Al Mayadeen | November 24, 2025
Abdullah Awad, speaking to the Financial Times, describes a reality Palestinians across the occupied West Bank know too well: armed Israeli settlers storming their land with the aim of driving them out. The attack on his family farm near Turmus Ayya, carried out by about 15 masked settlers, left his children screaming as the group smashed their home and equipment.
“The settlers had axelike sticks with nails attached. So, they intended to injure us badly or kill us. Thank God we were awake when they came, so we could move away a bit,” he said. The assault followed years of harassment, but Awad says the violence has intensified since the war on Gaza began: “There were many assaults. This was not the first, and won’t be the last . . . but since the start of the war [in Gaza], they have become more violent. The situation has changed.”
Escalating campaign of settler aggression
Across the West Bank, Palestinians are facing an orchestrated campaign to terrorize communities and seize land. Settlers have attacked farmers, burned property, and raided villages from the northern hills to the southern plains. Videos of settlers beating Palestinians, including one incident in which a masked settler clubbed a woman unconscious, reflect a growing sense of impunity.
Political analyst Ibrahim Dalalsha told FT the pattern is unmistakable, “The settlers are totally emboldened, and the attacks are spreading, in the north, centre and south [of the West Bank]… This time they are really going deep inside.”
Targeting the olive harvest, the backbone of Palestinian rural life
The olive harvest, which sustains thousands of Palestinian families, has become an annual target for settler groups seeking to disrupt livelihoods and claim new territory. This season, attacks have soared. Settlers have torched a mosque in Deir Istiya, burned cars and homes near Beit Lahm, and even stormed an industrial area close to Beit Lid.
According to UN OCHA figures, more than 260 settler assaults resulting in injuries or property destruction were recorded in October, the highest monthly total since monitoring began nearly two decades ago.
Israeli condemnations ring hollow as impunity deepens
Israeli leaders have issued belated statements condemning settler actions, but on the ground, Palestinians say nothing has changed. The army dismantled a single illegal outpost, an exception so rare it drew international attention, while settlers continue attacking communities without consequence.
The settlers who burned the Deir Istiya mosque left graffiti stating: “We’re not afraid of Avi Bluth.”
Their message was aimed at the Israeli general responsible for West Bank operations, a taunt conveying how little fear violent settlers have of the regime’s security forces.
Rights group Yesh Din reports that 94% of settler violence cases were closed without charges in the 18 years before the war on Gaza. Palestinian officials say the situation has only worsened, with the military frequently standing aside, or acting in coordination with settlers during attacks.
Dalalsha said, “In the past, when there were attacks, there were investigations. Palestinians viewed these as a sham. But at least there was a process. These days, we do not hear of anything.”
Forced displacement as policy
Settlement expansion, illegal under international law, has accelerated at a pace Palestinian rights groups describe as intentional and strategic. Reports indicate that since the start of the war on Gaza in 2023, 44 Palestinian communities have been forcibly pushed from their lands through settler assaults combined with military restrictions.
Yair Dvir of B’Tselem put it bluntly, “When you look at what is happening, there is an order to [the attacks] . . . It’s not just individuals and settlers. They are backed by the Israeli system. There is a very clear goal, which is to forcibly displace the Palestinians and force them into the big cities.”
Daily terror in towns under siege
In Sinjil, a town outside Ramallah, a newly built settler outpost has triggered relentless harassment for Palestinians. Mayor Moataz Tawafsha told the FT: “There is no day without an attack. They steal tractors, burn stuff that belongs to the farmers, prevent farmers from reaching their land. Every day. They never stop.”
Near Turmus Ayya, settlers have placed a metal cabin and tent on a Palestinian building left half-finished and raised an Israeli flag above it, a symbolic claim over land that locals have farmed for generations. The new presence has cut Palestinians off from hundreds of hectares of farmland, including thousands of olive trees.
The mayor, Lafi Adeeb Shalabi, says the aim is clear, “They are trying to destroy the history of Palestine . . . This land belonged to our families, to our great great-grandfathers,” he said. “And when we try to defend it, they say we are terrorists.”
A systematic drive to empty Palestinian land
Testimonies from across the West Bank point to a coordinated effort to dispossess Palestinian communities: settlers advancing deeper into Palestinian areas, soldiers restricting movement, homes and farms burned, and entire communities uprooted.
What was once seasonal harassment has evolved into a sustained campaign of displacement.
By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | November 24, 2025
US policy documents on the Middle East do not reach the daylight before Israel is given the chance to filter them, and gut them. The latest UN Security Council (UNSC) 2803, Comprehensive Plan, is no exception. The Resolution perpetuates the same failed logic that has governed international diplomacy for decades. One in which Palestinian rights are conditioned, while Israeli obligations are delayed with no mechanism, timelines, or accountability for violating agreements.
