Exclusive – Syria’s Oil: Lion’s Share Goes to Russia as US Enjoys Control though Proxies

This April 2018 photo, shows a former farmer working at a primitive refinery making crude oil into diesel, in a village controlled by a US-backed Kurdish group, in Rmeilan, Syria. (AP)
This April 2018 photo, shows a former farmer working at a primitive refinery making crude oil into diesel, in a village controlled by a US-backed Kurdish group, in Rmeilan, Syria. (AP)
TT
20

Exclusive – Syria’s Oil: Lion’s Share Goes to Russia as US Enjoys Control though Proxies

This April 2018 photo, shows a former farmer working at a primitive refinery making crude oil into diesel, in a village controlled by a US-backed Kurdish group, in Rmeilan, Syria. (AP)
This April 2018 photo, shows a former farmer working at a primitive refinery making crude oil into diesel, in a village controlled by a US-backed Kurdish group, in Rmeilan, Syria. (AP)

Since the eruption of the conflict in Syria, warring parties, most notably foreign powers, have been scrambling to seize control of the country’s oil wealth. As the majority of the Syrian people struggle to provide the most basic of heating and electrical resources, foreign powers are dividing the Syrian cake among themselves as they reap the spoils of war.

During the 1930s, Syrian media said that the country’s oil “does not belong to the Syrians.” This is now more true than ever as Russia, the United States, Iran and various factions on the ground seek to capture the country’s lucrative oilfields.

A Syrian economic expert told Asharq Al-Awsat: “Since the 1980s and until 2010, Syria’s oil sector was controlled by the ruling Assad family.”

It kept the facts and figures hidden from the people and generated oil was not registered at OPEC, he said on condition of anonymity. It was only after the eruption of the 2011 uprising against the Assad regime that the hidden figures and details of the sector came to light.

As the conflicted heated up in 2012, the regime began to gradually lose control of the majority of the oilfields. Those in the east soon fell into the hands of the Free Syrian Army and later the extremist al-Nusra Front. The factions resorted to primitive methods to extract the oil. In 2013, ISIS emerged in the country, capturing the fields and securing funds for its terrorist activities. By 2014, it had seized the majority of Syria’s oilfields, most significant of which was the al-Omar field in Deir Ezzour.

The US Defense Department said in 2015 that ISIS generated revenues of 40 million dollars a month from Syria’s oil. Two years later, however, the group was defeated in Syria and the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces swept into the regions it once held. The SDF came to control some 70 percent of Syria’s oil, including the al-Omar field that used to generate 80,000 barrels per day before 2011.

In 2017, the regime regained control of the al-Shaer field in the eastern Homs countryside. It produces some 2 million cubic meters of gas per day. The regime and the Fifth Brigade, under the supervision of Russian forces, now control the gas fields in the Palmyra region in the Homs countryside. They also control oilfields that generate 9,000 bpd.

Selling Syrian oil

The conflict over Syria’s oil is a matter of life for the people because it is a main source of income in their country. Figures by British Petroleum revealed that Syria produced 406,000 barrels of oil in 2008, 401,000 in 2009, 385,000 in 2010, 353,000 in 2011 and 171,000 in 2012. The numbers continued to decline throughout the conflict to reach 24,000 in 2018.

The Syrian economic expert said Syria boasts 2.5 million barrels in reserve. This is a “very low” figure compared to other countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia that enjoys 268 billion in reserves. Moreover, he said Syrian oil itself is of low quality and the cost of its extraction is high, reaching 20 to 25 dollars. In contrast, extraction in regional countries costs around 5 dollars.

The SDF, and ISIS before them, is forced to sell the oil to the Syrian regime, which sends it to the Homs and Banyas refineries. The SDF sells crude oil for roughly 30 dollars and generates some 10 million dollars in revenues per month.

The regime, meanwhile, receives oil from the SDF through agents and companies that were set up during the war for this very purpose. The agents used to purchase the oil from ISIS and later delivered it to regime-controlled regions. They now assume the same duties, this time with the SDF as the seller. Businessman Hussam al-Qaterji has emerged as one of the most prominent of such agents. He is a member of Syria’s parliament and heads a militia that is dedicated to delivering oil to regime-held areas.

Russian-American competition

Turkey’s operation against northeastern Syria in early October threw a wrench in the Russian and regime plans to restore control over the area and its oilfields. Ankara launched its offensive to cleanse the border area from Kurdish factions, including the SDF. Despite this, Russia has underlined the need for the regime to regain control of its oilfields. US President Donald Trump further complicated plans when he announced in October that he was determined to ink a deal with a major American company to operate Syrian oilfields. “What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly ... and spread out the wealth,” Trump said. He explained that protecting the fields prevents ISIS from reaching them and allows the Kurds to benefit from them. The US must also reap its share, he remarked.

