة ترامب بانسحابها من الاتفاق النووي والتنكّر لتوقيع واشنطن عليه، دوّت انفجارات قوية متتالية في بحر عُمان بعد استهداف ناقلتي نفط عملاقتين محمّلتين بالخام، وشبّت حرائق هائلة على متن الناقلتين المستهدفتين، وهما من الناقلات العملاقة التي تحمل النفط الخام من الخليج…

وقد طرح ذلك التساؤلات حول الجهة التي تقف وراء استهداف الناقلتين، والأهداف التي تسعى إليها، هل هي لإحباط الوساطات الدولية الجارية من أكثر من طرف غربي بين طهران وواشنطن، لا سيما أنّ هذه الوساطات تأتي بناء على رغبة وطلب ترامب…

من الواضح أنّ إيران ليس لها مصلحة في القيام بمثل هذا الهجوم ضدّ ناقلات النفط، لا سيما أنها في وضع مريح في الصراع الدائر بينها وبين الولايات المتحدة، فهي متيقنة من أنّ واشنطن لا تجرؤ على شنّ الحرب عليها، ولهذا تراجع مناخ التهديد بالحرب، وقد عكست ذلك مواقف ترامب التي وضعت حداً لخطاب الحرب الذي كان يروّج له مستشاره للأمن القومي جون بولتون، وفي نفس الوقت تبيّن عدم قدرة واشنطن على تصفير صادرات إيران النفطية.. في ظلّ قرار صيني روسي حازم بالاستمرار في شراء النفط الإيراني، وإعلان اليابان عبر مسؤول في شركة كوزمو اليابانية يوم الاثنين الماضي أنها بدأت باستيراد أول شحنة من النفط الإيراني وشحن 850 ألف برميل من النفط الخام بما فيه 200 ألف برميل من النفط الخفيف و650 ألف برميل من النفط الثقيل…

وقد أعلنت شركة «إس آند بي غلوبال» الأميركية مؤخراً انّ البنوك اليابانية حصلت علي التراخيص اللازمة لاستئناف صفقات شراء النفط الإيراني.. والمعلومات تشير إلى أنّ الناقلتين اللتين استهدفتا تحملان شحنات نفط متجهة إلى اليابان… ما يؤكد أنّ استهداف الناقلتين إنما هو لإحباط جهود اليابان ومعاقبتها على استئناف شراء النفط الإيراني ودورها في التوسط بين واشنطن وطهران.. لهذا فإنّ الجهة التي تقف وراء ضرب الناقلتين متضرّرة من هذه التطورات التي تصبّ في مصلحة موقف إيران الذي يرفض تقديم التنازلات لواشنطن وتصرّ على رفض أيّ تفاوض مع الولايات المتحدة بعد أن خرجت على الاتفاق النووي ولم يعد بالإمكان الوثوق بها، فيما المطلوب أولاً ان تعود واشنطن إلى الالتزام بالاتفاق والتراجع عن فرض العقوبات الاقتصادية ضدّ إيران قبل الحديث عن أيّ تفاوض..

وإذا ما دققنا بالجهات المتضرّرة من التطورات الجارية في مصلحة إيران وتراجع خطاب الحرب في واشنطن، يأتي في المقدّمة كيان العدو الصهيوني الذي يقف بالأصل ضدّ الاتفاق النووي وعمل في ما بعد عبر اللوبي الصهيوني في واشنطن والمحافظين الجدد على ممارسة الضغوط على إدارة ترامب للانسحاب من الاتفاق وهو ما حصل…

كما يأتي في المرتبة التالية دعاة الحرب في واشنطن الذين يعارضون سياسة ترامب في التفاوض مع إيران… وقد تكون السعودية أيضاً لها مصلحة في استهداف الناقلتين، فهي منخرطة في السياسة الإسرائيلية لتوجيه البوصلة من العداء ضدّ كيان العدو الصهيوني إلى العداء ضدّ الجمهورية الإسلامية الايرانية، لا سيما أنّ المسؤولين في الرياض يشعرون بالخيبة من توجهات ترامب بعد تفجيرات ناقلات النفط في ميناء الفجيرة، بعدم الذهاب إلى التصعيد ضدّ ايران وتهيئة المناخ لشنّ الحرب ضدّها..

