Joe Biden and his Middle East mistake

Joe Biden, the Middle East and consistency in politics

Victor Angelo

 

After two days spent in Israel and Palestine, the American President is today in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Even having read what Joe Biden wrote in the Washington Post on July 9, to try to justify his voyage, I am one of those who do not agree with the political opportunity of this trip. I see it as a move of mere opportunism.

In the present context of confrontation with Russia, the trip weakens those who use the arguments of respect for international law, democracy and human rights. The Middle East is a maze of problems with no solution in sight. A geopolitical labyrinth where, among others, the United States is also lost. In the region, in addition to the suffering in the countries visited and in occupied Palestine, we still have the inhuman violence of the Syrian regime, with a fratricidal war that has dragged on since 2011, the barbarity of the conflict in Yemen, the chaos in Lebanon, the Iranian threat, the oppression of the Kurdish populations, fundamentalist extremism and the deadly rivalries between Sunnis and Shiites. It is a question of dealing with a powder keg that explodes according to the interests of the different local or international players.

A visit that does not bring any kind of response to the Palestinian question, to the obscurantism and cruelty of the Saudi regime, or to the containment of the Iranian threat, can only be noted in the negative. Biden was in Israel with the November mid-term elections in his country in mind and to please a part of his domestic voter base. And he is in Saudi Arabia to seek to increase oil production in order to contain the price of a barrel. This is also an electoral concern: the cost of petrol, when it comes time to fill up the tank, is a strong political argument in the USA. But it will not be easy to convince the Saudis, who are already adding 400,000 barrels a day more compared to what they were doing in February. Note, moreover, that Saudi daily production is now equivalent to Russian, both occupying (almost ex aequo) second place in the world.

Israel is not comparable to Saudi Arabia. But the systematic violation of the rights of Palestinians is one of the strongest arguments used by those who accuse the US of using a double-edged sword in international relations. The Palestinian cause has for decades been one of the most important thorns in the throat of those who speak of the need to respect the international order and the rights of oppressed peoples. You can't fight for that in the case of Ukraine and turn a blind eye when it comes to the same in Palestine.

Saudi Arabia is a country of contradictions. Modern in technology, medieval in the rights of women, of poor immigrant workers or in the treatment of political opposition. The Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, personifies well these contradictions and the brutality of the regime. He will go down in history for having had opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi murdered and hacked to pieces in 2018. Joe Biden had said during his election campaign that this crime had turned Saudi Arabia into a pariah state. Today, he will shake hands with the ringleader of the killers and discuss cooperation and oil. The prince will look good in the photo, even more arrogant than usual. The American president, on the other hand, will be more vulnerable.

It is time to repeat that in international politics not everything counts. And to underline once again that believing in principles has a cost. The narrative has to become clearer. Political leadership will only be credible if it is coherent. Spending time thinking about the next elections, political manoeuvring and expedients that vary according to the interests at stake may lead to the re-election of presidents, prime ministers and secretaries-general, but it does not contribute to solving the major problems. The current crises, in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Sri Lanka, Pakistan or Myanmar, in parts of Africa or Central America, as well as in the field of climate change, nature conservation or food insecurity and the fight against poverty, should teach us to be truthful, responsible and courageous. In these times of great problems, this way of doing politics is the greatest challenge.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 July 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to deal with Erdogan?

The situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is becoming very tense. Turkey is doing oil mapping at sea, in waters that are contested by a fellow NATO Member State – Greece. The oil vessel is escorted by several Turkish warships. And now France has responded to a Greek appeal and is sending navy assets to the region. This situation can easily escalate and become an open conflict. It must be dealt with by the NATO and European authorities immediately.

The truth of the matter is that Europe does not have a clear line of approach towards Turkey. Delaying the accession negotiations or approving a light package of sanctions against the regime in Ankara is not an effective policy line. A firmer position is required. The European leaders must understand that President Erdogan is a major threat to the stability of Europe. In addition, they must realise that someone of his calibre does not understand a soft approach. He knows about force and can get the message if the message is forceful.

