Saturday, May 24, 2025

 

Iran To Resume Drilling For Oil And Gas On Caspian Seabed – OpEd




By 

Tehran has announced that it will resume drilling for oil and gas in the Caspian. It stopped such drilling in 1997 and ended its deep-water petroleum operations on that sea in 2014, but it now hopes to actively exploit the more than 600 million barrels of oil and 56.6 billion cubic meters of gas under the seabed in its sector of the Caspian.


In making this announcement, the Iranian oil ministry said that it was open to international cooperation and investment, an indication that this new effort will be expensive and that Iran by itself will have a difficult time achieving its goals (https://casp-geo.ru/iran-vozobnovil-burenie-na-kaspii-spustya-30-let/).

This move is likely to create conflicts between Iran, on the one hand, and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, on the other, which already have developed Caspian fields near where the Iranians plan to drill (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2025/05/azerbaijan-expanding-naval-cooperation.html); and it may prompt Tehran to finally ratify the 2018 convention on the division of the sea to defend its claims (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2022/07/moscow-tries-to-work-around-tehrans.html).

In both cases, it is likely that Iran will seek to expand its naval capacities there, possibly with the help of the Russian Federation, something that will further exacerbate tensions on the Caspian (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2023/12/iran-launches-new-flagship-for-its.html and jamestown.org/program/russias-caspian-flotilla-no-longer-only-force-that-matters-there/).  



Paul Goble

Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy. Earlier, he served as vice dean for the social sciences and humanities at Audentes University in Tallinn and a senior research associate at the EuroCollege of the University of Tartu in Estonia. He has served in various capacities in the U.S. State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the International Broadcasting Bureau as well as at the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Goble maintains the Window on Eurasia blog and can be contacted directly at paul.goble@gmail.com .

Siege Politics: Netanyahu’s Crisis-Driven Grip On Power – OpEd


By 

By now, it should surprise no one that Benjamin Netanyahu prefers the echo chamber of his own making to the international chorus demanding accountability. The Israeli prime minister, clinging to office as tenaciously as he clings to delusion, has managed to place himself among the most cynically manipulative leaders of our time, a man who governs not by vision, but by vindictiveness.


Once vaunted as a statesman in the mold of Churchill, Netanyahu now more closely resembles a bunker-dwelling autocrat, lashing out at allies and adversaries alike as his credibility collapses under the weight of his own contradictions. His latest tirade, this time aimed at French President Emmanuel Macron, is emblematic of a broader pattern: weaponizing moral outrage to deflect from moral bankruptcy.

Macron’s offense? A tepid acknowledgment of Gaza’s humanitarian collapse, describing Israel’s blockade as “shameful.” In Netanyahu’s world, even this mild reproach is grounds for hysteria. Accusing Macron of trafficking in “blood libels”—a grotesque invocation that trivializes historical trauma—Netanyahu displayed once again his uncanny ability to turn every diplomatic encounter into an operatic display of self-pity and belligerence.

That the French president stopped short of sanctions, or even a formal condemnation, makes Netanyahu’s outburst all the more absurd. No call for a ceasefire, no explicit criticism of military tactics, just an acknowledgment of the obvious: Gaza is a humanitarian disaster zone, engineered by policies that bear Netanyahu’s fingerprints at every stage.

This, however, is hardly uncharted territory for “King Bibi.” In October, Macron had the audacity to suggest halting weapons sales to Israel, specifically those used to flatten densely populated areas in Gaza. Netanyahu’s retort was a sneering video statement branding Macron a disgrace. And when the French leader reminded him that Israel’s very existence owes much to a UN resolution, Netanyahu responded not with gratitude but with belligerence, boasting that the state was born “in blood,” not in diplomacy, and throwing in a swipe at France’s Vichy past for good measure.

Such eruptions are more than a rhetorical style. They are a political strategy. Netanyahu thrives in crisis, not to resolve it but to prolong it, using chaos as a shield against the ever-looming specter of his own political demise. With corruption charges still dogging him and public opinion slipping, he has fashioned Gaza into both a battlefield and a diversion.


The diplomatic fraying with France is hardly an isolated event. Israeli police stormed a French-owned church compound in Jerusalem last year, detaining consular staff. Macron, in turn, floated the idea of formally recognizing a Palestinian state, a proposal backed by more than 140 countries. Netanyahu’s response was to label the move a “huge prize for terror,” as though empowering the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas, somehow played into the hands of extremism. Logic, of course, has never been Netanyahu’s preferred instrument. Fear is.