Trump had initially ordered all troops out of Syria in October, then decided to keep a force in place to hold the oil infrastructure. The move reinforces Washington’s Kurdish allies and prevents Russia and Iran from laying their hands on Syria’s oil. This also deprives Syria and Iran from the oil in the east, in line with US sanctions against them.

Since 2017, Iran has sought to impose its control over the eastern Alboukamal region. It has controlled the al-Qaim crossing that effectively secures a land route between Iran and the Syrian coast through Iraq. Tehran is also seeking to invest in Syria’s energy sector, however the American deployment in areas east of the Euphrates River are obstructing these ambitions. Russia, its friendly rival, also has ambitions in Syria. It is Moscow that has the lion’s share of Syria’s resources.

Today, Russia deploys military patrols in some oil regions in coordination with Turkey. It has emerged as the strongest player in Syria against the US. Russia first came to the regime’s aid in 2015, swinging the war in its favor. It also effectively entered the race to reap the majority of oil and gas deals in the country.

While the US, through its allies, has seized control of the majority of Syria’s oilfields, Moscow has sought to capture its gas wealth in the Mediterranean, which the Syrian oil ministry estimates at 250 billion cubic meters. It has struck deals to drill for oil and gas in territorial waters. These include the fields off the Tartus and Banyas coasts. Russia is also in charge of phosphate mines in Palmyra.

As it stands, Russia appears to benefit the most from any political settlement that can be reached in Syria. The US does not appear as eager and is instead employing its deployment in Syria to confront Iran and Russia.



Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
TT
20

Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)

In a stunning development, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire that effectively ended the conflict between Iran and Israel.

The announcement came shortly after a carefully calibrated Iranian retaliation targeted a US military base in Qatar, an attack that caused no casualties or material damage.

Trump expressed gratitude to Iran for pre-warning Washington about the strike, framing the gesture as a face-saving move.

The question now gripping regional and international capitals is: What have the United States, Iran, and Israel each gained if the ceasefire holds?

United States

The United States has once again asserted itself as the dominant and decisive power in the Middle East. It delivered a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear facilities without escalating into full-scale war, thereby undermining the very justification for Israel’s initial strike on Tehran.

Recent events have underscored that Israel cannot engage Iran militarily without close coordination with Washington, nor can it exit such a conflict without a pivotal American role.

The confrontation has also highlighted the unparalleled strength of the US military machine, unmatched by any other power, large or small.

Iran, for its part, clearly showed reluctance to escalate the conflict in a way that could trigger direct, open confrontation with the United States.

Trump himself demonstrated tactical skill by combining military pressure with diplomatic overtures, swiftly moving to invite Iran back to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the limited role of Europe and the modest involvement of Russia became apparent, unless aligned with US efforts. China appeared “distant but pragmatic,” despite its broad interests in Iran and a vested concern in keeping the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz open.

Iran

Iran demonstrated that the devastating initial strike it suffered from Israel did not undermine its military or political resolve despite the severity of the attack.

The Tehran regime confirmed that, although Israeli fighter jets controlled Iranian airspace briefly, its missile arsenal remained capable of unleashing scenes of destruction across Israeli cities unseen since the founding of the Jewish state. Iran’s missile forces, it showed, could sustain a costly war of attrition against Israel.

Tehran also succeeded in preventing calls for regime overthrow from becoming a shared objective in a US-Israeli war against it.

Yet, Iran appeared to lack a major ally comparable to the United States or even a lesser power, despite its “strategic” ties with Russia and China.

The confrontation revealed Tehran’s inability to fully leverage its proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon following the fallout of the “Al-Aqsa flood” escalation.

The exchange of strikes further highlighted Israel’s clear technological superiority and the success of Israeli intelligence in penetrating deep inside Iran itself, raising alarming concerns in Tehran.

Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can claim credit for persuading the Trump administration to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly those beyond the reach of the Israeli military.

Israeli forces succeeded in gaining control over distant Iranian airspace within days, a feat Russia has not achieved after three years of war in Ukraine.

Israeli intelligence breakthroughs inside Iran played a crucial role in the conflict, culminating in Israel’s public release of videos it labeled “Mossad-Tehran branch” and drone bases.

Netanyahu can argue that he made a difficult decision to attack Iran and convinced the Israeli public that the fight was existential. He can also remind critics that he expelled Iran from Syria and curtailed Hezbollah’s ability to wage war on Israel.

He may also point to new regional power balances he has imposed - part of his broader ambition to reshape the Middle East - with Israel maintaining the region’s most powerful military force.

However, Netanyahu’s policies risk renewed clashes with many, especially as tensions over Gaza and the “two-state solution” resurface.

Observers say the gains made by the parties at the end of the Iran-Israel conflict remain fragile and could shift depending on how events unfold.

Any calm could enable Israeli opposition forces to reopen debates on Netanyahu’s “wars” and their costs. It might also prompt the Iranian public to question their leadership’s responsibility for the military setbacks and Iran’s regional and global standing.

For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the primary player: Trump.