Iran's growing dependence on China

Iran is counting on China’s investments and political support. China will become the most powerful ally of Iran. Oil is one of the reasons, but not the only one. They are now negotiating a cooperation framework for the next 25 years. All in all, Iran will become seriously dependent on China.

As the Americans invest in their relationship with the Saudis, the Chinese can only get interested on the opposing side. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fierce rivals in the region. A good deal of the future of the Middle East will derive from such rivalry. But behind it, there is the growing and dangerous competition between the US and China.

They can't drink oil

      The collapse of the oil price has several major implications. It is an economic tsunami. For the oil-producing developing countries, in Africa and elsewhere, it means an extraordinary loss of revenue. That’s the case for Nigeria, Angola, Congo, South Sudan, Algeria, Libya, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and so on. It adds fuel to social instability in those countries. It brings, at least, a new level of poverty and hardship to their populations. For the developed countries, it carries serious capital losses for the pension funds and other sovereign funds that were heavily invested in oil corporations and all the other companies that deal with bits and pieces of the oil industry. For all of us, it discourages new investments in renewable sources of energy. The bottom rock oil price makes any renewable too expensive to contemplate at this stage. 

The oil consumption is at present very low, because of the lockdowns that are implemented all over. But also, because the United States has continued to pump vast amounts of oil. They are now the largest producer, with 12.3 million barrels per day. President Trump could have compelled the industry to reduce daily production. There was a recommendation to cut it by 2 million barrels per day. He decided not to act because he saw this branch of the economy as a key pillar of his political basis. There are 10 million oil and gas sector jobs in the US, plus many billionaires that inject money in the Republican camp.   Now, he is promising them billions of dollars in subsidies. Public money being wasted when the solution was to reduce exploitation. His political choice has a huge impact on the domestic taxpayers’ money and on the world economy. It is inexcusable.

They say that misfortunes never come alone. Indeed.

Iran is choosing the wrong approach

The drone cum missile attacks against Saudi oil facilities remain a major international issue. Analysts have tried to read beyond these strikes. They seek to understand what Iran’s game plan is. That’s certainly a key question, in addition to several others. We need a plausible answer to it.

Iran is clearly coordinating its actions with their clients in Yemen, the Houthi rebels. Today, both Iran and the Houthi leadership have extended a hand of dialogue. Last week, the hand they were showing resulted in the attacks, a clear act of war. Now, they talk about bringing down the tension. At the same time, the Iranians organise military parades and public demonstrations of force.

But, again, the question is what is their plan? Escalation, on one side, and diplomatic talk, on the other, is a tactic but not a strategy. It is actually a very dangerous approach. It can easily get things out of hand. And that risk is still very much in the air. We are not out of the danger zone.

Iranian leaders think they are now in a stronger position. That’s probably the reason for the attacks. They wanted to show they can strike a country as heavily armed as Saudi Arabia is. A country that is a close ally of the Americans. They wanted to be seen as a sophisticated military power. And send a message that it is better to negotiate with them than to confront them. The problem is that they have little support outside the small circle that is constituted by a few client governments and a couple of armed groups. Bigger countries will choose the Saudi side, if they have to. And the extensive sanctions the US has imposed on them will ruin their fragile economy and will create further opposition to the clerics that control Iran’s power machinery.

I can only anticipate disaster for Iran, if they continue to strike the neighbours and to make bellicose announcements. Therefore, I see the attacks against the Saudi refineries and plants as a very serious miscalculation. It is a tactical victory and a strategic error.

Iran, Europe and the distant US

The key European leaders are shocked by the extreme approach the US is following regarding Iran. They think the maximum pressure policy taken by the Trump Administration is outside the accepted rules of international engagement. They also find unacceptable the targeting of European interests by the sanctions unilaterally decided by the US. The issue of Iran is deepening the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic.  

