Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Friday, June 5, 2026
[Salon] Fwd: From Ha'aretz: 'We Were Ordered to Kill': The 1967 Nakba That Israelis Don't Know About - Israel Security
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-06-04/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/we-were-ordered-to-kill-the-1967-nakba-that-israelis-dont-know-about/0000019e-93c7-d0a9-a7df-b3df1c6a0000?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=author-alert&utm_campaign=Adam+Raz&utm_term=20260604-23:29
>
> 'We Were Ordered to Kill': The 1967 Nakba That Israelis Don't Know About - Israel Security
Thursday, June 4, 2026
[Salon] Oil and a case of cognitive dissonance - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Oil and a case of cognitive dissonance
Summary: put to one side prospects for an Iran/US deal. Deal or no the world now faces an imminent and unavoidable severe energy ‘crunch’. The big ‘unknowns’ are when exactly it will hit, how high the oil price will go and how long it will be before it reverts to something like ‘normal.'
We thank our regular contributor Alastair Newton for today’s newsletter. Alastair worked as a professional political analyst in the City of London from 2005 to 2015. Before that he spent 20 years as a career diplomat with the British Diplomatic Service. In 2015 he co-founded and is a director of Alavan Business Advisory Ltd. You can find Alastair’s latest AD podcast (with Jim Krane) here.
The buffers and the shock absorbers are being steadily drawn down, and the ability for the market to absorb this imbalance is drastically diminished today versus where we started.
Mike Wirth, CEO Chevron, 28 May 2026
With Brent crude seemingly range-bound between US$ 90 and US$ 100 per barrel (pb) for almost two weeks now, it would be easy to conclude that either the doom-mongers have got it completely wrong or that investors remain in total denial. However, this is far from being the case. What we are actually seeing is no more than a reflection of how futures markets work — or, if you prefer, do not work! — as I outlined in the 23 April Newsletter. In short, as the FT’s Jonathan Vincent and Malcolm Moore wrote on 15 May, commodities markets are not a “crystal ball.”
The fact is that investors understand fully that a further sharp rise in the price of crude oil is both imminent and unavoidable, even in the still seemingly unlikely events of:
a) Donald Trump’s latest assertion that Iran and the US could finalise a deal “over next week” coming to pass; and,
b) ’Normal’ traffic through the Strait of Hormuz resuming immediately.
Indeed, if the recent dropping of claims by the US Administration that gasoline prices would fall sharply as soon as a deal is reached and Mr Trump’s (totally bogus) claim that voters care more about stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon than they do about their pocketbooks are anything to go by, this stark reality seems finally to have been grasped even in the White House.
Despite Brent crude temporarily stabilising between $90 and $100 per barrel, experts warn that an imminent price spike to at least $150 is unavoidable due to record-breaking depletion of global inventories and strategic reserves.
So — and acknowledging that a 30 April article in The Economist was correct to assert that “markets have a poor record of pricing geopolitical risk” — why are we seeing here such an apparently blatant case of cognitive dissonance? Putting to one side Mr Trump’s repeated — and very largely unsubstantiated — efforts to talk down the price of oil, there are three major ‘real world’ factors in play here.
First, no-one knows exactly when the “future price spikes” of which the authoritative International Energy Agency (IEA) warned in its 13 May 'Oil Markets Report' will occur. As Chevron’s Mike Wirth (quoted above) went on to say at Bernstein’s 28 May conference:
Over the next few weeks, we’re likely to see those pressures flow through more directly to physical prices and there’s more upwards pressure that I would expect as we get into June and certainly into July.
Underpinning this is the fact that global oil consumption has been running at about six million barrels per day (bpd) above production since 28 February according to the IEA (with some experts putting it higher still) — i.e. as Malcolm Moore et al put it for the FT on 17 May: "Since the outbreak of the conflict, the world has been existing beyond its energy means."
To fuel this:
a) Governments in developed countries in particular have been releasing about 2mbpd from strategic reserves, a rate which is unsustainable beyond the end of next month at the latest; and,
b) Oil companies, traders and refineries have already released the majority of their inventories (totalling around three billion barrels globally in late February) into the system and are now rapidly reaching the point where they must hold on to what they have remaining in order to avoid damaging vital oil-related infrastructure.