غير أنّ الاستهداف الجديد لناقلات النفط أكد مجدّداً الحاجة الغربية الأميركية للتهدئة مع إيران وقطع الطريق على الجهات التي تسعى إلى التصعيد لما لذلك من مخاطر تهدّد إمدادات النفط من الخليج وباب المندب إلى دول العالم التي تستورد نحو 20 بالمئة من احتياجاتها النفطية من المنطقة.. ومثل هذا الأمر يصبّ بالتأكيد في مصلحة إيران التي أكدت أكثر من مرة أنه لا يمكن السماح بوقف تصدير نفطها وبقاء الآخرين يصدّرون نفطهم..

لكن إلى أين تتجه الأمور؟

كلّ المعطيات تؤشر إلى عدم ترجيح خيار الحرب لأن لا واشنطن تريد الإقدام عليها بسبب كلفتها الباهظة وتداعياتها على المصالح والنفوذ الأميركي في المنطقة إلى جانب أنها ستؤدّي إلى وقف إمدادات النفط واشتعال أسعاره بشكل جنوني.. وفي المقابل فإنّ خيار التفاوض بين طهران وواشنطن احتمالاته ضعيفة جداً اذا لم يكن مستبعداً لأنّ طهران لن تقبل العودة إلى التفاوض أقله قبل أن تعود واشنطن إلى الالتزام بالاتفاق النووي وما يتضمّنه من التزامات، فيما إدارة ترامب ترفض ذلك وتسعى إلى التفاوض لتعديل الاتفاق عدا أنّ ترامب ليس له مصلحة في التراجع عن هذا الموقف لأنه سيعتبر فشلاً كبيراً لسياساته وهزيمة أمام إيران ويؤدّي إلى خسارته دعم وتأييد اللوبي الصهيوني في الانتخابات الرئاسية المقبلة التي يطمح فيها للفوز بولاية ثانية… ولهذا فإنّ المرجح أن يبقى الصراع بين إيران والولايات المتحدة تحت سقف لا حرب ولا تفاوض… وبالتالي بقاء التوتر والصراع بوسائل غير مباشرة وعبر الضغوط الاقتصادية التي تمارسها واشنطن ضدّ طهران على الرغم من أنها لن تفلح في دفع القيادة الإيرانية إلى التراجع قيد أنملة عن مواقفها الرفضة لأيّ شروط وإملاءات أميركية…

كاتب وإعلامي

Blast Hits Two Oil Tankers in Gulf of Oman, Iran Rescues All 44 Crew Members of Tankers Hit In Sea Of Oman

tank

Blast Hits Two Oil Tankers in Gulf of Oman

June 13, 2019

Iranian rescue workers saved 44 sailors from tankers after a reported attack on two oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, and took them to the Iranian port of Jask, the state-run IRNA news agency reported on Thursday.

The US Navy’s 5th Fleet also said that it was assisting the two oil tankers targeted in a “reported attack”, after the vessels sent disstress calls.

It was not immediately clear who attacked the vessels, one of which has been identified as Front Altair, a crude oil tanker owned by Norway’s Frontline and carrying the flag of the Marshall Islands.

According to shipping newspaper Tradewinds, Frontline’s oil tanker had been “torpedoed” off the coast of the Emirate of Fujairah.

Taiwan’s energy firm CPC said it had suspicions that Front Altair, which was carrying 75,000 tonnes of naphtha, was hit by an unknown onject.

Meanwhile, shipping company Bernhard Schulte said that its oil tanker Kokuka Courageous was also damaged in the incident. Kokuka was sailing from Saudi Arabia to Singapore with a cargo of methanol.

“The hull has been breached above the water line on the starboard side,” the company said in a statement. “All crew are reported safe and only one minor injury reported.”

Earlier in the day, Iran’s Press TV said that two successive blasts affected two oil tankers on Thursday morning in what it described as “attacks”.

Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet quoted Oman authorities as saying that at least one tanker had been attacked in Iran’s territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman.

Brent crude climbed 4.5 per cent in the wake of the reports.

Meanwhile, the UK Maritime Trade Operations, a maritime safety group run by the Royal Navy, has warned about an unspecified incident in the Gulf of Oman between the Emirate of Fujairah and Iran’s coast. The group urged “extreme caution”, given the ongoing tensions in the region between the United States and Iran, and said that an investigation is underway.

It comes a month after another apparent attack on vessels in the Gulf. On 12 May, four oil tankers — two Saudi, one Emirati and one Norwegian — were targeted off the coast of Fujairah in what the UAE Foreign Ministry described as acts of sabotage.

