Uncategorized
Senators describe ‘optimism’ after Middle East tour, leaving questions on Israel’s extremist leaders unanswered
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Judging by her response to a question at a press briefing on Tuesday, Jackie Rosen had likely read the headlines involving Israel she had made over the past week. She was prepared to deflect.
Had she really nixed meetings with two government ministers in Israel’s extremist Religious Zionist bloc, as Axios had reported?
“Let’s focus on what these historic agreements mean,” the Nevada Democrat said, referring to the Abraham Accords, the 2020 normalization agreements with multiple Arab countries that edged Israel closer to its dream of peaceful coexistence with its neighbors. Rosen and six other U.S. senators last week toured four of the five signatories to the accords, including Israel — where Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who have incurred international criticism, currently hold powerful positions in Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition.
“The real optimism between these countries for partnerships, for people to people relationships, things that benefit their people on the ground, like markets … energy, agriculture technology, and, just coming out of the global pandemic, healthcare,” Rosen added.
For all their optimism on Tuesday, however, the senators acknowledged, in guarded language, that plans by Smotrich to annex territories in the West Bank and Ben-Gvir’s provocative actions on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount could not only undercut the aim of their tour — to seek ways to expand the accords to other countries — but could also scuttle them entirely.
“We were very clear when we spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu that it is important that they would maintain the status quo and they not do anything that would impede the progress of the Abraham accords and a negotiated two-state solution,” Rosen said. “I believe we were very clear.”
The United Arab Emirates threatened to pull out of the accords before they were formally launched in the summer of 2020, when Netanyahu sought then to advance partial annexation. Netanyahu retreated and the accords went ahead.
The only senator who spoke at length about the most fragile element of the effort — how to extend the peacemaking to the Palestinians — was Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat.
“A lot of us talked about the optimism, but there are also a lot of risks,” Kelly said. “The visit that we had with the Palestinian Authority highlighted to me that there is a lot more work to do, not just with the Abraham Accords, but the work needed to get to a resolution — the plight of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a two-state solution.”
The Palestinian Authority declined to be part of the Abraham Accords process, saying the deal, brokered under former President Donald Trump, ignores Palestinian national aspirations. The Biden administration hopes to bring the Palestinians in through economic incentives and by keeping the two-state outcome alive, although Netanyahu and his government have renounced it.
Rosen, who says she got her political chops as a synagogue president in suburban Las Vegas, never answered the question about whether she would have met with Smotrich, the finance minister who has a stake in the trade side of the accords, if he had asked for a meeting.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, ran interference for Rosen.
“I would just add that Prime Minister Netanyahu was very clear that he spoke for his government, and that the meeting we had with him was the most important meeting to hear — what his strategy was and why the Abraham Accords was such a huge opportunity,” Gillibrand said.
The group of senators — which also included Dan Sullivan, an Alaska Republican; Ted Budd, a North Carolina Republican; and Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat — toured Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Israel as well as the Palestinian areas. They did not tour Sudan, which is a party to the accords, but is currently in turmoil.
They described witnessing the benefits of the accords, but in a curiously one-sided way — noting the masses of Israeli tourists who have visited the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco, but not mentioning that there was little to no movement in the other direction.
Pressed by a reporter, the senators acknowledged that enthusiasm for the accords in the Arab countries was for now confined to the elites, and that support for the deals has yet to trickle own to the everyday citizen level.
“We’re outsiders stepping in, we’re meeting with leaders, we’re meeting with key people. We’re not interacting with everyone on the streets and doing polling in the streets,” said Sen. James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma.
Gillibrand said leaders admitted that they had to make the case for normalization with Israel to their peoples.
“Every head of state that we spoke to said ‘This is where I’m leading my people. I know it’s going to take time for people to understand why and why it’s so important, but I’m doing what it takes to lead my people for a safer security region, for greater economic ties, so that actually benefits [the people] over time’,’” she said. She described changes in education that the governments introduced to promote better understanding of Jews and others.
There was also talk of the benefits the senators hoped the accords would bring stateside. The senators from western states, including Kelly, Bennet and Rosen, spoke about Israeli and Emirati drought expertise they hoped to put to use at home.
“We hope to learn a lot about the work that’s being done to try to deal with drought and deal with the shortage of water in the region. We’re facing many similar challenges in the Rocky Mountain West,” Bennet said.