Second, even in the event of ‘peace’ breaking out in the Gulf no-one can be sure how long it will take for exports of oil (and gas) from the region to revert to something like the status quo ante. However, it is worth noting that Adnoc Chief Executive, Sultan al-Jaber, warned on 21 May “It will take at least four months to get back to 80 per cent of pre-conflict flows and full flows will not return before the first or even second quarter of 2027.”
Third, the impact on future demand of emergency measures in around 80 mainly developing countries so far (according to the IEA) and of rising fuel prices in developed countries remains to be seen as (again quoting Malcolm Moore et al):
Demand for air conditioning and holiday travel at the start of the northern hemisphere’s summer will put further strain on supplies of crude oil, gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, when global stocks are already falling at the fastest rate on record.
Nevertheless, what does seem certain is that more emergency measures (e.g. fuel rationing) and still higher prices at the pump etc. are irrevocably in the proverbial pipeline.
Pull all this together (and putting to one side a propensity for headline-grabbing hyperbole among some analysts) and it is hardly surprising that expert opinion is now leaning increasingly firmly towards a minimum, but still record-breaking, oil price of US$ 150pb (i.e. more or less double the pre-war price) to restore supply/demand equilibrium, with some considering — “very seriously” in the case of Aberdeen’s chief economist, Paul Diggle — possible spikes of up to US$ 180pb.
While prices even at the lower end of this range are bound to lead to a sharp fall in demand which would ultimately help to bring prices down again, it is worth bearing in mind too that any easing is likely to be moderated by the urgent need for both governments and the private sector to replenish reserves in preparation for the (inevitable) next crisis.
All this being said — and even though we are approaching mid-year when I habitually review my oil price prediction for 31 December — I am still very disinclined to make a (revised) firm forecast for year-end. But I am willing to put it on the record that I am really struggling to imagine a price as low as the US$ 80-90pb range which the market is currently favouring and which is, indeed, a case of cognitive dissonance!
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for Trinity Sunday - Guest Post
In 1985, a movie titled “Clue” was released. Based on the classic board game, it blends comedy with a murder mystery theme, keeping audiences guessing “who done it” until the very end. Only in the final moments is the truth revealed, and everything suddenly makes sense.
Mysteries can be puzzling; even frustrating at times. Yet when they are finally understood, there is a deep sense of satisfaction and joy.
Today, we celebrate the greatest mystery of all: the divine mystery of the Holy Trinity. We profess that there is one God in three Persons: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a truth that stretches beyond the limits of human understanding.
Each Person is fully God, yet they are distinct and different. It can seem impossible to grasp, like a mystery that cannot ever be fully solved or explained.
Over the centuries, people have tried to explore this mystery through simple images. St. Patrick famously used the shamrock, with its three leaves forming one plant. Others have compared the Holy Trinity to an apple. There are three layers – the skin, the flesh and the core – yet it is still only one apple.
Some have compared the Holy Trinity to water, which exists as solid, liquid and vapor. While helpful, these images only point toward the mystery; they cannot fully contain it.
Scripture, however, reveals that God truly lives and works as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. At Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan River, we see all three Persons present: the Son standing in the water, the Father’s voice heard from Heaven and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove.
In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells us, “I and the Father are one,” and promises the coming of the Spirit. And in the Great Commission, He sends His disciples to baptize new followers “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
St. Paul echoes this mystery in his blessing to the Corinthians: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” It is a blessing we still hear at the start of every Mass.
So, my friends, what are we to make of this mystery?
We may never fully understand the Trinity, but faith invites us to trust in what we cannot completely explain. As St. Augustine reminds us, “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”
In a way, our lives are like that unfolding mystery in “Clue.” We search, we question, we try to make sense of what we see. And perhaps, in the end – when we stand before the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – everything will be revealed. Everything will become clear and the mystery will open the way to perfect understanding.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, June 2, 2026
[Salon] Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Türkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia - Guest Post
7:52 PM (16 minutes ago)
to salon@listserve.com
https://x.com/MofaQatar_EN/status/2061840842545885574?s=20
Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Türkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia
Doha | June 2, 2026
The Foreign Ministers of the State of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic of Türkiye, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia condemn in the strongest terms the continued incursions by extremist Israeli settlers, into Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif under the protection of the Israeli forces, as well as the raising of the Israeli flag within its courtyards.