Following two years of using food as a weapon of war and genocide, the UNSC adopted a US sponsored resolution, not to condemn weaponizing food, but to reward the perpetrator. The UNSC “Comprehensive Plan” for Gaza is anything but comprehensive. It is narrow, short on details, rich in contradictions, and utterly lacking any overarching purpose.
Take Paragraph 2 for instance. The Resolution “welcomes the establishment of the Board of Peace (BoP)” as a transitional international administration that will manage Gaza’s redevelopment “until such time as the Palestinian Authority has satisfactorily completed its reform program.”
In other words, the recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people is contingent, sequenced, and time-bound: reform first, demonstrate worthiness, satisfy outside evaluators, and then—maybe—they can “securely and effectively take back control” of their land. Meanwhile, Israel’s commitments are, at best, deliberately vague, crafted with such ambiguity allowing varying interpretations, much like UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338, written purposefully in a nebulous language that enabled Israel to evade compliance for decades.
There is not one single concrete or enforceable requirement placed on Israel: none to halt its extrajudicial assassinations, military attacks, timeline to complete withdrawal, or stop the expansion of Jewish-only colonies established on the same land reserved for the supposed Palestinian “self-determination.”
The Resolution weakens Item 7 of “Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan” which had called for “full aid be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip.” The new Comprehensive Plan replaced “immediately” by expressing only “the importance of the full resumption of humanitarian aid.” Israel’s already inexplicit obligations are further watered down to mere “consultation” and “cooperation,” giving the occupying power wide latitude to dictate its own interpretations and evade any real accountability.
The distortion becomes even more evident in Paragraphs 3 through 8. These sections deepen the asymmetry: Israel, whose leaders are indicted war criminals, is elevated to a co-supervisor with veto power over every stage of Gaza’s future. In effect, this Resolution upends international law by granting war criminals the final word on Gaza’s fate.
Paragraph 3, which addresses humanitarian aid, orders stringent monitoring of aid distribution inside Gaza. At the same time, there are no unequivocal demands on Israel to fully open all crossings, or stop hindering humanitarian aid delivery. The limited aid must be policed in Gaza, but the state that used food as a weapon and starved the population, is not required to do anything differently.
In Paragraph 4, a foreign-controlled “operational entities” strips Palestinians of their political agency by placing them under a technocratic committee selected from abroad and subordinate to the misnomer BoP. Yet, there is nothing in the Resolution on the freedom of ingress and egress, no mention of opening the seaport or rebuilding the airport. Furthermore, there are no tangible punitive measures, if and when, Israel fails to adhere to the UNSC Resolution.
The funding structures in Paragraphs 5–6 absolve Israel of responsibility. Gaza’s reconstruction is handed to donors and the World Bank, financed through voluntary contributions. Israel, the power that destroyed Gaza, is not asked to contribute a dollar, let alone pay reparations or assume legal responsibility for murdering and injuring 241,000 Palestinians, destroying all the universities, 97% of schools, 94% of the hospitals and 92% of the residential homes.
The heart of the resolution’s inequity is found in Paragraph 7, which authorizes a foreign military force (ISF) tasked with enforcing Palestinian demilitarization. The Palestinian Resistance must disarm, surrender weapons, accept foreign security supervision, and undergo vetting. Israel’s withdrawal, however, takes place only “when conditions allow” and to be negotiated between its army and ISF, guarantors, and the United States. Palestinians are entirely excluded from determining the terms of the Israeli withdrawal from their own land.
Even more alarming, the resolution normalizes Israeli occupation “that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.” An open-ended clause granting Israel a permanent military footprint in and around Gaza while granting Israel alone the power to define and determine any so-called “resurgent threat.”
Finally, Paragraph 8, mandates that any extension of international presence in Gaza must be done “in full cooperation and coordination with Egypt and Israel.” Once again, Palestinians are excluded from determining their own future. It is all left for Israel since its consent is conditional on the “full cooperation.”
Taken together, these provisions expose the true nature of the so-called Comprehensive Plan: a political instrument designed to entrench, not end, the structural inequality of occupation. And less than 72 hours following the UNSC Resolution, Benjamin Netanyahu appointed Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, two Jewish racist ministers who openly called for the ethnic cleansing and building Jewish only colonies in Gaza, to be in charge of, or more likely to undermine, the second phase of Trump’s 20-point plan.