The three countries whose ships were damaged said in a joint statement that limped mines had been placed in a “sophisticated and coordinated operation” by divers. The UAE suggested that it was likely the work of a “state actor” but stop short of identifying the culprit.

US officials, however, were quick to point the finger at Iran.

Tehran has denied any involvement and called for an investigation.

Source: Iranian Agencies

Iran Rescues All 44 Crew Members of Tankers Hit In Sea Of Oman

By Staff, Agencies

Iran assisted members of two oil tankers hit by yet unspecified accidents in the Sea of Oman, transferring all of their 44 staff to its southern shores.

An informed source said an Iranian rescue vessel had picked up the 23 crew members of one of the tankers and 21 of the other from the sea and had brought them to safety at Iran’s Jask, in the southern Hormozgan Province, IRNA reported on Thursday.

Earlier, media reports said explosions had occurred on the two oil tankers, apparently as a result of attacks.

The source, whose name and affiliation were not disclosed, said one of the vessels caught fire at 08:50 am Iranian time on Thursday and the second one at 09:50.

Details about the incidents are still sketchy, but the ships are known to have sent distress signals to nearby ports and vessels.

While the US Navy claimed it had been assisting the tankers, the Iranian rescue vessel was first to reach them and rescue the crew, who had plunged into and were floating on the sea to avoid the fire.

Why Trump now wants talks with Iran

June 05, 2019

Why Trump now wants talks with Iran

By Pepe Escobar – posted with permission

 

If Tehran blocks the Strait of Hormuz it could send the price of oil soaring and cause a global recession

Iranian soldiers take part in National Persian Gulf Day in the Strait of Hormuz on April 30, 2019. There is concern about a blockade of the Strait and the disastrous impact that could have on the price of oil and world financial markets. Photo: AFP / Atta Kenare

Unlike Deep Purple’s legendary ‘Smoke on the Water’ – “We all came out to Montreux, on the Lake Geneva shoreline”, the 67th Bilderberg group meetings produced no fire and no smoke at the luxurious Fairmont Le Montreux Palace Hotel.

The 130 elite guests had a jolly good – and theoretically quiet – time at the self-billed “informal discussion forum concerning major issues”. As usual, at least two-thirds were European decision-makers, with the rest coming from North America.

The fact that a few major players in this Atlanticist Valhalla are closely associated with or directly interfering with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel – the central bank of central banks – is of course just a minor detail.

The major issue discussed this year was “A Stable Strategic Order”, a lofty endeavor that can be interpreted either as the making of a New World Order or just a benign effort by selfless elites to guide mankind to enlightenment.

Other items of discussion were way more pragmatic – from “The Future of Capitalism”, to “Russia”, “China”, “Weaponizing Social Media”, “Brexit”, “What’s Next for Europe”, “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” and last but not least, “Climate Change”.

Disciples of Antisthenes would argue that these items constitute precisely the nuts and bolts of the New World Order.

The chairman of Bilderberg’s steering committee, since 2012, is Henri de Castries, former CEO of AXA and the director of the Institut Montaigne, a top French think tank.

One of the key guests this year was Clement Beaune, the European and G20 counselor to French President Emmanuel Macron.

Bilderberg prides itself for enforcing the Chatham House Rule, according to which participants are free to use all the precious information they wish because those who attend these meetings are bound to not disclose the source of any sensitive information or what exactly was said.

That helps ensure Bilderberg’s legendary secrecy – the reason for myriad conspiracy theories. But that does not mean that the odd secret may not be revealed.

The Castries/Beaune axis provides us with the first open secret of 2019. It was Castries at the Institut Montaigne who “invented” Macron – that perfect lab experiment of a mergers and acquisitions banker serving the establishment by posing as a progressive.

A Bilderberg source discreetly let it be known that the result of the recent European parliamentary elections was interpreted as a victory. After all, the final choice was between a neoliberal/Green alliance and Right populism; nothing to do with progressive values.

The Greens who won in Europe – contrary to the US Greens – are all humanitarian imperialists, to quote the splendid neologism coined by Belgian physicist Jean Bricmont. And they all pray on the politically correct altar. What matters, from Bilderberg’s perspective, is that the European Parliament will continue to be run by a pseudo-Left that keeps defending the destruction of the nation-state.