They stress that these provocative and unacceptable actions constitute a flagrant violation of international law, the relevant United Nations resolutions, and the historical and legal status quo at the holy sites in occupied East Jerusalem.
The Foreign Ministers further condemn the continued and systematic violations and measures carried out by Israel, the occupying Power, aimed at altering the historical, legal, and demographic character of occupied East Jerusalem and undermining the sanctity and status of its Islamic and Christian holy sites.
They reaffirm their categorical rejection of any attempts to alter the historical and legal status quo in Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian holy sites, and stress on its preservation while recognizing the special role of the historical Hashemite custodianship in this regard. The Ministers reiterate that the entire area of Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al Haram Sharif, which amounts to 144 dunams, is a place of worship exclusively for Muslims, and that the Jerusalem Endowments and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department, affiliated with the Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, is the legal entity with exclusive jurisdiction to administer the affairs of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif and to regulate entry thereto.
The Foreign Ministers hold Israeli authorities responsible for halting these escalatory actions and warn that repeated Israeli violations exacerbate tensions, fuel instability and extremism, undermine international efforts to achieve peace, and constitute a clear breach of Israel’s obligations under international law. They call for an immediate cessation of all such Israeli illegal and provocative practices and reaffirm the need to respect the historical and legal status quo at Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif in its entirety.
The Foreign Ministers reaffirm their unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people and their steadfast support for the realization of their legitimate and inalienable national rights, foremost among them their right to self-determination and the realization of an independent and sovereign Palestinian State on the 1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital. They further reaffirm their support for all efforts aimed at ending the Israeli occupation and achieving a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace based on the two-State solution in accordance with international law, the relevant United Nations resolutions, and the Arab Peace Initiative.
Image
--
Salon mailing list
Monday, June 1, 2026
[Salon] Abu Dhabi bets on a new Syria - ArabDigest.org. Guest Post
Abu Dhabi bets on a new Syria
Summary: the UAE is moving briskly to entrench its presence in civil-war battered Syria but progress on that front can only move forward if its Abraham Accords partner Israel is pressured to end efforts to destabilise the regime of President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
We thank a regional contributor for today’s newsletter.
This past spring, as Iranian ballistic missiles and drones rained down on the United Arab Emirates, it was Israel’s Iron Dome batteries that helped shoot down the majority of them. Only weeks later, a large Emirati business delegation was in Damascus signing investment agreements worth potentially US$18 billion. The two facts are not unrelated.
The first Syrian-Emirati Investment Forum was held in Damascus on 12 May; speaking at the forum UAE Minister of State for Foreign Trade Thani Al Zeyoudi announced that non-oil trade between the two countries had reached a record US$1.4 billion in 2025, more than doubling year-on-year. Mohamed Alabbar, the founder of Emaar Properties, a real estate development company, detailed plans to assess projects in tourism and infrastructure along the Syrian coast worth between US$5–7 billion and up to US$11 billion in Damascus and its surroundings. This highlights Abu Dhabi’s infrastructure-led engagement to move to develop a strategic foothold in the country.
In Afghanistan, Egypt and elsewhere, the UAE has turned investments in infrastructure and logistics into regional influence. Earlier, in July 2025, DP World, part of a larger Emirati investment company, had committed US$800 million to expand Syria’s Tartus port, one of the first major investment agreements signed by Syria's new president Ahmed al-Sharaa, who had led Sunni Islamist militias in overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. The timing of the deal came shortly after US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to waive sanctions. This decision also led to Russia losing its earlier contract, which had been granted by Assad in 2019 to modernise and manage the Tartus port.
Alongside the economic announcements in May of this year, Sheikha Fatima bint Mubarak, the mother of UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, said she would sponsor the renovation of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and the historic districts surrounding it. For a state with a staunchly anti-Islamist regional posture, the UAE’s message to restore the mosque in Damascus is a signal that Abu Dhabi is being pragmatic in competing for lasting influence in Syria among other regional powers including Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
The UAE announcement of restoration of the Umayyad Mosque came during a visit by Noura bint Mohammed Al Kaabi, Minister of State, to Damascus.
The UAE's posture toward Syria has been circuitous to say the least. Early in the Syrian conflict, Abu Dhabi backed the opposition, before gradually re-engaging with Assad, eventually becoming the principal Arab advocate for Assad’s return to the Arab League. Following Ahmed al-Sharaa’s lightning offensive to take control of the country, the UAE was initially wary of the new leadership.