In short, the UNSC Comprehensive Plan whitewashes Israel’s genocide and ties the future of Palestinian self-determination to a checklist that Israel is neither bound to accept nor prevented from obstructing. A Plan that will lead to exactly where previous UN Resolutions, mainly 194, 242 and 338 had gone, to an inevitable dead-end.
RT | November 24, 2025
The prospect of a possible peace in Ukraine has caused “panic” among investors in the German defense industry, sending stocks of arms manufacturers such as Rheinmetall tumbling.
The US reportedly handed Kiev a 28-point peace proposal last week and gave it until Thursday to respond. The framework was discussed in Geneva on Sunday, with US President Donald Trump saying afterwards that “something good” may be happening.
The peace push immediately unnerved investors, triggering a fierce sell-off of shares in Rheinmetall, Germany’s largest arms manufacturer and a key supplier of military equipment to Kiev. Rheinmetall stock has fallen by over 14% over the past five days, with defense-electronics producer Hensoldt recording a similar drop.
“Investors fear that an end to hostilities could also mean the end of the “super-cycle” for defense stocks,” Boerse-Express wrote.
Germany has become Kiev’s second-largest arms provider after the US, and Rheinmetall, which produces tanks, artillery systems, and ammunition, recently reported surging profits for the first nine months of 2025, alongside a record order backlog driven by the conflict and rising EU military budgets. Company shares have climbed nearly 2,000% since fighting escalated almost four years ago.
During the previous US attempt to broker peace in February, Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger argued that even if the fighting were to end, it would be “wrong” for Europe to assume “a peaceful future.” In 2024, the company announced plans to build four manufacturing plants in Ukraine.
The broader European defense sector has been expanding at roughly three times its pre-2022 pace, Financial Times reported in August. Western leaders claim the accelerated buildup is needed to meet NATO readiness targets, maintain arms deliveries to Kiev, and deter what they describe as a potential Russian threat.
Moscow has called such claims “absurd” fearmongering aimed at justifying increased military spending and condemned what it calls the West’s “reckless militarization.”
RT | November 24, 2025
A close ally of longtime Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik has won a snap presidential election in Republika Srpska, the Serb-majority entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to preliminary results.
Sinisa Karan’s apparent victory comes after Dodik was removed from office over his refusal to obey the rulings imposed by an international envoy overseeing the peace-monitoring regime in Bosnia.
Karan, the candidate of Dodik’s Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) and the entity’s minister for scientific and technological development, took about 51% of the vote, after nearly all ballots were counted. Branko Blanusa, the candidate from the opposition Serb Democratic Party, won roughly 48%, with turnout just under 36%.
The snap vote was called after Bosnia’s state court convicted Dodik in February of failing to comply with the decisions of Christian Schmidt, the international high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Schmidt, a German national, has a strong mandate to oversee the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement, which ended the bloody 1992-1995 Bosnian War.
In 2023, Schmidt invoked his powers to annul legislation passed by Republika Srpska’s authorities that sought to strip state-level courts and police of jurisdiction in the entity and declared the envoy’s decrees non-binding. Dodik himself has branded Schmidt a “tourist” and declined to recognize his authority.
A state court in Sarajevo later found Dodik guilty of failing to implement Schmidt’s decision, sentencing him to one year in prison – a term he avoided by paying a court-approved fine – and banning him from holding public office for six years.
With election results coming in, Karan pledged to continue Dodik’s policies “with ever greater force,” adding that “the Serb people have won.” Dodik, meanwhile, promised voters that “I will remain with you to fight for our political goals,” stressing that Karan’s “victory will be my victory too.”
Both Karan and Dodik have advocated for close ties with Russia, with the former calling Moscow “one of the greatest allies and friends of Srpska.” Dodik has echoed the sentiment, suggesting that the West was using Ukraine to provoke “a war with Russia.”
Global Times | November 24, 2025
Japan’s planned deployment of offensive weapons on the southwestern islands close to China’s Taiwan region is a deliberate attempt to create regional tension and provoke military confrontation. When viewed together with the erroneous remarks on the Taiwan question recently made by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, this development is extremely dangerous and must arouse high vigilance from neighboring countries and the international community, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a press briefing on Monday, in response to Japanese defense minister Shinjiro Koizumi’s claims about the deployment of surface-to-air missiles on an island near China’s Taiwan island.
According to media reports, when speaking to reporters as he wrapped up his trip to the base on Yonaguni on Sunday, Koizumi claimed plans to deploy missiles on Yonaguni island would “lower the chance of an armed attack,” rejecting concerns that it would would heighten regional tensions.
Yonaguni island lies about 110 kilometers from Taiwan island. Japan plans to deploy a unit equipped with the Type-03 medium-range surface-to-air missile, which is capable of intercepting aircraft and ballistic missiles, according to Kyodo News.
