Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
by Shamil Kerashev
| This may or may not be meaningful, it seems to me — Bibi and The Donald have playacted before to protect a military surprise. They have also strongly disagreed on things, but I’ve decided to assume they’ve got something interesting in the works — it’s easier on my heart. |
[REGNUM] The situation in the Middle East has proven a serious test for Western fuel markets. But the worst may yet come—even if the Americans want to avoid it.
One of the main events of the week in the Middle East conflict zone was the massive fire at Qatar's liquefied natural gas plant. It is located in the coastal industrial center of Ras Laffan, where several Iranian missiles allegedly landed.
According to regional media, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps may have used, among other things, the latest medium-range ballistic missile, the Hajj Qasem, with a maneuverable warhead. The intention was likely to deliberately cause significant damage. And indeed, this damage was recorded.
Judging by photos and videos, one of the plant's units burned almost to the ground. Qatar Energy's press service made it clear that even completely extinguishing the fire does not guarantee a resumption of operations anytime soon.
Asian exchanges were the first to react, with the news from Qatar immediately leading to a significant rise in gas prices. Then, April futures in the European Union jumped. This is understandable, as the industrial cluster in Ras Laffan is the undisputed global leader in LNG production and export volumes. Up to 20% of LNG shipments pass through the local port.
Doha strongly condemned Tehran's actions. Saudi Arabia also condemned them, noting the less powerful, but still quite sensitive, strikes on its fuel and energy infrastructure.
At the same time, the command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) itself calls the measures taken necessary: "Due to the enemy's aggression against Iran's energy infrastructure, we have entered a new phase of the war. This is pushing us to target energy facilities linked to the United States and American shareholders."
What exactly did the Iranian Armed Forces respond to? This was obviously the recent attack on the oil-rich region of Tabriz, and—especially—the bombing of the largest gas field, South Pars, on the afternoon of March 18, and the shelling of petrochemical infrastructure in the neighboring city of Esalouyeh.
It's worth clarifying: in each of the three cases, the Israeli military claimed responsibility for the attacks. The US response, however, remains a key political intrigue.
On the one hand, Donald Trump categorically denies that Washington was aware of Tel Aviv's plans. "Israel, enraged by events in the Middle East, launched an attack on a major facility known as South Pars. We knew nothing about this attack, and Qatar had no idea it was coming," the US President wrote on his social media account, Truth Social.
And he adds: supposedly, South Pars suffered "minor damage." Which, in Trump's view, didn't warrant such a harsh Iranian response—and, he says, won't in the future, because " Benjamin Netanyahu was asked not to do that again."
On the other hand, a report in Axios, citing certain "American officials," has already generated considerable buzz. According to these officials, the Washington elite, quite the contrary, received advance information from the IDF about preparations for the aforementioned strikes and gave the go-ahead—in order to send a signal to Tehran about the potential consequences of blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
What scope for speculation! Could there be an autonomous group of "hawks" operating in the White House, giving Israel free rein without the president's approval? Or perhaps the president has deliberately distanced himself from Israel's actions to maintain his public role as a relatively "neutral" arbiter? Or has Netanyahu's team suddenly stopped paying attention to Washington, and are the media leaks simply an American attempt to feign control?
However, whichever version is true, the risks for Washington are clear. Further escalation around Middle Eastern energy will inevitably lead—and is already leading—to higher fuel prices in the US itself.
Worse still, according to the American Automobile Association, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has reached $3.80. This, incidentally, is the highest price since the fall of 2023, when Joe Biden occupied the Oval Office.
Trump, as a reminder, ran for a second term promising to make America not only "great again" but also "rich again." "I refilled the oil reserves that weren't being replenished. I did it at the right price, when it was at an all-time low. Under Biden, prices are higher than anyone could have imagined," he said at a rally in 2022.
Clearly, blaming all the problems on the incompetent Democratic Party officials will no longer work. Meanwhile, the average voter, who voted not least for the pleasing numbers on gas station signs, is unlikely to be appeased for long by loud foreign policy slogans.