However, after the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran, and Tehran’s retaliation on the Arab Gulf states - with the UAE being hit harder than the others and even harder than Israel - the Emirati officials now increasingly view Syria as a strategic Arab ally, especially as Damascus tries to simultaneously deepen ties with the Arab Gulf and dismantle Iran’s military and economic influence. A series of high-level Syrian-Emirati meetings, including between the two heads of states in April, reflects the improving diplomatic atmosphere.
More structurally, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created an acute vulnerability in the Arab Gulf’s energy logistics. Syria's coastline offers an alternative energy route. Iraq has already begun routing exports to European markets through Syria and the UAE wants to be involved in Syria’s role as a pipeline for oil, gas and other commodities.
A separate yet related layer to Emirati motivations is Israel’s military support in the wake of Iran’s attacks in the region. In an unprecedented move, Israel deployed one of its advanced Iron Dome batteries as well as troops to help destroy rockets and drones. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even announced that he secretly traveled to the UAE. Emirati gratitude will surely have geopolitical consequences. The UAE-Israel relationship, which was already the deepest of any Abraham Accords partnership, has emerged from the ongoing war considerably strengthened at precisely the moment when American engagement in the region is retrenching.
Since the start of this year, the US has mediated talks between Israel and Syria to try to reduce tensions. The UAE, with its unique position with Israel and growing influence in Syria will be well placed to help facilitate dialogue. However, the UAE’s economic stakes hinges on Israel actually curbing its efforts to destabilise Syria a task which has proven to be difficult to say the least.
Against this backdrop, regional competitors including Türkiye, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will also attempt to compete with what the UAE can give to Damascus right now. Ankara, though it has deep political and military influence in Syria, is economically overstretched due to the precipitous rise in Brent crude. It is not in a position currently to bankroll large-scale reconstruction in Syria. Much of Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s support to Syria has involved debt relief and Riyadh’s financial pledges have been slow to materialise. But Abu Dhabi, with financial liquidity and close ties to Israel, can move with agility to deepen its political leverage with Damascus through direct investment and its port management expertise.
Still the Syrian government’s authority remains fragile with reconstruction not yet underway. Israel with troops on the ground south of Damascus and close links to elements of the Syrian Druze remain a threat to the country’s stability. Given the urgent necessity for improved and sustained security in Syria Abu Dhabi must follow-through on the financial pledges made at the May investment forum and press Israel— directly and through the United States—to halt efforts that undermine the al-Sharaa government. If successful, the UAE’s strategic gamble could provide a lifeline for a country seeking to reshape its own future while entrenching Emirati influence in Syria and seeing off regional rivals.
DD Geopolitics on X: "🇦🇱 ALBANIA MARCHES AGAINST KUSHNER-TRUMP RESORT Thousands of Albanians took to the streets in a peaceful demonstration opposing the $1.4 billion luxury resort development linked to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner on the country's southern coast. Kushner and Ivanka Trump's https://t.co/pcbb9TjXmm" / X
Sunday, May 31, 2026
Empathy for Palestine
Empathy for Palestine
The True Story of the Creation of Israel exposes that lie not through Palestinian or international testimony, but through the words of Israeli leaders themselves: their personal diaries, the IDF archives, and the testimonies of their own soldiers and commanders.
[Salon] Europe’s Post-American Security Future Is Now - Guest Post
Europe’s Post-American Security Future Is Now
Ulrike FrankeMay 27, 2026
Danish forces participate in a NATO exercise, in Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, Sept. 17, 2025. (AP photo by Ebrahim Noroozi)
There has been warning shot after warning shot since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, and so many “wake-up calls” that European policymakers’ ears have been ringing constantly. But until last week, the changes in the Trump administration’s approach to the trans-Atlantic alliance remained mostly rhetorical, limited to impolite speeches, hostile strategy documents and threats to annex Greenland that Trump subsequently climbed down from.
Now, European NATO members have finally been confronted in concrete terms with what defending the continent will look like without full buy-in from America.
According to a report from the German news magazine Der Spiegel, an envoy of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met with high-ranking officials from other NATO member states in Brussels on Friday to discuss changes to the alliance’s Force Model. The framework, by which each of the allies designates the components of their national forces available to NATO’s commanding officer in peacetime as well as those available in case of an attack, is crucial to the alliance’s ability to effectively respond to a crisis or conflict.
