Israel Loses Secretive Oil Pipeline Case To Iran, Ordered To Pay $1.1 Billion Plus Interest


Israel Loses Secretive Oil Pipeline Case To Iran, Ordered To Pay $1.1 Billion Plus Interest

By: Tim Daiss , CONTRIBUTOR

The Swiss Federal Tribunal, Switzerland’s highest court, ordered Israel to pay $1.1 billion plus interest to Iran in a decades old dispute over a secretive oil pipeline predating Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution. The verdict was dated June 27, while media broke the story late last week.

Until the Islamic revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. In fact, after the Six-Day War (1967 Arab-Israeli War), Iran supplied a large part of Israel’s oil demand while Israel returned the favor.

When Egypt blocked the Suez Canal, making Iranian oil transport impossible to Europe by tanker, Israel allowed Iranian oil to be shipped 158 miles (254 km) to the Mediterranean Sea via the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline where it could unload at Eilat, a Red Sea port, then delivered to European markets.

The pipeline was a project of the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC), an Israeli-Iranian joint venture set up in 1968. The joint venture pipeline was operational for a decade though it never reached maximum capacity of handling 60 million tons of crude per year.

According to the EAPC corporate website, the pipeline system serves as a land bridge for transporting crude oil from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean and vice versa. The crude oil pipeline system consists of three separate pipelines.

After the fall of the Shah of Iran, however, Israel and Iran became the region’s most stringent antagonists and bitter enemies. In the ensuing years, EAPC grew into a large energy company with considerable assets, now mostly handling oil from former Soviet states. EAPC is the largest oil distributor in Israel and is closely controlled by the Israeli government.

Iran first pursued the arbitration case in 1994 in France, then in Switzerland, demanding its share of the company’s revenues and assets that remained in Israel.

Israeli media said that Iran had tried for years to recoup its disputed assets from EAPC, despite decades of refusing to recognize Israel.

Israel Haymon News said that it remains unclear whether Israel will pay up, given its laws restricting “trading with the enemy.” Lawyers from both countries have failed to comment on the verdict.

Digging deeper

“We should not forget that Nasser [Egypt’s president at the time] was totally aware of the impact of his action on the economy of Iran,” Reza Yeganehshakib, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Fullerton College and a geopolitical and energy analyst told me on Monday.

“He never had amicable feelings towards Persians. Perhaps if not the very first person, he was the first Arab leader that opposed the term Persian Gulf and attributed it to the Arabs,” Yeganehshakib said.

“Even after the six-day war, Iran continued using the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline because Nasser could not be trusted, while it was also a cooperation ground for Shah with Israel. While publicly opposing Israel’s boycott, the Shah was always in favor of peace between Egypt and Israel.”

Yeganehshakib cited a February 19, 1975 report where the Shah assured Israel that if they gave the Sinai back to Egypt, Iran would supply Israel with the oil they would lose from the Abu Rudeis oil fields in the Sinai.

Since last year, Iran has emerged from Western sanctions placed on its energy sector due to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and is currently battling Saudi Arabia for oil market share both in Europe and Asia.

The Obama Legacy Part VI: The Destruction of Libya and the US military Invasion of Africa


The Obama Legacy Part VI: The Destruction of Libya and the US military Invasion of Africa

 

by Danny Haiphong

In his two terms in office, President Obama has put nearly the whole of Africa under U.S. military sway. He was the first U.S. president to bomb an African country — Libya, whose “nationalized oil reserves and plans to use gold as the chief reserve currency in Africa threatened US capitalist penetration in Africa.” Obama rewrote international law, invoking “Responsibility to Protect” as “justification for the destruction of sovereign nations.”

“With the Libyan state destroyed, the US has been able to further expand militarily all over the continent.”

Endless war has been a staple of the Obama era. The first Black President’s imperialist record is so expansive that it could not possibly be fit into a singular piece on his legacy. Obama’s endless military incursions in Africa have been the least covered area of US foreign policy in the corporate media. From the outset of his selection in 2008, President Obama quietly militarized the African continent without the knowledge or consultation of the vast majority of the US population. In 2011, Obama’s policy of militarization exploded into full-scale war on the nation of Libya.

