Sanctions

Renewed U.S. sanctions against Iranian oil exports kick in officially this week as part of the Trump administration’s decision to exit the Iranian nuclear deal. Estimations on how effective the sanctions have been is a relatively messy affair to date. Iran is expected to lose between 1 million to 1.5 million barrels a day in oil sales to Europe, Japan, South Korea, and India, with speculation that some of that oil might wind up instead in China or being repurposed in barter trade with Russia. Today, the U.S. government officially confirmed it was handing out temporary waivers to several of the countries that had previously announced intentions to go to zero purchases from Iran. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the announcement, aimed to keep oil markets from overheating, calls into question the ultimate effectiveness of the Trump Iranian sanctions project overall. Worse still, it has simultaneously lay bare the fact that President Donald Trump, like countless U.S. presidents before him, has to worry about global oil prices in conducting foreign policy, despite an abundance of U.S. domestic energy. Iran has long experience in trying to avoid restrictions on its oil sales including turning off internationally-required tanker transponders to make it harder to track its shipping movements. But available satellite assisted tracking technology has improved since 2012, the last time the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran. Tracking services are now offering up to the minute updates on Iranian oil exports, helping to illuminate the shadowy world of smuggling. One famous service, Tanker Trackers, even located with precision recent Iranian deliveries to China’s strategic petroleum reserve in Dalian. In years past, Iran has tried to entice major trading partners to evade sanctions compliance by promising sweetheart oil and gas exploration and other lucrative commercial deals. But the more uncertain long range commercial outlook for prolific Middle East reserves weakens Tehran’s bargaining chips. Fewer players, be they government-run firms or private companies, are looking to increase access to oil reserves in a place like Iran these days. After losing billions in investments in geopolitically risky international oil and gas ventures, China’s government has shifted efforts to new, clean energy technologies like renewables, batteries and automated cars. Europe’s big oil companies like Norway’s Equinor, France’s Total, and Royal Dutch Shell are also shifting to renewables and minding their knitting in places with less geopolitical risk. Also losing interest in risky international ventures, many American firms are squarely focused on new North American shale reserves that are now challenging the Middle East for market share. Many European, Japanese, and South Korean refiners initially responded to the Trump administration’s call for zero purchases of Iranian oil by quickly saying they would comply with the new U.S. sanctions, and French firm Total abandoned its natural gas development project in Iran. Ironically, all these pledged sanctions compliance announcements shook oil markets which were already tightening from a deal between the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Russia to limit supply to boost the price of oil. That prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to start tweeting at Saudi Arabia to intervene with more oil as they had done when then U.S. President Barack Obama had hardened Iranian oil sanctions in 2012 to get Tehran to the negotiating table. Had oil markets been oversupplied at the time the Trump administration was initiating new Iranian sanctions, chances are most countries would have begrudgingly gone along in a manner that would not have disturbed oil prices or added risk to the global economy. But in the context of a crisis-torn Venezuela and surprising reports that Saudi Arabia’s ability to produce more oil was more limited than previously supposed, the administration was faced with harder choices. Before offering its official statement on October 31, 2018, that “sufficient” oil supplies existed to permit a significant reduction in the petroleum purchased from Iran, the administration first jawboned Saudi Arabia to increase its production further, and then, in the aftermath of the Khashoggi scandal and related public U.S.-Saudi strains, the U.S. State Department was forced to hint that waivers would be given to countries having difficulty finding replacement barrels for Iranian purchases. Oil prices began to recede. In all, eight countries officially received such  temporary waivers, including Turkey, India and South Korea late last week. The waffling on sanctions enforcement has definitely helped with oil prices but it means that Iran will have an easier time finding outlets for its oil production, even if it can only take back goods as payment and not cash. Added oil supplies are expected on the market in early 2019 when infrastructure additions will allow higher exports of U.S. crude oil. U.S. diplomats are also working to free up more oil from northern Iraq and the Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone in the coming months. That Trump had to berate the Saudis and then capitulate on Iranian sanctions enforcement is a testament to the limitations of U.S. energy independence. Unlike in OPEC countries, additional U.S. oil export capacity isn’t just magically available on demand by pronouncement by government leaders. The pace of investment in new oil wells, export pipelines, and terminals is in a cacophony of dozens and dozens of independent, uncoordinated commercial oil company decisions that are dictated by markets and capital planning processes. Over the next month or two, rising U.S. oil production, which hit its historical record this month, remains stuck inland, constrained by pipeline bottlenecks. Even when those bottlenecks help keep the price of oil in Texas at a discount to international levels, it doesn’t help the Trump administration, which has to worry about how any shock in the global price of oil would disturb its broader goals that are related to the dollar, trade and global economic growth. That reality became even more apparent when Saudi Arabia hinted it could unsheathe its oil weapon after 44 years of quiescence, if the newly-elected U.S. Congress chooses to enforce the Magnitsky Act in response to the death of Jamal Khashoggi.  Reminding Americans of previous gasoline lines caused by the 1973 Saudi oil embargo, a Saudi commentator noted that the Saudi energy minister’s need to deny the possibility of a replay of 1973 signaled “to those who understand global politics that Saudi Arabia had many cards to play.” The incident laid bare an ugly reality: even with all our newfound oil and gas, America and its allies still need strategic stocks to protect the global economy from any rising petro-power that would try to use oil to blackmail the West into compliance to a political result they don’t want. U.S. production, though responsive to rising prices, is not able to surge rapidly enough to damp down a sudden supply shock. This was certainly noticed in China, which is only half way through building its own stockpile expected to reach 850 million barrels by 2020. China has increased its pace of stock building in the past few weeks, ironically with soon to be sanctioned Iranian oil. It is also a result that has taught a new generation of U.S. leaders about the limits of American oil power.