Enter Yair Netanyahu, the prime minister’s son and Twitter provocateur-in-chief. Never far from a tantrum, Yair flailed at France’s colonial past, citing Corsica and New Caledonia in a jumbled attempt at moral equivalence. Netanyahu senior distanced himself from the tone, not the content, allowing his son to speak the unspeakable while feigning dignity. It was a family affair in strategic impudence.

Nor is Netanyahu’s estrangement limited to Europe. In 2011, then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy was caught on a hot mic telling Barack Obama, “I can’t stand him. He’s a liar.” Obama replied, “You may be sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day.” That bipartisan distaste spans decades, from Bill Clinton’s wearied attempts at peace talks to George W. Bush’s frustration with his obstructionism, right up to Joe Biden’s belated recognition that Bibi is not a partner, but a problem.

Even Donald Trump, Netanyahu’s most ardent enabler, appears to be losing patience. After Netanyahu rejected a U.S.-Qatari-Egyptian ceasefire deal in March—a proposal backed not only by the Trump administration but by most Israeli citizens and families of hostages—Trump’s camp began to murmur its discontent. Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, reportedly told Netanyahu that prolonging the war was not only immoral but strategically suicidal. And when Washington secured the release of the last American hostage through third-party negotiations, Netanyahu was not only excluded, he was rendered irrelevant.

For a man whose political mythology has long hinged on being indispensable to Israel’s security, this sidelining must have stung. But it was also richly earned. Netanyahu’s Gaza policy—a grotesque mixture of collective punishment, siege tactics, and performative defiance—has brought neither peace nor security. It has only further isolated Israel on the world stage while exacting an unfathomable human cost on Palestinians and deepening divisions within Israeli society.

Netanyahu has weaponized the war to delay his own reckoning. Every rejection of ceasefire terms, every snub of international mediation, buys him more time in power—or so he believes. But the world, and increasingly his own electorate, is beginning to see through the act.

The irony is almost Shakespearean. A man once hailed as the architect of Israel’s international legitimacy now finds himself presiding over its diplomatic erosion. Far from defending the state, Netanyahu is diminishing it, reducing its foreign policy to grievance and paranoia, and treating criticism as betrayal rather than opportunity.

At a time when global challenges—economic fragmentation, rising authoritarianism, climate emergency—demand mature and imaginative leadership, Netanyahu offers none. Instead, he bellows from the balcony, lashes out at allies, and casts every critic as a traitor.

Churchill, he is not. He is not even Begin. He is a leader in free fall, dragging his country with him, increasingly abandoned by allies, and yet still believing himself the indispensable man. The tragedy is not only his. It belongs to Israel—and to all those, Palestinian and Israeli alike, who must live with the consequences of his delusions.


Dr. Imran Khalid

Dr. Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. His work has been widely published by prestigious international news organizations and journals.

 

Lebanese Army To Begin Disarming Palestinians In Beirut Camps In Mid-June


By Najia Houssari


The joint Lebanese-Palestinian committee, which convened on Friday in the presence of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam of Lebanon, agreed to begin implementing the directives outlined in the joint statement issued by the Lebanese-Palestinian summit held on Wednesday in Beirut, in terms of restricting weapons to the hands of the Lebanese state.

A source in Salam’s office told Arab News: “June 16 will mark the beginning of the Lebanese army’s deployment to Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, namely Shatila, Mar Elias and Burj Al-Barajneh camps, to take control of the Palestinian factions’ weapons.

“This will involve Lebanese army patrols inside these camps, followed by subsequent phases targeting camps in the Bekaa, northern Lebanon and south, particularly Ain Al-Hilweh, the largest, most densely populated and factionally diverse Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, encompassing factions affiliated or non-affiliated with the liberation organization.

The source said the “implementation date will be communicated to all Palestinian factions, including Hamas,” and that “the factions will convene to agree on the mechanism, and that pressure will be applied to any group that refuses to relinquish its weapons.”

Addressing Hamas’s earlier stance linking the surrender of its weapons to that of Hezbollah, the source said “there is no connection between the two issues. Once the disarmament process begins, neither Hamas nor any other faction will be able to obstruct or impede it.”


The source said that Arab and regional actors are actively supporting Lebanon in facilitating the disarmament process.

Salam welcomed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to “resolve the issue of Palestinian weapons in the camps,” noting the “positive impact of this decision in strengthening Lebanese-Palestinian relations and improving the humanitarian and socio-economic conditions of Palestinian refugees.”

He affirmed Lebanon’s “adherence to its national principles.”

Salam called for “the swift implementation of practical steps through a clear execution mechanism and a defined timeline.”

According to a statement, both sides agreed “to launch a process to hand over weapons based on a set timetable, accompanied by practical steps to enhance the economic and social rights of Palestinian refugees, and to intensify joint meetings and coordination to put in place the necessary arrangements to immediately begin implementing these directives.”