The US imperial campaign against Libya marked a watershed moment in the Obama legacy. The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi by way of US-NATO sorties and jihadists made Obama the first Black President to bomb an African country. In addition, Obama became the first President to invoke the so-called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine as a justification for what he called a “humanitarian intervention.” The Obama war doctrine rewrote the rules of war in the realm of international law.Humanitarian intervention” and the “Responsibility to Protect” provided a more effective justification for the destruction of sovereign nations.

“Obama became the first President to invoke the so-called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine as a justification for what he called a ‘humanitarian intervention.’”

Obama’s promotion of racist, colonialist lies about Libya helped muster public support to destabilize the most prosperous nation on the continent. According to President Obama and the corporate media, Gaddafi was a genocidal butcher of his own people. So-called mercenaries loyal to Gaddafi were accused of committing genocide against “peaceful” protesters. The “Libyan Revolution” was thrown into the so-called Arab Spring against brutal tyrants in North Africa. Mythological tales of Gaddafi’s loyalists using Viagra to rape women and children were run around the clock by the corporate media and its masters in Washington.

What actually occurred in Libya was US-NATO sponsored genocide. Obama received plenty of help from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which provided jihadist mercenaries with the necessary financial and military aid to wage war on Libya. Black Libyans were brutally lynched by jihadist mercenaries in Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte. Over 30,000 US-NATO bombs were dropped on Libya over the course of the six-month military invasion that began in March of 2011. Tens of thousands of Libyans died and the Libyan state was effectively dissolved.

When Gaddafi was illegally murdered by jihadists in October of 2011, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cackled “we came, we saw, he died” in an interview with the corporate press. The imperial hubris of Secretary Clinton was completely supported by Obama. Not only did he destroy Libya, but also later in 2016 described the aftermath of the intervention as a “mistake.” Yet leaked emails from the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s server scandal have proven that the war against Libya was waged for economic and geopolitical reasons. Libya’s nationalized oil reserves and plans to use gold as the chief reserve currency in Africa threatened US capitalist penetration in Africa. So Obama led the charge to destroy this effort by sending Libya into a state of never ending chaos.

“AFRICOM has locked African nations into military subservience.”

Today, Libya remains in the control of terrorists. The Libya prior to 2011 that possessed free healthcare, education, and numerous subsidies to support the wellbeing of the Libyan people no longer exists. Libya’s role in supporting African liberation in South Africa, Namibia, and Angola has been, for now, relegated to the history books. Libya once was a proud state that rejected US military presence on the continent, seeing it as an obstacle to Pan-African unity. With the Libyan state destroyed, the US has been able to further expand militarily all over the continent.

And it has been President Obama, not George W. Bush, who has presided over the rapid neo-colonization of Africa through military means. Under Obama, the US African Command (AFRICOM) has penetrated every African country but Zimbabwe and Eritrea. AFRICOM has locked African nations into military subservience. In 2014, the US conducted 674 military operations in Africa. According to a recent Freedom of Information Act request by Intercept, the US currently has Special Forces deployed in more than twenty African nations. US imperialism supposedly sees “enemies” everywhere in the form of jihadist groups. Yet it was the US-NATO alliance that empowered the spread of jihadists throughout Africa by arming them to destroy Libya.

“The US currently has Special Forces deployed in more than twenty African nations.”

The US has fueled instability in Africa as the primary means to undermine Chinese investment in the resource-rich continent. In 2013, China’s investment in Africa was estimated to total 200 billion USD. Nations such as oil rich Nigeria and mineral rich Democratic Republic of Congo have found Chinese investment to be far more mutually beneficial than trade with US multinational corporations. This has threatened the capitalist class in control of the US imperialist system. When Obama was elected, he made it a point to subvert China with the only weapon left in its arsenal: military force.

However, China is a rising global power and the US is not. US imperialism is in crisis and its military policy in Africa is a reflection of decline. The militarization of Africa led by Obama has done nothing but spread chaos from North to South, East to West. China still leads the US by tens of billions of US dollars per year in terms of real investment in Africa. And the regional catastrophes that Obama’s Africa policy has created are not going away. The rise of Boko Haram and the international jihadist terrorist network threatens to make the continent ungovernable. This may not be what US corporations want, but its all US policy is going to give.