At many banks, Nov. 5 will be a scary day. That’s when broad U.S. sanctions are set to be re-imposed on Iran, thereby placing new pressure on its struggling economy and increasing the regime’s desperation for hard currency. A crucial side effect of this effort has gotten too little attention: Iran will likely attempt to skirt these sanctions through cyber-enabled money laundering — and banks will be a prime target. Cyber-enabled money laundering is a fairly simple concept. Hackers use a bank’s computer system to execute a prohibited financial transaction by altering critical information or disabling anti-money laundering controls. It’s effective because it’s subtle: One need only disguise the illicit purpose or sanctioned participant of an otherwise allowable transaction. Iran certainly has the motive for such attacks. Faced with a weakening currency and a looming recession, it is increasingly desperate to sell oil and obtain dollars to support its currency, finance trade, and fund terrorist groups and proxy wars overseas. Adding to the pressure, recent efforts by the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates have made it harder for Iran to conduct illicit activity through Dubai, its traditional backdoor to the financial system. Iran has also demonstrated the needed capabilities. Starting in 2011, it directed cyberattacks against dozens of U.S. banks, causing millions of dollars in lost business. More recently, its hackers stole at least 31 terabytes of documents and data from U.S. academic institutions, businesses, and government agencies, a theft valued at some $3.4 billion. Given the scale of its hard currency needs, Iran might seek help from other capable countries or criminal groups in conducting new attacks to evade sanctions. The finance industry is largely unprepared for this kind of threat. In recent years, it has focused on preventing large-scale hacks like the one that diverted $81 million from Bangladesh Bank in 2016. Due to its boldness and scale, this attack has been the subject of dramatic press coverage and innumerable cybersecurity sessions at financial conferences. But the window for this type of hack is closing as banks and regulators invest in better technology, monitoring and training to prevent unauthorized transfers of funds. Cyber-enabled money laundering isn’t yet on the radar in the same way, and it could prove harder to prevent. Hackers could subtly alter customer data to avoid sanctions-screening lists or exempt an account from the focused scrutiny that banks apply to clients from sanctioned countries. Bypassed controls at a bank’s far-flung branches represent a particular risk. Denmark’s largest lender, Danske Bank A/S, is facing civil penalties and possible criminal charges after its Estonian branch allegedly laundered as much as $235 billion on behalf of sanctioned Russians. Financial institutions aren’t powerless against this threat. But they must commit themselves to continuous monitoring of account behavior, data integrity, employees and supply chains.   For starters, they should invest in software that establishes an internal distributed ledger system to record critical data, which could make manipulation more difficult. Layering such a system with “context-aware” security features that take into account factors such as location, historical behavior, and multifactor authentication before allowing access or changes can help block anomalous activity. A combination of such features could allow administrators to spot hackers before their system controls have been defeated. A further concern is the manipulation of hardware, which can undermine even the most secure networks. Banks will need to audit their global supply chains to ensure the integrity of computers and network equipment. Storing data in secure clouds and accessing it through virtual desktops can minimize the amount of hardware that must be protected. Yet even the most sophisticated security systems can be defeated by the people who use them. Hackers will continue to use phishing and similar attacks to target careless users. Realistic training coupled with ongoing testing of cybersecurity awareness is essential. An insider threat program that monitors employees with critical access is also vital. Finally, better information sharing among banks, governments and academia would enable an attack against one institution to help inform all the others. An advisory issued by the Treasury Department on Oct. 11 detailing Iran’s efforts to abuse the international financial system is a good example. The resumption of broad U.S. sanctions sets up a serious threat of cyber-enabled money laundering by Iran. But it may also be an opportunity for financial institutions to redouble their cybersecurity efforts to avoid being on the receiving end of new attacks, as well as serious penalties if they’re used to evade sanctions. Financial institutions need to act now to protect themselves, their customers and their countries.

The United States has reactivated sanctions against Iran that could trigger the collapse of the multilateral Iran nuclear deal.

