Total’s decision in 2020 to suspend exploration work in Block No. 4, located off the coast of Lebanon, and abruptly withdraw its ship with the equipment it carried, was not a coincidence, especially given that the French company did not provide Lebanon with a detailed report on the results of the work after his suspension.
Following that, there were signs confirming “Total’s” exit as a result of a political order issued by the US, and the company itself proved this when it sent a letter to Lebanon, confirming that it would return to work immediately upon the completion of the agreement on the demarcation of the border with “Israel,” despite the fact that Block No. 4 is more than 70 km nautical away from the border.
On the eve of the Lebanese parliamentary elections in May, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs David Schenker made serious remarks during a lecture at the Washington Institute, acknowledging the US administration’s key role in the Lebanon conflict.
At the time, Schenker discussed Washington’s sanctions against the country and the “Jamal Trust Bank,” which was purposefully timed to coincide with credit rating firms downgrading Lebanon. The American measure was intended to harm the Lebanese economy. This was also accompanied by a dubious monetary movement that impacted reality, financially, economically, and monetary.
The enforcement of this economic blockade was explicitly intended at pressuring the Lebanese state to entirely capitulate on matters such as maritime border delineation and oil and gas, and to subordinate it to American policies in all of their aspects.
Amos Hochstein, the American mediator on boundary delineation, used the devil’s technique in economic matters by:
1- Attempting to lure Lebanon into economic normalization with the interim entity during discussions by offering “joint extraction” and “joint investment fund.”
2- Extortion in the electricity file, by tying two hours of power to the boundary delineation.
3- Proposing a solution to the economic issue and “advanced thinking,” rather than demanding rights. He attempted to make concessions via economic servitude.
4- Insisting on a mutual waiver in the 8th and 9th blocks, first considering the interests of the temporary entity.
However, Hockstein’s four approaches to dealing with Lebanon during his visits all failed.
Preventing Lebanon from understanding what energy resources it possesses is not new; it began during the French mandate in 1926. However, the introduction of opposition on the oil and gas pipeline, as well as Europe’s pressing demand for energy supplies in the Mediterranean following its conflict with Russia over the Ukraine war, disrupted statistics.
In short, the resistance broke into the oil and gas equation, overthrowing Hochstein’s “devil and the economy” equation and imposing the “right and the economy” equation because it recognized Lebanon’s actual need for its wealth and the conspiracy to steal it, and decided to expel Hochstein’s demons from the details, especially after statements were issued in Washington and the entity. The interim decision concerns a significant blunder done during Lebanon’s siege and economic floods, as well as the implementation of former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s strategy to bankrupt it through maximum pressure. After 13 years of procrastination by the US and Israel, Lebanon decided to focus on the oil and gas issue.
The possibilities of a close war between Lebanon and “Israel” lie between two equations: the first is American, and the second concerns the resistance:
1- The US thinks that the resistance will not fight or go to war with “Israel,” despite sending marches to the “Karesh” area, since the resistance community and its incubation environment are not ready for war.
Washington also insists, in its equation and evaluation, on maintaining or even intensifying its policy of maximum pressure on the Lebanese economy in the coming months, on the grounds that it controls the dollar game at home and is aware of the consequences for the country’s social reality and public and private sectors.
2- The resistance seeks to impose the equation of “extraction in exchange for extraction,” not just from “Karesh,” but from all fields; in other words, it believes that any extraction of oil and gas in the nine Israeli fields is linked to allowing Lebanon to explore, prospect, and extract from its ten fields, contrary to US red lines on this issue.
The opposition also wants this to happen as quickly as possible so that Lebanon can include oil and gas into its economic structure and figure out how to get it to Europe outside of the Eastern Mediterranean Forum group. Among the fundamentals of this equation are the quick easing of Lebanon’s economic boycott and the end of black market dollar manipulation.
So we’re dealing with the most difficult equation on the Mediterranean beaches, and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers. And the risks of conflict have increased to 100%, especially following Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s comments about a “test” in September at the Mediterranean level.
In the same month, there is another test at the European level, which is the renewal of Russian gas contracts, in addition to the upcoming US midterm elections. It is up to the Americans to choose between war and no war. Will it “break evil” and end its blockade of Lebanon? Or will it continue to prohibit it from exploring, mining, and exporting its resources, leading to a new conflict in the region?
About Author