“Nations such as oil rich Nigeria and mineral rich Democratic Republic of Congo have found Chinese investment to be far more mutually beneficial than trade with US multinational corporations.”

President Obama’s staunch support for the US military takeover of Africa has not stopped him from claiming identification with African people. However, Obama’s identification with Africa has not stopped him from condemning the continent for homophobia or chastising African nations to forget about colonialism. Obama has yet to condemn Rwanda and Uganda for its support of proxies that have murdered over 6 million in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1996. The Obama legacy in Africa should thus be characterized as the highest stage of hypocrisy. Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 only to intensify African dependency on US imperialism, especially militarily.

The struggle for African liberation will continue long after Obama is out of the White House. His Africa policy will serve as the largest obstacle to efforts to rid the continent of neo-colonialism once and for all. The US military network currently operating in nearly every Africa country serves the purpose of arresting the ongoing process of self-determination. Solidarity efforts in the US mainland must recognize that the fate of Africa will determine the course of struggle worldwide. Obama expanded the US military state’s footprint in Africa. Africa’s liberation thus means the rejection of everything he has stood for.

Could This Be The Reason Why Ambassador Stevens Was Murdered?


Could This Be The Reason Why Ambassador Stevens Was Murdered?

I just read an article about Hillary Clinton while she was a Secretary of State she was also the director of the French company Lafarge, which was handling the US’s secret mission in Syria that aimed to topple the government of President Assad.

According to Assange from Wikileaks Clinton took $100k cash from & was director of company that gave money to ISIS http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/29/paris-strikes-astonishing-partnership-secret-isis-sponsor-ties-hillary-clinton/ … docs: https://search.wikileaks.org/?

In her hacked emails there are plenty of proof that she has orchestrated everything from the shipping arms from Libya to Syria and also it confirms that Clinton dismissed the reluctance of Pentagon officials to overthrow Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, while they had also predicted the possible outcome of the war in Libya, that we are witnessing today.

So we come back to the Ambassador Stevens, he must have known that Hillary Clinton had partnered with “Lafarge” which was arming Isis and realised that everything eventually will come out (Libyan ship seized in Turkey with a full load of arms) and he (Stevens) will be the scapegoat charged and indicted for treason. When Stevens understood the whole concept I am sure he spoke with Hillary Clinton and the (then Advisor of Obama) now Head of the CIA John Bremman who was responsible for all blackops. Both were not very happy about that and especially that Stevens vowed to expose them… Just think about it for a minute… it makes sense.. Bremman being an expert in Blackops and Hillary being a conniving egotistical expert in murdering people and making it look like an accident.. Both were the perfect match in heaven so easy to get rid of one person who is spoiling their business in earning millions…. And how dare Stevens wants to expose them?

Yes you could chuck it to a conspiracy theory but is it? Just think go back in 2012 Petraeus was kicked out from the CIA so that he wouldn’t testify, Hillary and her staff although they testified at the senate but lied through their teeth, how do we know that through her hacked emails. I could go to more details but if you read on the pages of “Benghazigate” you will find all the information there. You don’t need to hack in the emails its in-front of you if you really want  to know the why and how.

US Terror-Bombs Libya on the Phony Pretext of Combating ISIS It Supports


US Terror-Bombs Libya on the Phony Pretext of Combating ISIS It Supports

by Stephen Lendman

Has Libya 2.0 begun? Will weeks or months of terror-bombing continue to solidify control over a nation Washington wants as an unchallenged client state?

Law Professor Francis Boyle emailed the following: “Congress goes on vacation in August. So predictably (Obama) uses its absence as an occasion to start a new war in violation of the United Nations Charter, the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the US War Powers Resolution of 1973.”

Bombing Libya or any other country without Security Council authorization is naked aggression plain and simple. There’s no getting around it.

Pretexts don’t wash. Libya has no legitimate ruling authority, US-installed puppet governance at odds with other elements in the country wanting its sovereign independence back, what US-led NATO stole in 2011 – illegal aggression then, same thing now.