Navigating the geopolitical domain surrounding energy is always difficult, but in the lead-up to the U.S.-Russia summit in Helsinki, it is particularly complex. While energy is unlikely to be a first order item for the summit, a number of topics likely to be raised could intersect with energy issues. Senior Russian officials have been vocal about energy related items in the run-up to the July 16 meeting, perhaps hoping that recent oil market volatility will give Moscow a leg up to make the usual pitch about the positive role its energy trade can have in the bilateral relationship. Several energy related topics are likely front of mind for the American team traveling to Helsinki with U.S. President Donald Trump. Here are a few examples: 1. The United States would like Moscow’s help to restrain Iran’s expansive role in the Mideast because it believes that this would help U.S. regional allies and better enable the United States to exit costly conflicts in the region. The subject of the ongoing conflicts in Yemen and Syria is bound to come up at the summit, especially if the United States and Russia seek to open better lines of military to military communication between top U.S. and Russian military leaders. This consultative approach is considered critical to avoiding an accidental escalation of military conflict, the dangers of which have risen in recent years. For its part, Russia will argue it has offered some accommodation on the Iran issue and would like something back in return. First, Russia’s top diplomats announced Moscow wanted to see the withdrawal of all non-Syrian forces from Syria’s southern border areas. That move was taken as a betrayal by some in Iran where MPs accused Russia of being an unreliable partner that would willingly sacrifice Iran to bolster relations with the United States. Then Russia backed an agreement with Saudi Arabia and other oil producers including the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to increase oil supplies. Iran was unhappy that Moscow showed its support for the oil producer agreement, especially given the context of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iranian oil export sales. President Trump made no secret that a Saudi-Russian agreement to raise oil production was the firm wish of the United States. But paving the way for the U.S. summit wasn’t likely the main reason Russia wanted to see oil prices stabilize at a lower level. Moscow had its own reasons to want to prevent a surge in oil prices. High oil prices make it harder for the Russian government to prevent ruble appreciation which would be bad for the Russian economy. 2. Arms control will be top of mind for the summit. The United States wants to signal its steadfast support for East Europe allies. This topic will trigger mutual accusations of violations in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) treaty. While arms control will be a high priority topic, the back drop to any discussion of the INF and missile deployment will circle back to U.S. diplomatic support for Eastern Europe. That, in turn, could trigger a tangent to the United States’ open opposition to Russia’s Nordstream 2 direct natural gas pipeline expansion to Germany. Germany favors the expanded line to enhance its ability to bypass other gas pipeline transit countries like Poland, Belarus, or Ukraine, saying this will promote Germany’s energy security. The United States argues that the pipeline project, which would benefit Germany economically and strategically, could raise Europe’s dependence on Russian energy and weaken the Eastern European countries’ status vis-à-vis Russia as well as potentially shift needed income from the smaller Eastern European economies to to Germany. 3. The United States would like Russia to play a helpful role in negotiations for the denuclearization of North Korea. If past efforts are any indication, energy could be a piece of the economic package North Korea can hope to achieve through a peace treaty. Russia stands to be an important beneficiary of any energy deal that is part of the North Korean negotiations since one obvious option to North Korea’s energy problems could be a natural gas pipeline that would carry Russian natural gas via China to both North and South Korea. It’s not new for Russia to figure energy could be a constructive force to any U.S.-Russia relationship reset. Energy has been part and parcel of several U.S. attempts to improve relations with Russia in the past, as far back as 1993. At that time, the U.S.-Russia summit led to the creation of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission to promote economic and technological links, including energy. As part of that diplomatic process, the United States offered up American know how to help Russia revitalize its oil sector. ConocoPhillips was an early mover with its Polar Lights venture, but eventually it and other U.S. oil companies that entered Russia at the time found a host of legal, regulatory, and logistical barriers that turned profitable ventures into losing propositions. The failure of U.S. oil investing in Russia mirrored similar setbacks in U.S.-Russia arms control agreements. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States and Russia revived their bilateral energy dialogues, after Vladimir Putin signaled that Russia was ready and able to help diversify global energy supplies away from the Middle East. In May 2002, President George W. Bush and President Putin initiated a new high-level dialogue on energy that led to several energy specific summits and new deals for American oil and gas companies in Russia. But soon after billions of dollars of fresh U.S. investment began flowing to Russia, the Kremlin began to renationalize its energy sector, and by 2005, U.S. companies not only faced difficult renegotiations of their oil and gas deals but in some cases, outright arrests of partners and the taking of assets. Obama era proposed resets similarly ran aground after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. The United States and Europe imposed sanctions on Russia in response, creating problems anew for the few U.S. oil companies that were still remaining on the ground in Russia. This time around, sanctions are top of mind when it comes to energy relations between the United States and Russia. Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak visited U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin during his visit to Washington D.C. in late June. Reports say the meeting focused on sanctions, which for obvious reasons, the Russians would like removed, and the Nordstream 2 pipeline which Washington has threatened with possible new sanctions. Treasury, at the urging of Congress, has played a pivotal role in showing the Kremlin that it is not out of U.S. reach when it comes to economic levers. The United States targeted Russian aluminum firm Rusal and others with sanctions back in April to punish Moscow for malign activities, such as interference with U.S. elections, and amid suspicions that the Kremlin was behind the murderous use of nerve gas in the United Kingdom. The U.S. imposed April sanctions against Russia caused $12 billion in losses for Russia’s fifty wealthiest oligarchs. With both of Russia’s largest state-controlled energy companies, Rosneft and Gazprom, carrying huge corporate debt loads, further sanctions against those entities could be a major hassle for the Kremlin, which would be forced to intervene, possibly triggering more acrimony and rivalry inside President Putin’s inner circle.    