Just like Castries and his pupil Macron.

The derivatives clock is ticking

Image: Wikipedia

The great Bilderberg secret of 2019 had to do with why, suddenly, the Trump administration has decided that it wants to talk to Iran “with no preconditions”.

It all has to do with the Strait of Hormuz. Blocking the Strait could cut off oil and gas from Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Iran – 20% of the world’s oil. There has been some debate on whether this could occur – whether the US Fifth Fleet, which is stationed nearby, could stop Tehran doing this and if Iran, which has anti-ship missiles on its territory along the northern border of the Persian Gulf, would go that far.

An American source said a series of studies hit President Trump’s desk and caused panic in Washington. These showed that in the case of the Strait of Hormuz being shut down, whatever the reason, Iran has the power to hammer the world financial system, by causing global trade in derivatives to be blown apart.

The Bank for International Settlements said last year that the “notional amount outstanding for derivatives contracts” was $542 trillion, although the gross market value was put at just $12.7 trillion. Others suggest it is $1.2 quadrillion or more.

 

An Iranian Navy warship is seen in the Strait of Hormuz on April 30, amid talk that Tehran may block the Strait if relations with the US plunge further. Photo: AFP / Atta Kenare

Tehran has not voiced this “nuclear option” openly. And yet General Qasem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force and a Pentagon bête noire, evoked it in internal Iranian discussions. The information was duly circulated to France, Britain and Germany, the EU-3 members of the Iran nuclear deal (or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), also causing a panic.

Oil derivative specialists know well that if the flow of energy in the Gulf is blocked it could lead to the price of oil reaching $200 a barrel, or much higher over an extended period. Crashing the derivatives market would create an unprecedented global depression. Trump’s former Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin should know as much.

And Trump himself seems to have given the game away. He’s now on the record essentially saying that Iran has no strategic value to the US. According to the American source: “He really wants a face-saving way to get out of the problem his advisers Bolton and Pompeo got him into. Washington now needs a face-saving way out. Iran is not asking for meetings. The US is.”

And that brings us to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s long, non-scheduled stop in Switzerland, on the Bilderberg’s fringes, just because he’s a “big cheese and chocolate fan”, in his own words.

Yet any well-informed cuckoo clock would register he badly needed to assuage the fears of the trans-Atlantic elites, apart from his behind-closed-doors meetings with the Swiss, who are representing Iran in communications with Washington. After weeks of ominous threats to Iran, the US said “no preconditions” would be set on talks with Tehran, and this was issued from Swiss soil.

China draws its lines in the sand

Bilderberg could not escape discussing China. Geo-poetic justice rules that virtually at the same time, China was delivering a powerful message – to East and West – at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.

The Shangri-La dialogue is Asia’s top annual security forum, and unlike Bilderberg, held like clockwork at the same hotel in Singapore’s Orchard Road. As much as Bilderberg, Shangri-La discusses “relevant security issues”.

A case can be made that Bilderberg frames the discussions as in the recent cover story of a French weekly, owned by a Macron-friendly oligarch, titled “When Europe Ruled the World”. Shangri-La instead discusses the near future – when China may be actually ruling the world.

Beijing sent a top-of-the-line delegation to this year’s forum, led by Defense Minister General Wei Fenghe. And on Sunday, General Wei laid down China’s unmistakable red lines; a stern warning to “external forces” dreaming of independence for Taiwan, and the “legitimate right” for Beijing to expand man-made islands in the South China Sea.

By then everyone had forgotten what Acting US Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan had said the day before, accusing Huawei to be too close to Beijing and posing a security risk to the “international community”.

General Wei also found time to rip Shanahan to shreds. “Huawei is a private company, not a military company… Just because the head of Huawei used to serve in the army, does not mean his company is a part of the military. That doesn’t make sense.”

Shangri-La is at least transparent. As for Bilderberg, there won’t be any leaks on what the Masters of the Universe told Western elites about the profitability of pursuing the war on terror; the drive toward total digitalization of cash; total rule of genetically modified organisms; and how climate change will be weaponized.

At least the Pentagon has made no secret, even before Shangri-La, that Russia and China must be contained at all costs – and the European vassals must toe the line.

Henry Kissinger was a 2019 Bilderberg participant. Rumors that he spent all his time breathlessly plugging his “reverse Nixon” – seduce Russia to contain China – may be vastly overstated.