Mao pointed out that the Potsdam Proclamation clearly stipulates that Japan is prohibited from rearmament, and Japan’s Peace Constitution establishes the principle of “exclusive defense.” Yet in recent years, Japan has drastically adjusted its security policies, substantially increased its defense budget year after year, relaxed restrictions on arms exports, sought to develop offensive weapons, and even attempted to abandon the “Three Non-Nuclear Principles.”
Japanese right-wing forces are making every effort to break free from the constraints of the Peace Constitution, going ever further down the path of militarism and dragging Japan and the entire region toward disaster, the spokesperson noted.
By emphasizing this year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the 80th anniversary of Taiwan’s restoration to China, Mao said China will never allow Japanese right-wing forces to reverse the course of history, will never permit external forces to interfere in China’s Taiwan region, and will never tolerate the resurgence of Japanese militarism.
China has both the determination and the capability to safeguard its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, she added.
RT | November 24, 2025
Japan has rebuked China for citing a UN Charter clause that permits action against former Axis powers without Security Council approval, insisting the provision is outdated and irrelevant.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s new government has been embroiled in an escalating diplomatic tit-for-tat with Beijing, beginning with remarks she made earlier this month supporting the self-governing administration on Taiwan. The Chinese side interpreted her comments that a cross-strait conflict would be a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan as signaling potential Japanese armed involvement and evidence of resurgent militarism.
Last week, the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo published an excerpt from the UN Charter which referred to “enemy states” – nations that fought against the original signatories, the Allied Powers of World War 2. Article 53 allows regional enforcement measures against such states in the event of a “renewal of aggressive policy,” without requiring prior authorization from the UN Security Council.
Beijing then lodged an official complaint with the UN over Takaichi’s statements. The embassy urged Japan “as a defeated country in World War II” to “reflect on its historical crimes” and change course on the Taiwan issue.
Japan’s Foreign Ministry dismissed that argument, accusing China of misinterpreting “obsolete clauses” that it claimed no longer align with UN practice. While the UN General Assembly recommended removing the “enemy state” references in 1995, the formal amendment process was never completed.
Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi visited a military base on Yonaguni over the weekend, an island about 110km east of Taiwan. He reiterated plans to deploy medium-range surface-to-air missiles there as part of a broader build-up on Japan’s southern island chain.
Russia also has outstanding issues with Japan, with whom it still has no formal peace treaty. Tokyo continues to insist on its claim to the four southernmost Kuril Islands, known in Japan as the “northern territories,” which became part of the USSR after World War 2 and remain a long-standing focal point for Japanese nationalists.
John Mearsheimer | November 22, 2025
The Monroe Doctrine is DEAD. Russian warships in Venezuelan waters just shattered 200 years of American hemispheric dominance. Prof. John Mearsheimer breaks down how Washington’s own policies created this historic shift.
John Mearsheimer | November 23, 2025
Russian hypersonic anti-ship missiles are now targeting U.S. Navy warships in the Caribbean. Prof. John Mearsheimer reveals how America’s own sanctions policy created this deadly threat in our own hemisphere.
Al-Manar | November 23, 2025
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei stated on Sunday that Washington’s professed willingness for dialogue lacks credibility, asserting that US claims are fundamentally inconsistent with its actions.
Speaking at a weekly press conference, Baqaei referenced recent remarks by the US president, stating that America has demonstrated in practice that it is not serious about negotiations.
The spokesman suggested that Washington either misunderstands the very concept of negotiation or approaches talks with a mindset that reduces them to dictation. He emphasized that such claims must be measured against the United States’ actual conduct.
Commenting on Tehran’s conditions for any potential talks with the US, Baqaei underscored that safeguarding Iran’s national interests remains the central and guiding principle.
“The other side has shown no genuine belief in negotiations,” he said, adding that as long as dialogue is treated as an imposition, the necessary conditions for genuine talks do not exist.
“What matters is that the US government has destroyed any basis for trust through its actions,” Baqaei stated. He cited the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and subsequent “unfaithful” actions during the Biden administration, despite earlier progress.
He further argued that the US decision to accompany the Zionist regime in its military aggression against Iran this past June provided further proof of Washington’s lack of intent to reach a reasonable and fair solution.
Addressing other diplomatic matters, the spokesman firmly dismissed speculation that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi’s upcoming trip to the Netherlands would involve negotiations with the three European countries (the E3). He clarified that the visit’s sole purpose is participation in a conference for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Baqaei conceded that consultations with other foreign ministers might occur on the sidelines in The Hague, but he explicitly labeled reports of negotiations with the European troika as untrue.