From its side, Russia is likely to argue that it has been accommodating to U.S. priorities on Iran and oil prices and try to leverage those actions as evidence that the United States should offer concessions to its concerns. That means the United States will have to think carefully about how energy intersects with other priorities ahead of the summit because it will be tricky to both discourage Moscow from an aggressive posture on U.S. hacking, on military positioning in Eastern Europe, and on arms control and still reap the benefits of its cooperation in the Middle East and oil markets. Keeping items compartmentalized and in different buckets might seem feasible at first glance. The United States still achieved successful détente with the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, for example. But as the U.S. summit with Russia approaches, better definition of priorities when it comes to energy will be necessary. Some items are already creating inconsistent messaging; for example, asking European nations to veto the Nordstream 2 pipeline to avoid over-dependence on Russia while at the same time, encouraging Russia to sell more oil to Europe to replace Iranian barrels and elsewhere to lubricate the oil market. Backing a Russian natural gas pipeline to the Korean peninsula could also seem untoward both to European advocates of Nordstream 2 as well as to U.S. exporters of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) who have been making headway lining up long term supply contracts to South Korea. The U.S. advance team to the summit will have to align competing interests to prepare more consistent messaging for Russia on these various energy elements, even if energy isn’t going to be in the top three topics for deeper discussion. Lack of clarity could muddy U.S. effectiveness in discussions or worse, leave Russia with geopolitical advantages it has shown it will exploit to divide the United States from its allies. Russia is likely hoping that energy exigencies will create an opening for it to gain concessions from the United States in other areas. The fantasy that Russia could somehow provide the United States a big lever against Iran in Syria and elsewhere may have initially clouded U.S. judgement over what is possible. Iran is unlikely to go quiet into the night, as it has made clear recently with threats against international shipping, regardless of how Moscow plays it. The United States needs to seek substantive discussion on other areas that don’t involve Iran, to avoid having the summit success reduced to empty promises on cooperation between the United States and Russia regarding Iran, when in reality, Moscow cannot likely impose sustainable constraints on Iran’s military actions, even if it wanted to. When discussing the topic of Europe, the United States should keep in mind China’s massive energy and other critical industry investment expansion into the continent. That could be a more fruitful topic that is putting Russian leaders on a back foot. To date, the real challenge to marketers of Russian oil and gas to Europe has not been U.S. LNG exports which are only just starting (U.S. energy sales to Europe are still a negligible volume compared right now to Russian natural gas sales which have been on the rise). It is renewable energy which is the bulwark of Europe’s energy independence from Russia. China could become the major actor in Europe’s clean energy future and that will influence both long run U.S. and Russian links to the continent as it has in Central Asia. The United States has been downplaying expectations for the Helsinki meeting, noting the fact that it is taking place is an improvement to escalating tensions. Preparations for a summit will likely force U.S. policy makers to square the circle on apparent inconsistencies in U.S. international energy diplomacy. Given the wary eye of Congress, the Trump administration is unlikely to offer Russia any sanctions relief until when and if Russia demonstrates substantive results on the ground. The United States should also be cautious about trying to orchestrate future participation of American oil and gas companies in Russia as a possible diplomatic carrot. The history of such initiatives is spotty at best, and it only takes one reckless unexpected action by Moscow to force Washington to press companies yet again to cut back on any progress on energy cooperation that could be made in the short run. A cautious approach to talk of energy cooperation would be wise at this juncture until more progress is made on higher priority issues.

At first glance, last week’s Vienna Group meeting—that is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) plus non-OPEC producers including Russia—seemed to have resolved some thorny issues. The producer group confidently announced it would increase oil production to stabilize the global oil market. Iran, which had previously threatened to boycott any agreement in protest, appeared to acquiesce to the joint OPEC production increase communique. That may have seemed like a win for the Trump administration, which had hoped to box Iran in to the negotiating table on a host of issues, including conflict resolution in Yemen and Syria, when it cancelled the nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Iran had suggested OPEC take a more strident stance on the U.S. policy. Not unexpectedly, U.S. Gulf allies, under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump’s tweets and back door diplomacy, offered a moderate approach, which will include significant production increases by Saudi Arabia, among others. For those who might construe Iran’s relatively mild public statements following the OPEC session as a sign that Iran had no real cards to play, a glance at regional conflicts might indicate otherwise. Immediately following the OPEC meeting, Syria’s army, which has a history of on the ground collaboration with Iran, broke a standing cease fire agreement with the United States and Russia and advanced on the southern province of Daraa. At the same time, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels from Yemen fired missiles into the Saudi capital city of Riyadh. Both could be taken as a sign that pressure on Iran to deescalate its participation in regional conflicts isn’t producing immediate results, increasing the probability that the Trump administration will actively press allies to buy less oil from Iran.  