The current Force Model was agreed upon at NATO’s Madrid summit in 2022 as a response to the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At Friday’s meeting, Der Spiegel reported, the U.S. envoy informed the allies that Washington will be significantly reducing its contributions of key military capabilities moving forward.
It is no secret that the Trump administration has been looking to reduce its commitments to European security generally and to NATO specifically. Trump has been critical of NATO from the very beginning of his first term in 2017, and commentators have been noting the need for Europeans to defend themselves without having to rely on the U.S. for years. But the message passed along in Brussels was considerably more drastic than the Europeans had anticipated and called into question NATO’s entire organization of European defense.
According to Der Spiegel, Washington intends to significantly cut its contributions to NATO of strategic bombers, refueling aircraft and fighter jets. It will also provide fewer destroyers and no longer contribute any submarines to NATO’s naval forces. The U.S. intends to significantly reduce the number of armed drones it provides, and European NATO members will be responsible for contributing all unarmed reconnaissance drones. And according to a correspondent for the Polish news outlet TVP World, the U.S. is also planning to halve its deep-strike capabilities in Europe.
The exact details of America’s future contributions are of course classified, but the reported information already points to important gaps in NATO’s future force structure. For example, Europeans don’t have many of the large surveillance drones the U.S. no longer wants to provide. They rely on America for these and other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities—what defense analysts call “strategic enablers.”
After years when the main uncertainty introduced by Trump was on the political level, we are now seeing a real impact on the working level of military capabilities.
As a result, the planned changes go far beyond recent discussions regarding U.S. troop reductions in Germany and Poland, and outweigh the strategic implications of Washington’s recently announced decision to abandon planned deployments of long-range strike capabilities in Germany. If these changes are indeed implemented, they represent a fundamental challenge for NATO, calling into question the alliance’s model for European defense.
Because it has no standing army of its own, NATO works by organizing the member state capabilities at its disposal to maintain a credible deterrence and defense posture. Its regional defense plans, which detail the steps and resources needed to protect specific regions from attack, are based on—and depend on—the forces provided by member states. With the U.S. now cutting its contributions so substantially, all of these plans must be re-examined from top to bottom.
The only element of its current European security posture the U.S. is apparently not planning to reduce is nuclear deterrence. The U.S. will continue to provide NATO’s “nuclear umbrella” through the alliance’s nuclear-sharing system, by which U.S. airborne nuclear weapons are currently stationed in five European NATO member states and can be delivered using aircraft from those states’ forces. Despite these assurances, several NATO members are slowly beginning to look for a European alternative for nuclear deterrence, namely France.
The announced changes to the U.S. force posture in Europe are drastic. After years when the main uncertainty introduced by Trump was on the political level—calling into question Washington’s support for NATO and the U.S. determination to act in the event of a threat to European security—we are now seeing a real impact on the working level of military capabilities.
The uncertainty is compounded by the changing messages out of Washington. Just a few months ago, at the Munich Security Conference in February, multiple U.S. and NATO representatives assured me and other European security analysts in attendance that “NATO was stronger than ever,” because despite political squabbles, the underlying military foundation was not only sound but more solid than it had been in years. It is now clear that this is simply not the case.
For Europe, the only possible response can and must be to do even more for its own defense. The challenge, however, is that European NATO allies are reaching the limits of what they can do, as hundreds of billions of euros in increased defense spending are already being invested amid difficult economic contexts.
The big question regarding U.S. commitments moving forward will be the timeline on which the changes will be made—assuming that the Trump administration does indeed follow through with these plans. Given the administration’s erratic decision-making to date, with some troop reductions reversed just days after their announcement, some observers might suspect this too is just a scare tactic to put even more pressure on and extract further concessions from European allies.
But the reports filtering out of Friday’s meeting have given Europeans a glimpse of what it will mean to be “home alone” when it comes to defending themselves, and it is not pretty. This is a warning they cannot afford to ignore.
Ulrike Franke is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, based in Paris. She focuses on German and European security and defense, the future of warfare and the impact of new technologies such as drones and artificial intelligence. Her bi-weekly WPR column appears every other Wednesday.
Saturday, May 30, 2026
Friday, May 29, 2026
[Salon] Oman makes economic gains - ArabDigest.org Guest post
Oman makes economic gains
Summary: Oman found itself the target of Donald Trump’s threats but the Gulf state which worked hard to prevent the war is, unlike its GCC neighbours, seeing economic benefits.