RT | November 23, 2025
The EU has reportedly rejected the Ukraine peace deal drafted by the White House, putting forward its own set of conditions for a potential agreement.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made the announcement on Sunday as US officials were discussing Washington’s proposal with EU and Ukrainian representatives in Geneva, Switzerland.
The US had submitted its plan to both Moscow and Kiev earlier this week. The contents of the document have not been officially disclosed to the public.
Media outlets have claimed that, among other things, it calls upon Kiev to withdraw troops from the part of Russia’s Donbass it still controls, downsize its military, and shelve its NATO aspirations in exchange for Western security guarantees.
In a statement published on X, von der Leyen specifically rejected all those conditions. “We have agreed on the main elements necessary for a just and lasting peace and Ukraine’s sovereignty,” she stated, adding that Ukraine’s borders cannot be changed “by force” and that no limitations can be placed on Kiev’s military.
The European Commission president also demanded that the EU play a central role “in securing peace for Ukraine” and that Kiev be allowed to join it.
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | November 15, 2025
When New York passed its utopian Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act back in 2019, it set mandatory targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s energy consumption. But none of the mandates were scheduled to take effect prior to 2030. The earliest mandates were: 70% of electricity from “renewables” by 2030, and 40% overall reduction in GHG emissions by the same year. (Still more ambitious mandates were also set for 2040, followed by a “net zero” mandate for 2050). These dates all seemed so terribly far away — plenty of time for somebody to invent some new gizmos in the off chance that new technology might be needed to hit the goal.
Our legislators, innumerate to a person, had bought into the fantasy — peddled by lightweight academics like Mark Jacobson and Robert Howarth, and by grifting promoters like the American Wind Energy Association and investment bank Lazard — that wind and solar were now the cheapest way to make electricity. To abolish the evil fossil fuels, all that was needed was some political will.
The legislators definitely did not pay the slightest attention to the Manhattan Contrarian. Beginning in 2016, and consistently from then until the CLCPA was enacted in mid-2019, this site published one clear warning after another that the costs of a wind/solar energy system that would work full time would inevitably be a large multiple of those claimed by the promoters. If you want to entertain yourself for a while on this subject, you might be interested in my series “How Much Do The Green Energy Crusaders Plan To Increase Your Cost Of Electricity?” Part I (August16, 2016), Part II (August 20, 2016), and Part III (November 29, 2018). Well, I tried.
There actually was one other important deadline in the CLCPA, which was not a deadline for emissions reductions themselves, but rather a deadline for the state Department of Environmental Conservation to publish regulations to direct how the mandated emissions reductions would be achieved. The text from the CLCPA setting this deadline was codified in Section 75-0109 of the state’s Environmental Conservation Law. It states that DEC “shall . . . promulgate rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the statewide emissions reductions limits.” The deadline to promulgate these regulations was January 1, 2024.
January 1, 2024 came and went, and then another year went by, and still no regulations, nor any indication of when or whether they would be forthcoming. A reasonable inference would be that Kathy Hochul (who had taken over as Governor in 2021), or more likely some people on her staff, had figured out that this was not going to work. But they also knew that saying that out loud would be political suicide. Thus, silence.
By March of this year, the environmental zealots had had enough. In that month, a collection of environmental groups — Citizens Action of New York, People United for Sustainable Housing Buffalo, Sierra Club, and We Act for Environmental Justice — filed what we call an “Article 78” proceeding in the state Supreme Court of [Ulster] Albany County, to compel the DEC to comply with the statute and issue the regulations. (Article 78 is a part of the state procedural statute that provides for lawsuits to compel state agencies to comply with the law.). The case was assigned to Justice Julian Schreibman (who normally sits in Ulster County).
The court held a hearing on July 25, and then on August 11 took a supplemental letter submission from the New York Attorney General’s office on behalf of the DEC. Then the court issued its decision on October 27.
The Attorney General’s August 11 letter submission is truly a remarkable document. Basically, it states that the emissions-reduction mandates of the CLCPA are “infeasible,” and it asks the court to refrain from enforcing the mandate to issue regulations on the ground that because the emissions reductions are infeasible the regulations to compel them to happen would cause “damage to the public interest.” As a little background, the letter frequently refers to the state’s draft “Energy Plan,” which was issued on July 25, and which I covered here at Manhattan Contrarian in a post on August 11 titled “New York’s Official Energy Plan Is No Plan,” where I called the Energy Plan “hundreds of pages of fluff.”