These events raise important questions about what Tehran’s response will be in the coming days and months and what leverage the United States really has to alter facts on the ground. Granted, a twitter report suggested that Iran was unhappy with Russia’s collaboration with Saudi Arabia at OPEC and Russia’s stated posture on southern Syria. Ironically (or maybe not ironically at all) the whole complex situation could be an oil win-win for Moscow. Russia’s deal with Saudi Arabia to increase oil production achieves multiple benefits for the Kremlin. It demonstrates a willingness to consider U.S. interests but at a low cost to Russia. It helps preserve Russia’s long run influence on Saudi Arabia. And the chances that Russia will lose revenue as a result look slimmer, if Iran is dissatisfied with the situation. Russia is likely making a good bet that frustration in Tehran could lead to an escalation of Mideast conflicts, which in turn keeps oil prices lofty, giving Russia even more money since it is increasing its export volumes. A disappointed Iran could also be less apt to participate in conflict negotiations with the United States, leading to tighter sanctions enforcement, which ultimately reduces competition to Russian oil and gas companies from Tehran in long term natural gas markets for Europe. In recent weeks, French firm Total, which is likely pulling the plug on its South Pars natural gas project in Iran as a result of U.S. sanctions, ventured to Russia to sign a deal to participate in Novatek’s LNG-2 Arctic gas project. Europeans firms that are no longer active in Iran are also partners in the controversial Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline proposed to extend from Russia to Germany. That begs the question: What next moves make sense for Iran? The Iranian government remains under pressure from its own citizens, who took to the streets again in large numbers this week. But even with this intense internal pressure, it’s hard to see the logic behind the belief that the Iranian regime might simply just fold its cards on its regional ambitions. Even if Iran would consider reopening political negotiations with the United States and its neighbors to satisfy popular domestic sentiment—protesters have been chanting their government should spend more money at home than abroad—the ruling hardliners will likely want to gain negotiating leverage before doing so. That conflicts, for example, with the thesis that the battle for the Yemeni port of Al-Hodeida could set the stage for successful peace negotiations. Iran has many tactics at its disposal via its regional proxies and via asymmetric warfare that could be utilized to make its own interests appear more salient. Oil prices jumped back up again early this week despite reports that Saudi oil production is surging to 10.8 million barrels a day (b/d), partly on news of an oil production snafu in Canada. But realistically, that loss of Canadian barrels was small at 350,000 b/d and temporary through July. More likely, markets are jittery because it’s hard to construct a narrative on how Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Russia, and the United States will navigate conflicts on the ground in the coming months.   

The idea of targeting President Trump's personal assets may be tempting, but it is the wrong approach.

This week: sanctions against Russia over malicious cyber activity, reversing the ZTE ban, and Huawei has some trouble down under. 

While the collapse of the Donald Trump-Kim Jung Un summit should cause the president to reconsider how to prepare for head of state summits, it should not alter the Trump administration’s strategic objective of complete and permanent denuclearization of North Korea for several important reasons. The leverage of sanctions is greatest now. Since the end of the Cold War and the rise of the global economy, we have entered a new era of arms control/non-proliferation policy where the leverage to stop these programs and reverse them comes from multilateral sanctions. Multilateral sanctions have reached an important apex with North Korea, with increased Chinese support for the Trump administration’s sanctions policy in the UN Security Council and with significant success in encouraging countries across the globe to diplomatically isolate North Korea. Arms control dependent on the persuasion of sanctions limits the utility of phased negotiations. As sanctions weaken in response to step by step moves, sanctions pressure decreases just as the slow burn approach to negotiations has to deal with the final phases of complete denuclearization. A sanctions dependent arms control policy sharply limits the effectiveness of step by step negotiations or time-bound constraints, one of the major concerns with the time bound limits of the Iran agreement. Furthermore, the nuclear genie is out of the North Korean bottle and a freeze does not diminish that threat. North Korea is a nuclear state with both medium range and long-range ballistic missiles and an estimated 10-60 warhead capability. The only remaining question is whether they can reliably put a warhead on a missile — a capability that North Korea says it already has. Freezing missile tests and nuclear weapons tests at this point does not limit North Korean capabilities, which currently threaten our allies, our assets and personnel in the region, and the U.S. homeland. Consequently, a freeze also does not deserve to be rewarded with sanctions relief or diplomatic recognition. The U.S. unilaterally removed all of its tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea during the George H.W. Bush administration. North Korea is the only non-member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the region and among only four outliers to the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime globally. North Korea is the country that is introducing nuclear weapons onto the peninsula, violating its own past and now reiterated commitment for a nuclear free Korean peninsula. The alternative to complete denuclearization is not simply war, if the goal fails. Along with defense and deterrence measures, the U.S. can continue its policy to pressure and isolate North Korea economically and diplomatically. It can continue to clamp down on its proliferation and other black market activities, which are important sources of hard currency and, thus, denying Kim Jung Un of his equally important goal of developing North Korea economically. North Korea is also not Libya, Iraq or Ukraine. North Korea has publicly stated that their pursuit of nuclear weapons is to keep the Kim regime from the fate of others: Qaddafi, who gave up nuclear weapons only to be killed in an allied attack; Saddam Hussein whom the North Koreans believe was successfully invaded because he did not have nuclear weapons; or Ukraine who gave back nuclear weapons to Russia for promises of sovereignty only to have that promise to collapse with the Russian invasion. North Korea is in a very different situation and, in fact, can be secure without nuclear weapons. It has superpowers on its borders that can provide security guarantees and can offer a nuclear umbrella to counter U.S. extended deterrence with South Korea. North Korea has the potential to leverage a relationship with both China and Russia as a deterrent against U.S. interference. One of China’s principal objectives is to avert a regime collapse in North Korea and a refugee influx on its border. Russia, North Korea’s original mentor before the collapse of the Soviet Union, has also demonstrated its interests in working with the Kim Jung Un regime. These potential security guarantees plus the economic development incentives that these superpowers plus South Korea, Japan and the U.S. can provide, make complete denuclearization not an unreasonable objective. While reversing a nuclear weapons program is very difficult, it is not impossible. The U.S. and the global community have achieved this goal in the past with several countries under the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime over the years. Anything short of complete denuclearization does not solve the current security threats of a nuclear North Korea to the U.S. or our regional allies.

