How to Use Syrian Oil as an 'Entry Point' to Breaking the Deadlock

A US military vehicle near an oil field in Syria's northeastern Hasakeh province on July 1, 2020. (Reuters)
A US military vehicle near an oil field in Syria's northeastern Hasakeh province on July 1, 2020. (Reuters)
TT

How to Use Syrian Oil as an 'Entry Point' to Breaking the Deadlock

A US military vehicle near an oil field in Syria's northeastern Hasakeh province on July 1, 2020. (Reuters)
A US military vehicle near an oil field in Syria's northeastern Hasakeh province on July 1, 2020. (Reuters)

In the face of the stability of the “borderlines” between the three Syrian zones of influence for two years, the continuation of the political stalemate and the emergence of a global energy crisis, a set of ideas is being circulated aimed at turning Syrian oil into a point of consensus between the players and an “entry point to break the deadlock”. This can be achieved through understandings that lead to an increase in oil production to about 500,000 barrels per day within three years to provide about 20 billion US dollars annually, distribute the revenues for the benefit of all Syrians, and support “early recovery” projects in accordance with the international resolution on humanitarian aid.

'Warlords'

After the eruption of the conflict in 2011, Western countries imposed sanctions on the Syrian oil sector, and foreign companies, which were producing about 400,000 barrels per day, left the country.

Currently, the Syrian Democratic Forces, with the support of the US-led coalition, control a quarter of Syria's area, but significantly 90 percent of the oil and more than half of the gas.

Syrian Oil Minister Bassam Tohme said a few days ago that the oil sector's losses since the beginning of the crisis amounted to $91.5 billion. He revealed that the direct losses to equipment in the oil sector amounted to 19.3 billion dollars, "of which 3 billion are the value of damages inflicted by the international coalition's strikes."

The indirect losses amounted to 72 billion dollars. The minister said the daily production of oil last year amounted to 89,000 barrels, the majority of which took place in Kurdish-controlled areas and is described by Tohme as “stolen”.

Since early 2017, the SDF has taken over oil fields east of the Euphrates River and their infrastructure owned by contracts with the government by foreign companies, including Gulfsands, Total, and Shell. Oil wells and facilities were also cordoned off. The Autonomous Administration of the SDF uses some of the production locally. Mediators and warlords transfer some of the oil to government areas to refine an amount and keep the other. Oil is also smuggled into Iraqi Kurdistan, for local consumption or for smuggling to Turkey. Oil is sold at very low prices, and wells are damaged

'Oil protection'

On October 6, 2019, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham played a role in persuading President Donald Trump to keep 900 members of the US military in eastern Syria, after his decision to withdraw from the border with Turkey. Trump later said that "a small number of soldiers will remain in the areas that contain oil," stressing that "we have ensured the security and protection of oil."

In July 2020, Graham, who is close to Trump, announced before Congress that SDF commander Mazloum Abdi informed him of the signing of an agreement with the American company Delta Crescent Energy to invest in oil after obtaining an exception from the Treasury Department (which was not extended by the administration of Joe Biden).

He added: "The American company will work to improve the feasibility of the oil fields to make them more productive. It makes sense that, rather than just writing checks, we should help people help themselves." Meanwhile, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that "the agreement took more time than expected" and aims to "modernize oil."

The situation embarrassed the Syrian Ministry of Defense, which said that "Syrian oil belongs to the Syrian people, and we remain committed to the unity and territorial integrity of Syria." It added that "the United States government does not own, control, or manage the oil resources in Syria, and the population in areas liberated from ISIS make their own decisions regarding local governance."

After that, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced: "We are taking measures to strengthen our position in Deir Ezzor to prevent ISIS access to the oil fields." The Pentagon confirmed sending reinforcements and mechanisms to protect the oil fields, so that about 500 soldiers remained east of the Euphrates, with an increase in the number and quality of military equipment to provide protection for the oil wells.

'Quadruple rage'

The oil agreement, brokered by the US, was widely criticized by Damascus, Moscow, Tehran and Ankara as "political recognition of the Kurdish administration". They said it "contradicts the understanding of the guarantors of Astana, Russia, Iran and Turkey, to oppose any separatist agenda in Syria." Moscow considered it "a theft of Syrian wealth." It also angered foreign companies that hold sovereign rights in the oil fields.

Among those companies is Gulfsands, which had signed a contract with the Syrian government in 2003 to invest and develop Block 26 east of the Euphrates. According to its 2019 Annual Report, unauthorized production since early 2017 has been around 20,000 barrels a day, meaning that around 35 million barrels have been produced since then. Gulfsands expressed "concern" about this unlawful activity, and particularly the involvement of Delta Crescent Energy.

Profits...and ideas

According to experts' estimates, the Autonomous Administration receives 16 dollars per barrel, and 15 dollars goes to the Syrian government. The rest, which could amount to up to 50 dollars per barrel, is "lost" and ends up in the hands of war profiteers.

It is again reported in the Gulfsands Annual Report that Block 26 could, with appropriate investment, be increased in production from 20,000 to 100,000 barrels per day. If this could be replicated across the region, it could mean an industry that produces 500,000 barrels per day which at todays' high oil prices could raise round 18 billion dollars of gross revenue per year.

Challenges

Rebuilding the Syrian oil industry this way faces many obstacles. It would need agreement between the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and Damascus and also require international support. In particular, this project requires political understandings between the US, which imposes sanctions on the oil sector, and Russia, which accuses Washington of "stealing oil."