Here are a few excerpts from the state’s August 11 letter for your enjoyment:
The draft [Energy Plan] itself shows that a 40% greenhouse gas reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 is infeasible under the Climate Act’s accounting methodology and unaffordable for consumers. . . . [W]hile New York’s current policies and additional action would be expected to raise economywide costs for the state energy system in 2040 by less than 10%, the two net zero scenarios the Board considered raise energy-system costs by at least 35% in 2040, which is $42 billion in additional costs for that year alone. . . . In sum, under even the most aggressive scenario the State Energy Planning Board considered—one that by 2040 would lead to an added $42 billion in annual energy costs—New York would not meet the Climate Act’s 2030 goal. While the draft plan shows that ambitious progress under the Climate Act is achievable, the 2030 goal itself is not practically feasible due to costs consumers simply cannot bear.
So they have actually calculated that the attempt to reach “net zero” emissions on the statutorily-mandated schedule will cost consumers an extra $42 billion per year by 2040. They don’t give us numbers for other years, but presumably other years would be comparable. So figure, $42 billion per year. Let’s say that that is slightly different from wind and solar being “cheaper” than our existing fossil fuel infrastructure.
Frankly, I think that the $42 billion per year is a very low-ball estimate. But for today, I will take it.
The state’s August 11 letter essentially advocates that the deadlines should be allowed to slip while we implement these policies more slowly. What the letter does not mention is whether the total cost of this transition will be reduced in any way by stretching it out or, alternatively, whether the cost will be equal or more if spread over a longer period of time. I can’t think of any reason why spreading the cost over a longer period of time would reduce the total cost. And thus, if the cost is “infeasible” for consumers, it will be equally infeasible if stretched out.
Justice Schreibman was extremely unimpressed by the very weak argument made by the state. From the court’s opinion (page 8):
Faced with this [statutory] mandate, DEC does not have the discretion to say no or to decide that it has the authority to choose not to follow the express legislative direction at issue. Under our system of separation of powers, upon concluding, based on its subject-matter expertise, that achieving the goals of the Climate Act might be “infeasible” for the reasons stated, the DEC had just two options. One, it could issue compliant regulations anyway, and let the chips fall where they may for the State’s political actors. Or, two, it could raise its concerns to the Legislature. . . .
The court’s decision gives the state until February 6 to issue the regulations. The reason for the three month window is that the state Legislature will not come back into session until January, and thus the option to ask the Legislature to reconsider is kept open.
But what is the exit strategy? Will they soon start spending $42 billion per year on a crash emissions reduction program that still will clearly be insufficient to meet the ridiculous mandates of the CLCPA? Or will they ask the state Legislature to revise the statute? The second option will bring a huge outcry from the dominant progressive group in the Legislature and their environmentalist backers, all of whom are convinced (without ever having done serious analysis) that wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels and only corrupt influence from oil and gas interests is preventing the energy transition.
Maybe they will postpone the deadlines for a year or two. But when the year or two is up, the problem will be back bigger than ever.
There is no graceful exit strategy. The CLCPA will inevitably be abandoned. Exactly when or how, I don’t know, but it will happen.
By Vanessa Sevidova – New Eastern Outlook – November 23, 2025
In eastern Saudi Arabia, a strategic pivot is underway that could reshape the global energy landscape for decades to come. Saudi Aramco, the world’s most profitable oil company, long synonymous with crude, is steering a significant portion of its colossal resources toward a different fuel: natural gas.
This isn’t a tentative exploration but a full-throated strategic shift. The company has publicly raised its gas production growth target for 2030 to a staggering 80% above 2021 levels, a sharp increase from its previous goal of 60%. In an era of volatile oil prices and intense global pressure for an energy transition, Aramco is not retreating; it is repositioning, betting that gas will be the cornerstone of its future resilience and growth.
Navigating a shifting oil market
Aramco’s gas push reflects the company’s calculated long-game it continues to play in the oil sector. The kingdom, and by extension Aramco, operates from a position of unparalleled strength. As revealed by CEO Amin Nasser, the cost of producing a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia is a mere $2, with associated gas coming in at just $1 per barrel of oil equivalent. This is the lowest cost base in the world, a fact that grants the kingdom immense strategic patience.
When oil prices dip, as they have in recent months, hovering around or below $70 a barrel, high-cost producers – particularly U.S. shale drillers – feel the pressure. Analysts note that profitability for many in the shale patch becomes difficult when prices remain under $70, as their drilling and completion costs rise. For Riyadh, a period of lower prices serves a dual purpose: it ensures continued global demand for oil while pressuring rivals and forcing cutbacks in investment that could lead to market share gains for low-cost producers like those in OPEC.