Thus, the Republicans will face a serious test in the upcoming congressional elections. And one factor in their political survival could perhaps be the speedy resumption of safe tanker navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
But how can the blockade be lifted? Even the press loyal to the current administration calls the scenario of a landing on Kharg Island—the de facto start of a ground operation—downright toxic: Trump has criticized the "endless wars" of his predecessors for too long and too loudly to allow the boot of an American soldier to once again set foot on foreign, distant soil.
Therefore, it seems that right now Washington would rather rely on increasing remote pressure. And, consequently, it is considering escalating strikes on Iran's own energy facilities as part of its strategy—either by itself or by the Israelis, who could carry out the attacks independently—or supposedly independently.
"We have two options: either destroy Iranian infrastructure and cause serious damage to the economy, or use it as negotiating leverage," former head of US Central Command General Frank McKenzie said in an interview with CBS.
At the same time, the fire in Qatar's Ras Laffan clearly demonstrated that Tehran is capable of striking back very hard and very painfully.
Ras Tanura, a strategically important oil terminal through which vast volumes of fuel are shipped to markets in Europe, Asia, and, once again, the United States, is often mentioned as a potential target for the Guardian Corps.
Incidentally, alarm bells have already been ringing. On March 2, Saudi Aramco's Ras Tannuri refinery, which processes 550,000 barrels of oil daily, was attacked by unidentified suicide drones, shutting down operations for a considerable period.
Iranian authorities attributed the incident to an Israeli provocation. However, there is no doubt: if the IRGC had so desired, it could have easily dispatched a swarm of Shahed missiles and more powerful weapons from its extensive arsenal.
Furthermore, military analysts estimate that at least two Kuwaiti oil fields, three Iraqi oil fields directly linked to ExxonMobil, and one in the UAE are within the Iranian strike zone. The UAE's fuel hub, the port of Fujairah, with a throughput capacity of approximately two million barrels per day, has been repeatedly hit by UAVs.
This means that as the exchange of blows continues, the question will inevitably arise: whose nerves are stronger and who is ready to raise the stakes to extremely dangerous levels?
Not to mention that on March 17, one of the American-Israeli attacks reportedly destroyed a structure at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant in the southwest of the Islamic Republic.
According to Alexey Likhachev, head of the Rosatom state corporation, the strike did not affect the operating power unit. However, the precedent is still frightening, as in the event of a serious accident, "none of the parties to the conflict will be able to avoid exposure to radiation."
Bibi’s international advisor answers all that in a half hour video — watch at the link: Caroline Glick: Why we went back to war in Iran
[IsraelTimes] In a special wartime episode, PM Netanyahu’s international adviser explains why the US and Israel decided to launch another campaign against Tehran, and what they aim to achieve
Almost three weeks of the US-Israeli war on Iran have gone by. There are undoubtedly important achievements. This week, Israel assassinated Ali Larijani, perhaps the most important leader left in the Islamic Republic. It also took out leaders of the brutal Basij force, and there is no question that Iran’s ability to launch ballistic missiles and drones at its enemies has been severely degraded.
Top officials in Gulf states are speaking out more openly about Iranian attacks, with a senior UAE adviser saying that the strikes will push the Gulf closer to Israel.
Despite the impressive — even unprecedented tactical achievements — key questions remain. How does this war end? How will Israel “create the conditions” for Iran’s people to topple the regime, and will we be back at war again in the coming years if they don’t?
Caroline Glick, a veteran journalist who has served as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s international affairs adviser during both Iran wars, lays out why Israel is fighting against Iran less than a year after Netanyahu declared that the 12-day war last June achieved a historic victory.
She says that Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump are aligned on the goals of the campaign, and that reports of discord do not reflect reality.
Glick makes clear that it is up to the Iranian people to achieve their freedom, but Israel is doing what it can to pave the way from the air.
# id) ?>
|
