The West Shouldn’t Look to Russia’s Allies to Solve the Energy Crisis

Sept. 7 2022

Following the Kremlin’s recent announcement that it is shutting off the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, Europe faces a sharp increase in already-high energy prices. One possible way to ameliorate the situation not just for Europe but for the rest of the globe would be to lift sanctions on Venezuelan and Iranian oil. In the latter case, the renewed nuclear deal currently under negotiation would accomplish just that. But Oved Lobel argues that such efforts would be counterproductive:

Much of Venezuela’s energy industry has come under virtual Russian control over the decade, not only via Russia’s partnership with Cuba—which siphoned off [Venezuelan] oil in the late 1990s in partnership with Iran—but also through direct loans in exchange for oil and ownership interest in Venezuelan energy projects. Russia’s state-owned Rosneft and its boss, Igor Sechin, perhaps the second-most powerful man in Russia, almost singlehandedly kept the Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro’s regime afloat, while Sechin himself regularly meets with Maduro and had a close relationship with his predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

Russia and Iran, meanwhile, have always had a sanctions-evading relationship, one set to deepen if the nuclear deal is revived. . . . Regardless of whether the reported $40 billion energy deal between Russia and Iran actually results in anything concrete, the two countries will continue to cooperate as much as compete in the energy sphere. In May, for instance, a Russian-flagged and -operated tanker carrying Iranian oil was seized by the U.S. off of Greece, although Iran then hijacked two Greek tankers in retaliation and Greece ultimately released the oil back to Iran.

What seems like realpolitik is therefore counterproductive. There is simply no way to compartmentalize these countries; the energy networks are too intertwined. Easing pressure on any of them will result in empowering all of them.

Read more at Fresh Air

More about: Energy, Europe, Iran, Russia, Venezuela

A Bill to Combat Anti-Semitism Has Bipartisan Support, but Congress Won’t Bring It to a Vote

In October, a young Mauritanian national murdered an Orthodox Jewish man on his way to synagogue in Chicago. This alone should be sufficient sign of the rising dangers of anti-Semitism. Nathan Diament explains how the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA) can, if passed, make American Jews safer:

We were off to a promising start when the AAA sailed through the House of Representatives in the spring by a generous vote of 320 to 91, and 30 senators from both sides of the aisle jumped to sponsor the Senate version. Then the bill ground to a halt.

Fearful of antagonizing their left-wing activist base and putting vulnerable senators on the record, especially right before the November election, Democrats delayed bringing the AAA to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, the election is over, but the political games continue.

You can’t combat anti-Semitism if you can’t—or won’t—define it. Modern anti-Semites hide their hate behind virulent anti-Zionism. . . . The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act targets this loophole by codifying that the Department of Education must use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism in its application of Title VI.

Read more at New York Post

More about: Anti-Semitism, Congress, IHRA