Hormuz: to avert further deterioration

As we start the last week of July, we must be profoundly aware that the situation around the Strait of Hormuz represents an extraordinary menace for peace and security in the region. In addition, if it escalates further it will have a serious impact on the economy of major international players, well beyond the region. Most of the oil the Gulf countries export – close to 85% of it – goes to major Asian economies, to China, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

We need to see a major initiative launched with the objective of de-escalating the confrontation. It should come from the UN, if at all possible. If not, it could be initiated by the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. His country has high stakes at play and, at the same time, has a voice that matters in the region and the UK.

Iran and the US: the escalating conflict

The military build-up by the US against Iran is a matter of great concern. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital line of communication. As such, it has the potential to be a major reason for a confrontation. The current US Administration will respond with great show of force to any attempt by Iran to disrupt or control navigation through the Strait.

Iran knows that. But they are being pushed against the wall by the American embargo on their oil exports and might make an error of judgement. That makes the situation in the region more delicate and especially dangerous.

The EU should call for restrain.

Brussels must show leadership and initiative.

Unfortunately, I do not see any appetite in Europe to make a statement against the escalation of the tension in that part of the Middle East. It is true that we are now on the eve of EU elections. But it is also a fact that those in charge of the European institutions are very hesitant when the matter touches the US interests. Even now, when they are at the end of their EU mandates, they lack the stature that a stronger Europe would require.

Iran and its oil

The US Government’s decision not to renew the waiver given to China, India, Turkey, Japan and two or three more countries regarding the purchase of Iranian oil is very extreme. This basically means that any country buying Iranian oil after May 1 might find itself sanctioned by the Americans. In the tradition of international relations, such decision is equivalent to an act of war against Iran and a hostile move against the countries that import petroleum from Iran. It is a matter of great concern. It must be seriously debated.

On Iran and the lifting of the sanctions

The nuclear-related sanctions against Iran have been lifted. The country is back in terms of business with the West. It is also open for a new type of political engagement with our part of the world. All that can only be seen as good news. Besides the economic opportunities this new situation opens, it is also a contribution to a more balanced distribution of power in the Middle East. The next step is to help the country and Saudi Arabia to normalise their diplomatic relations. It´s in the interest of both countries and also to the advantage of conflict resolution in the region. 

OPEC is moribund

OPEC, the oil countries organization, is less and less relevant. It´s deeply divided, it´s unable to attract new member states to join the 12 that make it, and its total production is less than one third of the overall oil production figure.

Today´s meeting has shown the impasse the organization is in. And the price of oil has tumbled as a result. 

Costly Stavanger

I arrived in Stavanger last night. Coming from Lisbon, it was like a flight between Summer and early Autumn.
It´s cold and windy here But it is quite impressive to see how the city keeps growing, how large and modern business establishments are mushrooming, and also how the residential areas are able to maintain the tranquility, the beauty and the living space local people are so keen to have. In a country with an expensive cost of living, Stavanger is the priciest place.

The oil industry, this is the capital of oil exploration and services in Norway, explains the costs. It is also pretty interesting to look at the human landscape. The place is attracting a good number of immigrants, from many parts of Europe, Poland for instance, as well as refugees from the Middle East and elsewhere. And I have developed a test. If I address someone in English and he or she only replies in Norwegian, than the fellow is either from Eastern Europe or from Iraq or near by.

A new situation in North Africa

The hostage situation in Algeria, with the kidnapping of many foreigners, from different nationalities, by an al-Qaeda inspired group, opens a new phase in the security crisis in that part of North Africa as well as other areas surrounding Mali. All of sudden governments from outside the region are realising that their interests in the gas and oil fields in Algeria and the vicinity could be under very serious threat. This can deeply affect the functioning of the many fields and lead to a significant decrease in the production levels.

The link between oil and food prices