Obama personally authorized naked aggression, adding another supreme high crime against peace to his rap sheet.

How many thousands more Libyans will die before America’s latest adventurism ends? How much more suffering can Libyans take?

In 2011, US-led NATO destroyed Africa’s most developed country, massacring tens of thousands of noncombatants.

I had live broadcasts on the Progressive Radio News Hour with guests in Libya while bombing and carnage was ongoing. They were lucky to get out alive before US-supported extremists took over parts of the country.

Is history repeating on this beleaguered nation? Is August 1 the beginning of another horrific nightmare – making an already deplorable situation far worse?

Gaddafi’s Ghosts: Return of the Libyan Jamahiriya


Gaddafi’s Ghosts: Return of the Libyan Jamahiriya

by dan glazebrook

When NATO murdered Gaddafi and blitzed his country in 2011, they hoped the socialist “Jamahiriya” movement he led would be dead and buried. Now his son has been released from prison to a hero’s welcome with his movement increasingly in the ascendancy.

There were various moments during NATO’s destruction of Libya that were supposed to symbolically crown Western supremacy over Libya and its institutions (and, by implication, over all African and Arab peoples): the “fall of Tripoli” in August 2011; Cameron and Sarkozy’s victory speeches the following month; the lynch-mob execution of Muammar Gaddafi that came soon after. All of them were pyrrhic victories – but none more so than the death sentence handed down to Gaddafi’s son (and effective deputy leader) Saif al-Gaddafi in July 2015.

Saif had been captured by the Zintan militia shortly after his father and brother were killed by NATO’s death squads in late 2011. The International Criminal Court – a neocolonial farce which has only ever indicted Africans – demanded he be handed over to them, but the Zintan – fiercely patriotic despite having fought with NATO against Gaddafi – refused. Over the next two years the country descended into the chaos and societal collapse that Gaddafi had predicted, sliding inexorably towards civil war.

By 2014, the country’s militias had coalesced around two main groupings – the Libyan National Army, composed of those who supported the newly elected, and mainly secular, House of Representatives; and the Libya Dawn coalition, composed of the militias who supported the Islamist parties that had dominated the country’s previous parliament but refused to recognize their defeat at the polls in 2014. After fierce fighting, the Libya Dawn faction took control of Tripoli. It was there that Saif, along with dozens of other officials of the Jamahiriya – the Libyan “People’s State” which Gaddafi had led – were put on trial for their life. However, once again the Zintan militia – allied to the Libyan National Army – refused to hand him over.

After a trial condemned by human rights groups as “riddled with legal flaws,” in a court system dominated by the Libya Dawn militias, an absent Saif was sentenced to death, along with eight other former government officials. The trial was never recognized by the elected government, by then relocated to Tobruk. A gloating Western media made sure to inform the world of the death sentence, which they hoped would extinguish forever the Libyan people’s hopes for a restoration of the independence, peace and prosperity his family name had come to represent.

It was a hope that would soon be dashed. Less than a year later, the France 24 news agency arranged an interview with Saif Al Gaddafi’s lawyer Karim Khan in which he revealed to the world that Saif had in fact, “been given his liberty on April 12, 2016,” in accordance with the amnesty law passed by the Tobruk parliament the previous year. Given the crowing over Saif’s death sentence the previous year, and his indictment by the International Criminal Court, this was a major story. Yet, by and large, it was one the Western media chose to steadfastly ignore – indeed, the BBC did not breathe a single word about it.

What is so significant about his release, however, is what it represents: the recognition, by Libya’s elected authorities, that there is no future for Libya without the involvement of the Jamahiriya movement.

The truth is, this movement never went away. Rather, having been forced underground in 2011, it has been increasingly coming out into the open, building up its support amongst a population sick of the depravities and deprivations of the post-Gaddafi era.

Exactly five years ago, following the start of the NATO bombing campaign, Libyans came out onto the streets in massive demonstrations in support of their government in Tripoli, Sirte, Zlitan and elsewhere. Even the BBC admitted that “there is no discounting the genuine support that exists,” adding that, “‘Muammar is the love of millions’ was the message written on the hands of women in the square.