—
The post Senators describe ‘optimism’ after Middle East tour, leaving questions on Israel’s extremist leaders unanswered appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Oil Prices Likely to Move Higher on Venezuelan Turmoil, Ample Supply to Cap Gains
FILE PHOTO: The Guinea-flagged oil tanker MT Bandra, which is under sanctions, is partially seen alongside another vessel at El Palito terminal, near Puerto Cabello, Venezuela December 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Juan Carlos Hernandez/File Photo
Oil prices are likely to move higher when benchmark futures resume trading later on Sunday on concern that supply may be disrupted after the United States snatched Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from Caracas at the weekend and President Donald Trump said Washington would take control of the oil-producing nation.
There is plentiful oil supply in global markets, meaning any further disruption to Venezuela’s exports would have little immediate impact on prices, analysts said.
The US strike on Venezuela to extract the country’s president inflicted no damage on the country’s oil production and refining industry, two sources with knowledge of operations at state oil company PDVSA said at the weekend.
Since Trump imposed a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuelan waters and seized two cargoes last month, exports have fallen and have been completely paralysed since January 1.
That has left millions of barrels stuck on loaded tankers in Venezuelan waters and led to millions more barrels going into Venezuelan oil storage.
The OPEC member’s exports fell to around 500,000 barrels per day in December, around half of what they were in November. Most of the December exports took place before the embargo. Since then, only exports from Chevron of around 100,000 bpd have continued to leave Venezuela. The global oil major has US authorization to produce and export from Venezuela despite sanctions.
The embargo prompted PDVSA to begin cutting oil output, three sources close to the decision said on Sunday, because Venezuela is running out of storage capacity for the oil that it cannot export. PDVSA has asked some of the joint ventures that are operating in the country to cut back production, the sources said. They would need to shut down oilfields or well clusters.
Trump said on Saturday that the oil embargo on Venezuelan exports remained in full effect. If the US government loosens the embargo and allows more Venezuelan crude exports to the US Gulf, there are refiners there that previously processed the country’s oil.
The weekend’s events were unlikely to materially alter global oil markets or the global economy given the US strikes avoided Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, said Neil Shearing, group chief economist at Capital Economics.
“In any case, any short-term disruption to Venezuelan output can easily be offset by increased production elsewhere. And any medium-term recovery in Venezuelan supply would be dwarfed by shifts among the major producers,” he said in a note.
Trump also threatened on Friday to intervene in a crackdown on protests in Iran, another OPEC producer, ratcheting up geopolitical tensions. Trump on Friday said “we are locked and loaded and ready to go,” without specifying what actions he was considering against Tehran, which has seen a week of unrest as protests over soaring inflation spread across the country.
“Prices may see modest upside on heightened geopolitical tensions and disruption risks linked to Venezuela and Iran, but ample global supply should continue to cap those risks for now,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodities research at Saxo Bank.
On Sunday, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and their allies agreed to maintain steady oil output in the first quarter, OPEC+ said in a statement. Both Venezuela and Iran are members of OPEC. Several other members of OPEC+ are also embroiled in conflict and political crises.
The producer group has put increases in production on pause for the first quarter after raising output targets by around 2.9 million barrels per day from April to December 2025, equal to almost 3% of world oil demand.
Brent and US crude futures settled lower on Friday, the first day of trading of 2026, as investors weighed oversupply concerns against geopolitical risks. Both contracts closed 2025 with their biggest annual loss since 2020 marked by wars, higher tariffs, increased OPEC+ output and sanctions on Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
VENEZUELA
“The political transition in Venezuela adds another major layer of uncertainty, with elevated risks of civil unrest and near-term supply disruptions,” said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at consultancy Rystad Energy and a former OPEC official.
“In an environment this fragile, OPEC+ is choosing caution, preserving flexibility rather than introducing new uncertainty into an already volatile market.”
Trump said on Saturday that the US would control the country until it could make an orderly transition, but an interim government led by vice president and oil minister Delcy Rodriguez remains in control of the country’s institutions, including state energy company PDVSA, with the blessing of Venezuela’s top court.
A top Venezuelan official said on Sunday that the country’s government would stay unified behind Maduro amid deep uncertainty about what is next for the Latin American country.
Trump said that American oil companies were prepared to reenter Venezuela and invest billions of dollars to restore production there.