It is often said, perhaps with some hyperbole, that Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers was the best hope for conflict resolution in the Middle East. Its architect John Kerry argues instead that the 2015 deal’s limited parameter of closing Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon is sufficient on the merits. The Trump administration is taking a different view, focusing on Iran’s escalating threats to U.S. allies Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Those threats, which have included missile, drone, and cyberattacks on Saudi oil facilities, are looming large over the global economy because they are squarely influencing the volatility of the price of oil. One could argue that the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Iranian deal, referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has injected an even higher degree of risk into oil markets, where traders now feel that the chances of Mideast conflict resolution are lower. But, the Trump administration could argue otherwise. From its perspective, the United States extended to Iran $6 billion in frozen funds, opened the door for a flood of spare parts to be shipped into Iran’s suffering oil and petrochemical sector, and looked the other way while European companies rushed in for commercial deals. In exchange, it’s true, Iran began to implement the terms of JCPOA, but as Secretary of State Pompeo laid out in a major speech on the subject, the nuclear deal has failed to turn down the heat on the wide range of conflicts plaguing the Mideast region. Rather, Secretary Pompeo explained, Iran’s proxies have raised the stakes for U.S. allies, and regional conflicts have been dangerously escalating. U.S.-Iranian exchanges in Syria are also on the rise. The deal could still move forward, according to Secretary Pompeo, but not until Tehran addresses a laundry list of U.S. demands. Washington expects its action and rhetoric to spur more productive negotiations that would allow the United States to link restoring the nuclear deal with political negotiations to de-escalate conflicts. Since re-imposition of renewed oil sanctions doesn’t take hold for several months, wiggle room still exists for such diplomacy. But markets reflect doubt about those chances, reflecting the view of many respected commentators. Oil prices hit $80 a barrel and even the five-year forward oil price rose above $60 for the first time since the end of 2015. Speculators are still holding substantial long positions and industry has been slower to hedge, lest oil prices go higher still. In the world of oil, it’s hard to compartmentalize complex geopolitical conflicts. In condemning the Trump administration’s move, Iran’s hardliners actually accused the United States of withdrawing from the JCPOA to raise the price of oil and called on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to raise its production to resist the United States. In a tweet from the Iranian Oil ministry via @VezaratNaft on May 11, Iranian oil minister Bijan Namdar Zangemeh is quoted as saying “President Trump playing double game in oil market. Some OPEC members playing into U.S. hands. U.S. seeking to boost shale oil production.” Simultaneously, Iranian media promulgated a spurious rumor that Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had been assassinated. The context for both was dialogue between the United States and its regional Arab allies (kicked off by a Trumpian tweet on OPEC) on the need to cool off the overheated oil market with higher oil production to ensure that the re-imposition of sanctions did not destabilize markets further. In seeking “better terms” for the Iranian nuclear deal, the Trump administration is counting on the fact that the Iranian government faces more internal opposition from its population than it did when the deal was negotiated back in 2015. That popular discontent is palpable and explains why the Iranian rhetorical response to the U.S. withdrawal announcement has been relatively mild compared to historical precedents. But this is no cakewalk, since Iran is counting on Europe and other major trading partners to resist U.S. sanction efforts.   In recent years, China has established its own networks of financial channels and institutions that could be used to allow Chinese companies to pay Iran in its currency, the yuan, in a manner that avoids the Brussels-based SWIFT financial messaging system, which can be subject to U.S. tracking and intervention. China has already tested using the yuan to pay for imports from Russia and Iran via China National Petroleum Corporation’s Bank of Kunlun. The Tehran-based business daily The Financial Tribune suggested that other countries, including Europe, could tap “alternative Chinese financial networks.” But the practicalities of China taking the lead on behalf of Tehran when other U.S.-China bilateral trade issues loom large is more complicated now than it was back in 2012. In 2012, China agreed to meet the Obama administration’s request that it cut its Iranian imports by the minimum 20 percent. As robust a response as the United States may now say it wants from Beijing on Iran, Washington similarly has to consider other priorities on the table with China right now, including negotiations regarding North Korea. Iran has been exporting roughly two million barrels a day (b/d) of crude oil. Europe purchases over a quarter of that volume and is—if push comes to shove—likely to go along with U.S. policy if no diplomatic progress can be made. For now, European leaders are trying diplomacy to keep the nuclear deal alive separately from the United States and to press Iran to address some of the common concerns on Secretary Pompeo’s list. Back in 2012, Europe cut virtually all of its oil imports from Iran. Japan had already conservatively lowered its purchases from Iran in March and even India’s oil giant IOC is now saying publicly that it is looking for alternative barrels to replace its 140,000 b/d of purchases from Iran, suggesting the oil will be made available to India from Saudi Arabia. South Korea is also expected to wind down its purchases from Iran given the imperative to display common ground with the United States; Seoul has already reduced purchases from 360,000 b/d last year to 300,000 b/d more recently. In sum, although Iran can conduct oil for goods barters with Russia and Turkey, it could potentially lose one million b/d of sales or more, if it the current geopolitical stalemate stands. But more is at stake for Iran than short run oil sales since Tehran has learned it can get those back eventually if the political will towards sanctions wears off over time. The curtailment again of international investment in its natural gas industry is a bigger setback for Tehran, which needs natural gas not only to inject into its oil fields to drive production but also for residential and commercial use. If the United States manages to drive French firm Total back out of the important South Pars natural gas venture, the chances of Iran reestablishing itself as a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter dissipates once again, possibly this time for decades given potential U.S. exports and other market conditions. China, which is also an investor in South Pars, does not have experience developing LNG exporting projects. Unfortunately, the global natural gas stakes could make it harder to draw Russia along with any U.S.