A statement issued after talks between Abbas and Joseph Aoun, Lebanon’s president, reaffirmed “their commitment to the principle that weapons must be exclusively in the hands of the Lebanese state, to end any manifestations that contradict the logic of the Lebanese state, and the importance of respecting Lebanon’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.”

Since the Nakba — the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, and the suppression of their political rights — Lebanon has had 12 Palestinian refugee camps.

According to the Population and Housing Census in the Palestinian Camps and Gatherings in Lebanon, 72.8 percent of Palestinians in the camps face dire living conditions. The rest are Syrians, Lebanese, and other foreigners, the majority of whom are foreign workers.

Abbas, during his visit, reiterated that “the refugee camps are under the sovereignty of the Lebanese state and the Lebanese army, and the presence of weapons in the camps outside the state’s authority weakens Lebanon. Any weapon that is not under the command of the state is weakening Lebanon and endangering the Palestinian cause.”

Hisham Debsi, director of the Tatweer Center for Strategic Studies and Human Development and a Palestinian researcher, characterized the Lebanese-Palestinian joint statement as “a foundational document that functions as a political, ethical, and sovereign framework. Opposition to its declared positions would be tantamount to rejecting the Lebanese government’s oath of office and ministerial declaration.”

Debsi said: “The joint statement has blocked any potential maneuvering by Hamas to retain its weapons, since the declaration provides the Lebanese state with complete Palestinian legitimacy to remove protection from any armed Palestinian individual. Abu Mazen (Abbas) has reinforced this position repeatedly throughout his Beirut meetings.”

In his assessment, “no faction can now challenge both Lebanese and Palestinian authority given this unified stance.”

Debsi highlighted “a fundamental division within Hamas’s Lebanon branch, with one camp advocating transformation into a political party with the other supporting maintaining ties to Iranian-backed groups.”

He added: “Those opposing Hamas disarmament will face political and security consequences, particularly as camp residents seek to restructure their communities beyond armed resistance, which has become obsolete and must evolve into peaceful advocacy.”



Arab News

Arab News is Saudi Arabia's first English-language newspaper. It was founded in 1975 by Hisham and Mohammed Ali Hafiz. Today, it is one of 29 publications produced by Saudi Research & Publishing Company (SRPC), a subsidiary of Saudi Research & Marketing Group (SRMG).

LIBERTARIAN ANTI-IMPERIALISM

Relearning The Lessons We Never Learned From World War I – OpEd

By 

By Jorge Besada


On August 10, 1915, British physicist Henry Mosely—who would’ve likely won the Nobel Prize that year—died in perhaps the most disastrous error mankind has thus far made, The First World War (1914-18). Bright and pious fellow humans that had absorbed German, French, British, Russian “identities”; students, fathers, engineers, “great minds,” and “experts,” who even shared a common European Christian heritage, reverted to their tribal ape-like nature. For “God, honor, flag, and country” they slaughtered each other, leading to about 20 million deaths and millions more left invalid. At 7:30 am, July 1, 1916 the Battle of the Somme began. On this single day, the British had about 20,000 fatalities and 35,000 wounded. Once the fighting commenced, a British soldier was killed or wounded on average every second. Taking into account about 12,000 German casualties, every 5 seconds 6 people would be killed or wounded.

Militaries—usually being the biggest competition-immune monopolies, protected by flag-waving tribalism—tend to be the most wasteful and slow changing bureaucracies around. By the beginning of the 20th century, the machine gun had already proven its worth, making cavalry charges and frontal assaults disastrous tactics. As military technology improves, toughness, valor, determination, etc. become less and less important, wounding our manly pride, and especially that of those cavalry men who were once formidable fighters, men like British Generals Douglas Haig and John French. Instead of using their reason and putting their flamboyant cavalry-riding years behind them, they spent their lives defending old techniques and downplaying the superior effectiveness of newer weapons like planes, tanks, and machine guns, at the expense of thousands of soldiers. In his 1907 book, Cavalry Studies, Haig declared that “the role of Cavalry on the battlefield will always go on increasing.” War historian John Ellis writes that according to:

…the British Cavalry Training Manual of 1907: “It must be accepted as a principle that the rifle, effective as it is, cannot replace the effect produced by the speed of the horse, the magnetism of the charge, and the terror of cold steel.” Luckily for the Germans, in the First World War, they used machine guns, pill boxes and barbed wire that seem to have been immune to such awesome tactics. That it took the British generals so long to get this through their heads is partly explained by the fact that nearly all of them were cavalry men. Thus Haig, in 1904, attacked a writer who “sneers at the effect produced by sword and lance in modern war; surely he forgets that it is not the weapon carried but the moral factor of an apparently irresistible force, coming on at highest speed in spite of rifle fire, which affects the nerves and aim of the…rifleman.” But rare were the cavalry men who came on in spite of sustained machine gun fire. Haig, above all people, should have learnt this simple lesson. Yet in 1926, in a review of a book by Liddell-Hard, Haig asserted that though there were some blasphemous spirits who thought that the horse might become extinct, at least on the battlefield, “I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever…. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the man and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse—the well-bred horse—as you have ever done in the past.”