This strategy is backed by unwavering confidence in long-term oil demand. Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman has been a vocal critic of what he famously termed the “La La Land” scenario pushed by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which had predicted an imminent peak in oil demand. For years, he insisted that hydrocarbons were “here to stay” and that the IEA had transformed from a neutral analyst into a “political advocate.”
In a striking validation of this stance, the IEA recently made a dramatic turn. In its latest World Energy Outlook, the agency acknowledged that global demand for oil and gas could continue to grow until 2050, a direct retreat from its previous peak-demand predictions. OPEC welcomed this as a “rendezvous with reality.” This shift underscores the enduring role of fossil fuels and vindicates Saudi Arabia’s insistence on the need for continued investment in oil and gas supply.
Gas is no longer just a transition fuel
Against this backdrop of oil-market realism, Aramco’s aggressive move into gas is a masterstroke of diversification. But this is not just about finding a cleaner-burning alternative. Within the halls of Aramco’s headquarters in Dhahran, the narrative around gas has fundamentally evolved.
“Natural gas is no longer viewed merely as a transition fuel but has now become an essential and permanent part of the global energy landscape,” said Ashraf Al-Ghazzawi, Aramco’s Executive Vice President of Strategy & Corporate Development. This statement marks a significant rhetorical and strategic shift. Gas is now seen as a critical pillar in its own right.
The drivers for this are twofold. Firstly, there is a pressing domestic demand. For years, Saudi policy has aimed to use more natural gas for electricity generation and industry, freeing up millions of barrels of crude for export rather than burning them at home. This directly boosts national revenue.
Secondly, and perhaps more compelling, is the emergence of a powerful new source of global demand: the digital economy. “It is a key factor in supporting demand growth linked to artificial intelligence and data centers,” Al-Ghazzawi added. The explosive growth of energy-hungry AI data centers is creating a voracious and constant demand for reliable power, which gas is uniquely positioned to provide.
CEO Amin Nasser, in a recent CNBC interview, confirmed that gas is now receiving the lion’s share of the company’s capital investments. He revealed that Aramco is looking to establish its first lithium extraction plant by 2027, a move that ties into the ecosystem of new technologies and energy storage, but gas remains the central focus.
The Jafurah field
The engine of this gas transformation is the Jafurah field, the largest unconventional gas project in Saudi Arabia and one of the largest in the world. Jafurah is the cornerstone of the kingdom’s ambition to become a major global gas player. The increased production target of 80% is expected to lift Aramco’s total gas and liquids output to around six million barrels of oil equivalent per day.
Analysts at JPMorgan noted that this “represents a tangible increase of more than 500,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day compared to previous estimates,” signaling a clear acceleration in the company’s ambitions.
The financial rationale is also compelling. Aramco estimates that its gas expansion will add between $12 billion and $15 billion to its annual operating cash flow by the end of the decade. While gas may be less profitable on a per-unit basis than oil in the current market, it offers a stable and secure income stream. As Jamie Ingram, Managing Editor of Middle East Economic Survey, pointed out, gas represents a “guaranteed and stable source of income because its prices are fixed and the local market is continuously expanding.”
Gas and AI
Aramco’s strategy presents an interesting synergy: it is betting on gas to power the AI revolution, while simultaneously using AI to make its own operations more efficient. The company leverages over 10 billion data points daily and a 90-year historical record to analyze and optimize its performance. Nasser stated that these digital efforts have already yielded $6 billion in added value between 2023 and 2024.
This means that the same AI technology driving up global energy demand is also helping Aramco extract and deliver that energy more cheaply and efficiently, further cementing its low-cost advantage.
New energy reality
The convergence of these factors – Aramco’s gas pivot, the IEA’s revised outlook, and the unrelenting demand from both traditional industries and new technologies – paints a clear picture. The world is entering a more complex energy era than the simple “renewables-only” narrative suggested.
Saudi Arabia, through Aramco, is positioning itself as a master of this complexity. It is leveraging its low-cost oil as a strategic tool to maintain market dominance while simultaneously building a gas behemoth to secure its financial future and power the next wave of technological growth. The message from Dhahran is clear: the future of energy is not a choice between old and new, but a pragmatic, diversified portfolio where oil, gas, and technology are deeply intertwined. In this new reality, Aramco intends to remain the supplier of choice.
Vanessa Sevidova, post-graduate student at MGIMO University and researcher on the Middle East and Africa
Press TV – November 23, 2025
On Saturday it was announced that Iranian companies will soon begin drilling at the strategically important Farzad B gas field in the middle of the Persian Gulf.
The development marks a rare breakthrough for the country’s energy sector after years of delays, sanctions pressure and missed opportunities.
It signals that Iran has finally gained the technical confidence and institutional capacity to push ahead with one of its most complicated shared fields without relying on hesitant foreign partners.