-led conflict resolution effort. Even if Tehran was willing to cooperate in Syria or Yemen, Russia—a major natural gas exporter to Europe and Asia—benefits from U.S. sanctions that block competition from Iranian exports. Motivating the Kremlin into any diplomatic deal that restores U.S.-Iranian cooperation could be a heavy lift.   Russia is expected to begin supplying natural gas by pipeline to China via the Power of Siberia pipeline by late 2019 but Russia’s Gazprom has had difficulty locking down sales to China from additional pipeline routes. Successful negotiations on the Korean peninsula could help in that regard, since one potential fix to North Korea’s energy needs could be a Russian gas peace pipe. But the availability of direct natural gas exports to China and South Korea from the United States muddies the waters further. Beyond holding Iran out of the long run natural gas market, Russia could similarly be unwilling to agree to conflict resolution in Yemen and Syria because of the benefit it enjoys from keeping Saudi Arabia under financial and political pressure. Riyadh’s economic pressures, driven in part from its high military spending in Yemen, have made Saudi Arabia all the more willing to collaborate with Moscow on managing oil markets—a geopolitical reality that has strengthened Russia’s global standing significantly. It’s hard to see what would motivate the Kremlin to let Saudi Arabia off the hook given that a resumption of a tight alliance with Washington and Qatar is a material danger to Russia’s geopolitical and economic well-being, as demonstrated when the three countries collaborated in the early 2010s to weaken Moscow’s grip on European energy markets. Russia’s posture is not the only barrier, however, to conditions that would allow progress on U.S.-Iranian conflict resolution. Even if the economic penalty of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions were sufficient to motivate Iran back to the negotiating table, it remains unclear to what extent Tehran can influence its own proxies who have independent goals that could not align fully with any conflict resolution deal Iran could strike with the United States and its allies. Moreover, it is similarly unclear whether the United States could draw Saudi Arabia into a workable political settlement for Yemen. Thus, while the United States could have a strategy in mind that could improve upon the status quo in the Middle East, a deeper dive into the energy realpolitik of the matter shows the complexities that stand in the way of progress. With so much at stake, an incredibly disciplined and patient hand will be necessary to work through the wide host of internecine, interconnected issues.  

Accord focused on soybeans and gas does nothing about huge tech-sector challenges.

Iran could restart aspects of its nuclear program if President Trump declines to renew sanctions waivers this month, leaving major powers with few options for monitoring or restricting it.

This post is co-written by David R. Mares, the Institute of the Americas chair for Inter-American Affairs and professor for political science at the University of California San Diego and the Baker Institute scholar for Latin American energy studies at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. Venezuelans are due to go to the polls on May 20, in an election that is seen as problematical for the largest members of the Organization of American States (OAS). Last month’s OAS summit was inconclusive on how to respond to the deepening humanitarian crisis inside Venezuela that has spurred 230,000 refugees to cross the border to Colombia and oil workers to abandon their posts. This week’s news included an announcement that Chevron was withdrawing executives in light of the arrest of two company employees who were arrested for refusing to participate in official corruption. Chevron’s announcement follows the exit of major U.S. oil drilling service companies. Oil production from areas such as Chevron’s operations were a bright light in a rapidly declining sector. As the Venezuelan oil industry collapse accelerates under the rule of Major General Manuel Quevedo, oil production is likely to continue to crater, perhaps at a faster rate. Eventually, the industry’s performance will be so debilitated that it will render the option of U.S. sanctions against Venezuelan oil exports less relevant.   The prospects that General Quevedo will run Venezuela’s oil industry into the ground raises the specter that the ranks of the country’s military could consider a coup against President Nicolas Maduro. That will present a different kind of challenge for the United States and the OAS.  Opening Pandora’s Box – Again? The U.S. government’s response to Venezuela’s situation will complicate a broader Latin American response. Former President Barack Obama’s designation of Venezuela as a threat to U.S. national security alienated most of Latin America with its harkening back to Cold War unilateralism. The recent thinly veiled calls by high U.S. officials including Senator Marco Rubio—chairman of the subcommittee on the Western hemisphere—for a military coup to oust President Maduro raises fears of a return to Latin American militaries as the arbiters of politics. The fact that some members of the Venezuelan political opposition also support the call for the country’s military to intervene is also troubling, as significant minority opinions in Latin America’s past supported military coups that were followed by severe repression and suspended democracy for years. A Checkered History of Efforts to Defend Democracy in Latin America  Latin America has committed itself in multiple international fora to defending democracy. In the twenty-first century they have acted in concert multiple times to isolate governments that came to power through irregular or highly questionable means (e.g., Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009) or to effectively mediate government-opposition conflicts (e.g., Bolivia 2007-2008). But today Latin America