Some experts suggest the establishment of a structure that falls within the context of UN envoy Geir Pedersen's proposal for "step-for-step" measures, to include aspects of financing "early recovery" projects under the new Security Council resolution for humanitarian aid drafted by Washington and Moscow, and providing new sources of relief funding from Syria. Significantly, the European Union had in the past 11 years allocated 25 billion euros to Syrians, 14 billion dollars from America, and 3.7 billion pounds from Britain. A fully functioning and revitalized oil industry could exceed these contributions.

The proposal suggests a formal structure of specially selected and audited service providers, such as. returning foreign oil companies, preferred oil traders, and financiers who, in exchange for sanctions exemptions and approvals, would ensure full transparency and accountability for the exploration, development, production, marketing and sale of oil and gas through established international channels.

There is no doubt that such an initiative is ambitious and would need to navigate international sanctions, as well as provide transparency and benefits for all participants to them to have confidence in its implementation and provide their support. However, the prize is huge, particularly for the Syrian people, and surely is worth attention and consideration from all sides.



Palestinians Confront a Landscape of Israeli Destruction in Gaza’s ‘Ghost Towns’ 

Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 21, 2025. (Reuters)
Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 21, 2025. (Reuters)
TT

Palestinians Confront a Landscape of Israeli Destruction in Gaza’s ‘Ghost Towns’ 

Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 21, 2025. (Reuters)
Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 21, 2025. (Reuters)

Palestinians in Gaza are confronting an apocalyptic landscape of devastation after a ceasefire paused more than 15 months of fighting between Israel and Hamas.

Across the tiny coastal enclave, where built-up refugee camps are interspersed between cities, drone footage captured by The Associated Press shows mounds of rubble stretching as far as the eye can see — remnants of the longest and deadliest war between Israel and Hamas in their blood-ridden history.

"As you can see, it became a ghost town," said Hussein Barakat, 38, whose home in the southern city of Rafah was flattened. "There is nothing," he said, as he sat drinking coffee on a brown armchair perched on the rubble of his three-story home, in a surreal scene.

Critics say Israel has waged a campaign of scorched earth to destroy the fabric of life in Gaza, accusations that are being considered in two global courts, including the crime of genocide. Israel denies those charges and says its military has been fighting a complex battle in dense urban areas and that it tries to avoid causing undue harm to civilians and their infrastructure.

Military experts say the reality is complicated.

"For a campaign of this duration, which is a year’s worth of fighting in a heavily urban environment where you have an adversary that is hiding in amongst that environment, then you would expect an extremely high level of damage," said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, a British think-tank.

Savill said that it was difficult to draw a broad conclusion about the nature of Israel's campaign. To do so, he said, would require each strike and operation to be assessed to determine whether they adhered to the laws of armed conflict and whether all were proportional, but he did not think the scorched earth description was accurate.

International rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, view the vast destruction as part of a broader pattern of extermination and genocide directed at Palestinians in Gaza, a charge Israel denies. The groups dispute Israel's stance that the destruction was a result of military activity.

Human Rights Watch, in a November report accusing Israel of crimes against humanity, said "the destruction is so substantial that it indicates the intention to permanently displace many people."

From a fierce air campaign during the first weeks of the war, to a ground invasion that sent thousands of troops in on tanks, the Israeli response to a Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023, has ground down much of the civilian infrastructure of the Gaza Strip, displacing 90% of its population. The brilliant color of pre-war life has faded into a monotone cement gray that dominates the territory. It could take decades, if not more, to rebuild.

Airstrikes throughout the war toppled buildings and other structures said to be housing fighters. But the destruction intensified with the ground forces, who fought Hamas fighters in close combat in dense areas.

If fighters were seen firing from an apartment building near a troop maneuver, forces might take the entire building down to thwart the threat. Tank tracks chewed up paved roads, leaving dusty stretches of earth in their wake.

The military’s engineering corps was tasked with using bulldozers to clear routes, downing buildings seen as threats, and blowing up Hamas’ underground tunnel network.

Experts say the operations to neutralize tunnels were extremely destructive to surface infrastructure. For example, if a 1.5-kilometer (1-mile) long tunnel was blown up by Israeli forces, it would not spare homes or buildings above, said Michael Milshtein, a former Israeli army intelligence officer.

"If (the tunnel) passes under an urban area, it all gets destroyed," he said. "There’s no other way to destroy a tunnel."

Cemeteries, schools, hospitals and more were targeted and destroyed, he said, because Hamas was using these for military purposes. Secondary blasts from Hamas explosives inside these buildings could worsen the damage.

The way Israel has repeatedly returned to areas it said were under its control, only to have fighters overrun it again, has exacerbated the destruction, Savill said.

That’s evident especially in northern Gaza, where Israel launched a new campaign in early October that almost obliterated Jabaliya, a built up, urban refugee camp. Jabaliya is home to the descendants of Palestinians who fled, or were forced to flee, during the war that led to Israel‘s creation in 1948. Milshtein said Israel's dismantling of the tunnel network is also to blame for the destruction there.

But the destruction was not only caused from strikes on targets. Israel also carved out a buffer zone about a kilometer inside Gaza from its border with Israel, as well as within the Netzarim corridor that bisects north Gaza from the south, and along the Philadelphi Corridor, a stretch of land along Gaza’s border with Egypt. Vast swaths in these areas were leveled.

Amir Avivi, a retired Israeli general, said the buffer zones were an operational necessity meant to carve out secure plots of land for Israeli forces. He denied Israel had cleared civilian areas indiscriminately.

The destruction, like the civilian death toll in Gaza, has raised accusations that Israel committed war crimes, which it denies. The decisions the military made in choosing what to topple, and why, are an important factor in that debate.

"The second fighters move into a building and start using it to fire on you, you start making a calculation about whether or not you can strike," Savill said. Downing the building, he said, "it still needs to be necessary."