Farzad B lies near the maritime border with Saudi Arabia, close to Farsi Island, in a geologically difficult zone known for high pressures, high temperatures and fractured formations. Those conditions make it significantly more challenging to develop than South Pars, the country’s flagship offshore field.
Yet for nearly two decades, Farzad B remained stuck in negotiations, mostly with Indian companies that once planned to produce gas there and turn it into LNG for export. Each time political conditions shifted, the project stalled.
India pulled out during the first round of sanctions, returned briefly once sanctions were eased, and again withdrew during the Trump-era restrictions even after Tehran accepted New Delhi’s terms, including dropping its LNG ambitions, to keep the partnership alive.
While Iran waited, Saudi Arabia moved forward. Working with a Canadian-led consortium, it began producing gas from the shared field in 2015 and lifted output to roughly 34 million cubic meters a day the following year.
That imbalance carried economic consequences. Iran holds about 70% of the reservoir, and in shared fields, the country that produces less risks losing pressure in its part of the formation, allowing gas to migrate toward the neighbor extracting more aggressively.
In a period when Iran’s domestic demand has been rising and supply strains have become increasingly visible during winter peaks, the long delay at Farzad B was more than a strategic concern. It risked turning a national asset into a gradually shrinking one.
The administration’s response has been to push a broader strategy that focuses on shared fields as part of strengthening economic resilience. It has already delivered results in South Pars, where Iran eventually overtook Qatar in daily extraction, and in the West Karun region along the Iraqi border.
Bringing Farzad B into full development is now seen as a key part of that policy. With foreign partners unable or unwilling to commit, the government turned inward.
In 2017, the National Iranian Oil Company assigned Petropars to manage the project under a master contract covering subsurface analysis, conceptual design, drilling oversight and preparation for full field development.
The decision was a gamble on domestic capacity at a time when sanctions limited access to global finance, equipment and specialist technology.
But it also reflected a shift in economic planning; rather than wait for sanctions relief and return of foreign investors, authorities pushed national contractors to take the lead on the $1.78 billion project.
Over the past two years, that shift has produced visible results. Most notable is the completion and offshore installation of the 2,650-tonne jacked designed and built inside Iran by local companies.
The operation, led by Petropars and executed by the Iranian Offshore Engineering and Construction Company, required a level of engineering competence that industry analysts once assumed was out of reach for domestic firms working without international support.
The roll-up and installation at sea under demanding conditions demonstrates that Iran can carry out heavy offshore construction at a standard that matches global norms.
The technical hurdles go beyond the platform. The gas composition at Farzad B requires advanced metallurgy and specialized alloys for safe transmission. Laying the offshore pipeline is considered one of the most difficult marine engineering challenges attempted in the country.
Processing the high-pressure, high-temperature gas adds another layer of complexity. Yet Iranian engineers say they have now developed the design, equipment sourcing and operational planning needed to manage those conditions.
For a sector accustomed to relying on international contractors for the most complex offshore work, this represents a meaningful shift.
There is also momentum onshore. Officials have finalized the site of the gas processing plant after a series of environmental, geotechnical and risk assessments that included natural hazards, social and economic impact, access to infrastructure and proximity to offshore installations.
The level of preparatory work reflects a determination to avoid the kind of planning weaknesses that contributed to earlier delays.
The expected economic impact is significant. Once operational, Farzad B is projected to add roughly one billion cubic feet of gas per day to Iran’s supply.
That increase matters for a country that has struggled at times to meet domestic demand, manage seasonal shortages and maintain output in aging fields. It also reduces the risk of further reservoir losses to Saudi Arabia and helps safeguard Iran’s majority share of the field.
The project has become a symbol of the benefits of investing in domestic engineering capacity rather than waiting for foreign partnerships that may be derailed by geopolitics.
Petropars, once a secondary contractor in joint projects, has emerged as the emblem of that approach. Its leadership of Farzad B is evidence that Iranian firms can handle highly complex offshore developments even under sanctions and with restricted access to global suppliers.
The recent progress has pushed Farzad B past the stage of plans and declarations into active development.
For an economy navigating sanctions, rising energy needs and long-term pressure on shared fields, that shift marks a phenomenal achievement.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Meryl Nass, MD | July 12, 2021
After a year and a half of seeking but not finding SARS-2 in any wildlife anywhere (apart from domesticated or zoo animals that appear to have caught it from humans) is it time to say, yes, it didn’t just escape from a lab. It was created, built, assembled in a lab. Or many labs
Coronavirus scientists have been constructing new viruses out of bits and pieces of other viruses for a long time.
Why did they do it? … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 