Following the US-UK-Qatari invasion of Tripoli the following month, however, the reign of terror by NATO’s death squad militias ensured that public displays of such sentiments could end up costing one’s life. Tens of thousands of “suspected Gaddafi supporters” were rounded up by the militias in makeshift “detention camps” were torture and abuse was rife; around 7,000 are estimated to be there still to this day, and hundreds have been summarily executed.

Black people in particular were targeted, seen as symbolic of the pro-African policies pursued by Gaddafi but hated by the supremacist militias, with the black Libyan town of Tawergha turned into a ghost town overnight as Misratan militias made good on their promise to kill all those who refused to leave. Such activities were effectively legalised by the NATO-imposed “Transitional National Council” whose Laws 37 and 38 decreed that public support for Gaddafi could be punished by life imprisonment and activities taken “in defence of the revolution” would be exempt from prosecution.

Nevertheless, over the years that followed, as the militias turned on each other and the country rapidly fell apart, reports began to suggest that much of southern Libya was slowly coming under the control of Gaddafi’s supporters. On January 18th 2014, an air force base near the southern city of Sabha was taken by Gaddafi loyalists, frightening the new government enough to impose a state of emergency, ban Libya’s two pro-Gaddafi satellite stations, and embark on aerial bombing missions in the south of the country.

But it was, ironically, the passing of the death sentences themselves – intended to extinguish pro-Gaddafi sentiment for good – that triggered the most open and widespread demonstrations of support for the former government so far, with protests held in August 2015 across the country, and even in ISIS-held Sirte. Middle East Eye reported the following from the demonstration in Sabha (in which 7 were killed when militias opened fire on the protesters):
Previous modest pro-Gaddafi celebrations in the town had been overlooked by the Misratan-led Third Force, stationed in Sabha for over a year – originally to act as a peacekeeping force following local clashes.

‘This time, I think the Third Force saw the seriousness of the pro-Gaddafi movement because a demonstration this big has not been seen in the last four years,’ said Mohamed. ‘There were a lot of people, including women and children, and people were not afraid to show their faces … IS had threatened to shoot anyone who protested on Friday, so there were no green flags in towns they control, apart from Sirte, although there are some green flags flying in remote desert areas,’ he said. ‘But if these protests get stronger across the whole of Libya, people will become braver and we will see more green flags. I know many people who are just waiting for the right time to protest.’

In Sirte, demonstrators were fired at by ISIS fighters, who dispersed the group and took away seven people, including four women. The same Middle East Eye report made the following comment:
The protests have been a public representation of a badly kept secret in Libya, that the pro-Gaddafi movement which has existed since the 2011 revolution has grown in strength, born out of dissatisfaction with the way life has worked out for many ordinary citizens in the last four years…[Mohamed] added that some people who had originally supported the 2011 revolution had joined the protests. Most Libyans just want a quiet life. They don’t care who takes over or who controls Libya’s money, they just want a comfortable life. That’s why Gaddafi stayed in power for 42 years. Salaries were paid on time, we had good subsidies on all the essentials and living was cheap.
Mohammed Eljarh, writing in the conservative US journal Foreign Policy, added that:
These pro-Qaddafi protests have the potential to turn into a national movement against the 2011 revolution, not least because a growing number of Libyans are deeply disillusioned by its outcome…there is now a building consensus that the atrocities and abuses committed by post-Qaddafi groups since the revolution exceed by far those committed by the Qaddafi regime during its rule.
At the same time, the Green resistance is becoming an increasingly influential force within the Libyan National Army, representing the country’s elected House of Representatives. Earlier this year, the Tobruk parliament allowed Gaddafi’s widow back into the country, whilst the LNA entered into an alliance with pro-Gaddafi tribes in the country’s East, and began to recruit open supporters of Gaddafi into its military structures. Gaddafi’s Tuareg commander General Ali Kanna, for example, who fled Libya following Gaddafi’s fall in 2011, has now reportedly been welcomed into the LNA. The policy is already bearing fruit, with several territories near Sirte already seized from ISIS by the new allies.

The Jamahiriya, it seems, is back. But then, it never really went away.