The “honor” of a military career would lead to disproportionately higher losses for the upper classes for all belligerents. Germany’s top general—Erich Ludendorff—lost two sons, as would future British Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law. The British PM at the start of the war—Herbert Asquith—lost one. While about 12 percent of British troops would die in the war, 31 percent of Oxford’s 1913 graduating class would die. This should help abolish the popular myth that politicians are quick to bring about wars while wanting to avoid personal losses in them. Unfortunately, from an evolutionary perspective-hypothesis, human beings are tribal smarter apes that have been naturally selected to be vicious killers and to enjoy violence. Warfare-predation was an important evolutionary strategy and likely one of the reasons we are social and have evolved big brains to begin with. As popular science author Steven Pinker writes:

…men go to war to get or keep women—not necessarily as a conscious goal of the warriors (though often it is exactly that), but as the ultimate payoff that allowed a willingness to fight to evolve.


Tribal warfare, coercing each other, rape, and “the law of the jungle,” are things we’ve likely been doing for millions of years and are somewhat intuitive. Respecting private property and refraining from coercing others, and the workings of the free market—which grows and coordinates the modern, non-tribal socioeconomic order and has arisen in the last few thousand years—are not intuitive. This helps explain why we seem to intuitively fall for both warmongering violence and wealth redistribution via government, as well as “great leader” central planning. Hayek summarizes:

…man’s instincts…were not made for the kinds of surroundings, and for the numbers, in which he now lives. They were adapted to life in the small roving bands or troops in which the human race and its immediate ancestors evolved during the few million years while the biological constitution of homo sapiens was being formed.

Being social, smarter apes, fellow humans are our biggest assets, which helps explain the evolution of altruism and compassion. They are also our biggest competitors, which helps us understand our horrendous violence towards each other.

Given its importance, war patriotism easily fills us with a great sense of purpose. England’s prime minister during World War II and national hero, Winston Churchill, shows us how inspiring, exciting, and purposeful WWI was to him when he mentioned:

I think a curse should rest on me —because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet— I can’t help it— I enjoy every second of it.

Churchill wrote to his wife: “Everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?” Churchill also told Prime Minister Asquith that his life’s ambition was: “to command great victorious armies in battle.” Churchill again: “My God! This is living History. Everything we are doing and saying is thrilling…. Why I would not be out of this glorious delicious war for anything the world could give me…”

Towards the end of WWII, Russia’s Red Army is estimated to have raped over 2 million German women. Equally human, the Allies-Americans were just as bad and generally saw the Japanese as an inferior race and cared little for their suffering, as US president who needlessly nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Harry S. Truman, mentions in a letter: “The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.”

WWI ended on Nov. 11th, 1918, a day which was remembered as ‘Armistice Day’ in the US. Yearly we’d be reminded of this tribalistic calamity and inadvertently be made to ponder how our “great leaders” and “intellectuals” were utterly powerless to prevent the slaughters and were in fact their promoters. Unfortunately, on June 1, 1954, the Eisenhower administration renamed Armistice Day to the current Veterans Day.

Instead of thinking about the root fallacies leading to needless wars, we now praised young men for blindly taking orders to courageously and valiantly kill fellow human beings. In his classic essay “Patriotism” (1902) by the great Herbert Spencer, he describes how he once shocked a British general who was lamenting how British troops in Afghanistan were in danger when he told him: “When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.” This name change was a disastrous idea which may be inadvertently responsible for much of the militarism and warmongering that still plagues mankind.

My favorite short books about war are John V. Denson’s A Century of War: Lincoln, Wilson & Roosevelt and Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace by one of the greatest and most courageous historians of all time, Harry Elmer Barnes. Murray Rothbard’s tribute to Barnes is a must (textaudio). Also, see the Denson-compiled The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories. When it comes to WWI, check out In Quest of Truth and Justice: De-bunking the War Guilt Myth (1928) by Barnes, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (2014) by Christopher Clark, and Ralph Raico’s recorded presentation “The World at War” is a rite of passage for all intellectual freedom fighters.


MISES

The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, the Mises Institute seeks a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. The Mises Institute encourages critical historical research, and stands against political correctness.