is divided regarding how to respond to the political, economic, and humanitarian crisis engulfing Venezuela. The Lima Group of fourteen countries (including Canada, Guyana, and Saint Lucia as non-Latin American members) is pressuring the government of Nicolás Maduro for credible commitments to free elections and reforms, but several members of the OAS call for a hands off approach. Even the Lima Group is divided regarding how much to pressure Maduro: Peru told Maduro that he was not invited to the 2018 Summit of the Americas, but Chile publicly stated that all governments were invited to the inauguration of President Sebastián Piñera. The reasons for this disunity are not simply ideological disagreements, dependence on Venezuelan oil, or kowtowing to Washington. Rather, they are rooted in the region’s history of political instability, frustrated social change, and experience with the heavy and clumsy hand of the United States, all of which have led to the region prizing sovereignty and generally opposing interference by other nations in domestic affairs. Drawing the Line - Where? OAS leadership, both the current Secretary General Luis Almagro and the former Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, have sought to make the organization live up to its responsibilities under the 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter, and to critique the intransigence of the Maduro government. The United States, Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina all supported this approach at the OAS summit last month in Lima.  But the OAS has not been effective in delivering a clear and consistent pro-democratic message for complex reasons. First, there is no agreement in Latin America beyond periodic elections on what constitutes “democracy,” and therefore it is diplomatically difficult to get agreement on where the Maduro government sits on the spectrum where beyond which politics is no longer democratic. Second, the great discrepancies in political and social inclusion that remain in Latin America reproduce the domestic political polarization and instability at the regional level. Populist governments in Ecuador and Nicaragua still support the Venezuelan government.  Worse still, Latin American governments agree that if the military participates in an overthrow—even if asked by governing institutions to do so (e.g., Honduras)—that it is a coup against democracy. But if riots in the street seek to force a president to resign and thus impose the vocal minority’s will over the results of elections, Latin American consensus breaks down with governments that favor the opposition calling for mediation and those sympathetic to the government supporting the electoral calendar. Similar divisions reveal themselves when one branch of government uses its constitutional powers to remove the leadership of another branch or stop a proposed policy (e.g., Paraguay, Brazil, Venezuela in 2015). This pattern suggests that Latin America’s defense of democracy is not a mature process tied to law and institutions, but still rooted in individuals, ideology, and politics. Looking for Clean Hands Who has the standing to critique Venezuela? Maduro’s popularity in Venezuela is far greater than President Michel Temer’s in Brazil where few voters likely believe that Temer and his administration are more honest than Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Dilma Rousseff who are under investigation. Among the mediators selected by the opposition is Mexico—a country with the highest murder rate for journalists, where the government is suspected by international NGOs of being involved in much of the violence against citizens and wallowing in corruption. Colombia is one of the leading voices for sanctioning Venezuela’s government, but Colombia’s bona fides are compromised by the fraying of the peace agreement and the lack of security for FARC candidates in elections. Peru’s President just resigned in the face of serious financial and political corruption scandals.  All this makes the U.S. decision making about Venezuela extremely difficult. If the goal of U.S. intervention is to restore democracy to Venezuela, imposing U.S. sanctions against the country’s oil exports could be overkill, given the decline coming to the country’s oil sector in any case. Targeted sanctions against the Venezuelan military would have limited real effects given Russia and China’s commitment to the current regime and would only reinforce officers who hold anti-U.S. nationalist views. The U.S. government should consider two major points in preparing for the next stages in the evolution of the Venezuelan crisis. First, if the United States is seen as taking the lead in bringing about the collapse of the Maduro government, it will discredit the democratic transition in the eyes of significant segments of Venezuelan and Latin American public opinion. Secondly, United States credibility for providing reconstruction aid and supporting an open and non-discriminatory transition process is low in the region.  With these points in mind, there are some efforts the United States could make in a supporting role to the Lima Group. Colombia has called for a reconstruction plan for Venezuela; the United States should encourage a Latin American conference to develop that plan with clear U.S. commitments. The United States also needs to adopt an active and visible role assisting Brazil and Colombia to deal with the refugees. This would not only be in line with U.S. disaster relief efforts in the past but could constitute a way of getting humanitarian aid to Venezuela, bypassing the government, if enough aid is provided by the United States, the Lima Group, and the EU to enable people to bring some back into Venezuela. While not the ideal means to provide humanitarian aid inside Venezuela, smuggling is a well-established activity and effectively closing the border to the influx of such aid would significantly add to the discredit of the Maduro government. The United States also needs to consider how it would respond to a sudden military take-over and change of leadership. In this case, the United States should coordinate with Latin American governments in an immediate call for a firm date for the restoration of freely organized elections and in which chavismo, minus government officials implicated in corruption and abuse of power, would be free to compete. Only a stable democratic Venezuela will be able to utilize its vast oil and gas resources for the benefit of its people and global energy markets.

Miguel Diaz-Canel, set to replace Raul Castro as president of Cuba after sixty years of Castro rule, will be faced with the challenges of implementing economic reform and sidestepping regional isolation.