Venezuela is unlikely to see any meaningful boost to crude output for years even if US oil majors do invest the billions of dollars in the country that Trump has promised, analysts said.
“We continue to caution market observers that it will be a long road back for the country, given its decades-long decline under the Chávez and Maduro regimes, as well as the fact that the US regime change track record is not one of unambiguous success,” Helima Croft, RBC Capital’s head of commodities research, said in a note.
Uncategorized
US Pushes Oil Majors to Invest Big in Venezuela if They Want to Recover Debts
A demonstrator uses a megaphone during a protest against US military action in Venezuela, at Lafayette Square in front of the White House, following US President Donald Trump’s announcement that the US military has struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 3, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Tyrone Siu
White House and State Department officials have told US oil executives in recent weeks that they would need to return to Venezuela quickly and invest significant capital in the country to revive the damaged oil industry if they wanted compensation for assets expropriated by Venezuela two decades ago, according to two people familiar with the outreach.
In the 2000s, Venezuela expropriated the assets of some international oil companies that declined to give state-run oil company PDVSA increased operational control, as demanded by late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
US oil major Chevron was among companies that negotiated to stay in the country and form joint ventures with state-run PDVSA, while rivals Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips left and filed for arbitration.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that American companies were prepared to return to Venezuela and spend billions to reactivate the struggling oil sector, just hours after President Nicolás Maduro was captured and removed by US forces.
In the recent US administration discussions with oil executives in the scenario that Maduro was out of power, officials have said that US oil companies would need to front the investment money themselves to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry. That would be one of the preconditions for them eventually recovering debts from the expropriations.
That would be a costly investment for firms such as ConocoPhillips, the sources said. Conoco for years has tried to recover some $12 billion from the Chavez-era nationalization of its Venezuela assets. Exxon Mobil also filed international arbitration cases, trying to recover $1.65 billion.
Trump began making public reference to the Venezuelan expropriations when he ordered a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers last month.
CONDITIONS FOR A RETURN
Whether or not the companies return would depend on how executives, boards and shareholders evaluate the risk of renewed investment in Venezuela, the sources said.
“ConocoPhillips is monitoring developments in Venezuela and their potential implications for global energy supply and stability. It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” a company spokesperson said in emailed comments to Reuters on Saturday. The company reiterated the statement on Sunday when asked about discussions with administration officials for this story.
Exxon did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters on Sunday.
Politico first reported on the recent discussions on Saturday.
Even if companies do agree to return to the country, it could be years before there is a meaningful boost to oil output. The South American country has one of the largest estimated reserves in the world, but production has plummeted over past decades amid mismanagement, lack of investment and US sanctions.
Besides uncertainty surrounding the contract framework for any operations there, companies considering a return would also need to deal with security concerns, poor infrastructure, questions about the legality of the US operation to capture Maduro and the possibility of long-term political instability, analysts have told Reuters.
Venezuela, a founding member of OPEC, produced as much as 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1970s, which at the time represented over 7 percent of global oil output. Production fell below 2 million bpd during the 2010s and averaged around 1.1 million bpd last year, or just 1 percent of global production.
Uncategorized
Latvia Police Board Vessel After Baltic Sea Telecom Cable Breach
Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Silina attends a press conference on the day of the Eastern Flank Summit in Helsinki, Finland December 16, 2025. Lehtikuva/Heikki Saukkomaa/via REUTERS/File Photo
An undersea telecoms cable was damaged in the Baltic Sea on Friday and Latvian investigators on Sunday boarded a ship in connection with the incident, the country’s state police said in a statement.
The Baltic Sea region is on high alert after a string of power cable, telecom link and gas pipeline outages since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and the NATO military alliance has boosted its presence with frigates, aircraft and naval drones.
Lithuania’s National Crisis Management Centre said the cable runs from Sventoji in Lithuania to Liepaja in Latvia, two coastal towns some 65 km (40 miles) apart, and that it was not immediately clear what caused the incident.
“At this time, neither the vessel nor its crew is detained, they are cooperating with the police, and active work continues to clarify the circumstances,” Latvian police said on X.
Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Silina said the damage had occurred near Liepaja.
“The incident has not affected Latvian communications users,” she wrote on X.
The latest incident is made public five days after Finnish police seized a cargo vessel en route from Russia to Israel on suspicion of sabotaging an undersea telecoms cable running from Helsinki across the Gulf of Finland to Estonia.