Oman made the news yesterday though not in a way that could cause anything but deep offence to the Omanis and their prime minister Sultan Haitham bin Tariq. Donald Trump at a cabinet meeting and in response to a journalist’s question about whether he would accept a short-term deal that would see Oman and Iran jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz replied:
"No, the Strait is going to be open to everybody …It’s international waters, and Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we'll have to blow them up. They understand that, they'll be fine.”
On CNN the neoconservative critic Robert Kagan, admittedly no fan of Donald Trump, was blunt when asked what he thought. “Shocking” was how he put it while making the point that this and recent US ‘defensive’ strikes were “an effort to disguise the fact that we have basically lost this war…the Iranians are not afraid of the war starting up again.” Kagan went on to say that just as Trump was shedding America’s traditional allies at speed Israel too was showing “reckless disregard for its Gulf allies.”
Like other Trump pronunciamentos though it has real world consequences the statement itself has no grounding in the real world. America is not going to blow up Oman and Sultan Haitham and his government will continue to pragmatically pursue what is in Oman’s best interests. That includes conversations with Tehran about how best to resolve the Strait of Hormuz blockade.
Despite the US-Israeli war disrupting a near-final peace deal brokered by Muscat, Oman’s strategic geography and neutrality have successfully shielded it from regional strikes, turning a projected budget deficit into a healthy surplus.
What America and Israel did blow out of the water was the peace deal that the Omanis were close to delivering when the 28 February war was launched. Oman’s foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said in late March that the US and Iran were “on the verge of a real deal.” Albusaidi writing in The Economist added that “the US had lost control of its foreign policy” and had been lured into the war by Israel:
The American administration’s greatest miscalculation, of course, was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place….This is not America’s war, and there is no likely scenario in which both Israel and America will get what they want from it.
Oman, of all the Gulf states, worked most prodigiously and publicly to stop the conflict from happening. In one of those curious anomalies of war it has experienced an economic boost. In part that is down to geography. Though not a big global energy supplier it doesn’t need the Strait of Hormuz to get its oil to world markets.
It has helped too that thanks to long established economic, military and diplomatic ties with Iran Oman was the Gulf state least targeted while its neighbours the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain were hit and some heavily by drone and missile strikes, particularly the UAE which sustained more attacks than even Israel.
Iran by striking back when hit by the US (as recently as yesterday targeting Kuwait) has deeply damaged the GCC’s hitherto seemingly unassailable security and stability nexus. But here too Oman has benefitted as the one GCC state least likely to be under threat should the war kick off again. That’s being taken on board by foreign investors in the energy sector. Seizing the moment, in April the Ministry of Energy and Minerals put five new oil and gas concessions up for bids.
Where Oman has seen the biggest win is in the price of oil which has gone from US$70 a barrel to over US$100. Though delayed somewhat by monthly futures contracts the additional revenue is now flowing into Oman’s coffers.
As Sabah Naoush notes in an excellent analysis piece for Gulf House:
In May Omani crude prices surged to $124.4 per barrel, exceeding average Brent prices. Under the same formula, May revenues reached approximately $3.301 billion, representing an increase of 89 percent compared with April. In June 2026, Omani crude prices are expected to average $104.7 per barrel, generating revenues of approximately $2.688 billion. In July 2026, prices are projected to reach $106 per barrel, producing revenues estimated at $2.812 billion.
What that means is that a projected deficit has now flipped into a healthy surplus: “from a deficit of 530 million rials to a surplus of approximately 936 million rials.”
Naoush cautions that the war has occasioned heavier than anticipated expenditure on Oman’s military. Still surplus in hand Oman can now pursue its goals of increased FDI and further development of its energy infrastructure. Given its geography - and once the war has ended - the opportunities for Oman to become an energy hub and to deliver the ultimate goal of a diversified economy are now more achievable than they were when Trump and Netanyahu launched their war.
As with other of America’s once friends and allies Trump’s bullying and insults have served to spur Oman on in the drive to ignite the latent strength of middle powers that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney referenced in his Davos speech. It is an appropriate response to what Robert Kagan calls the behaviour of “an aggressive, imperialist rogue superpower …grabbing land, grabbing oil, grabbing money.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)