Instead of imaginary oil, why not discuss a real issue like the wheat production problems and the fact that Syria has only months of grain reserves? And if Alex as you keep saying, Syria has no problem of foreign currency reserves, why isn’t it buying more wheat? Low grain reserves are very dangerous indeed.
Can you get Imad Moustapha to comment on this?

http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2008/05/Syria_may2008.htm
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-54148

Syria can keep counting on miracles but it will have to one day address its fundamental problems, and that day is coming soon.

Obama’s Daunting Middle East Challenge

November 10, 2008

After eight years of misguided policy by the Bush administration in the Middle East, the time is overdue for an enlightened strategy to tackle the region’s woes. This must include an approach that will bring hope to a region shattered by violence, consumed by conflict and division and filled with disdain toward the United States. Although the massive economic crisis facing America is, and should be, President-elect Obama’s first priority, he must not hesitate to confront the simmering conflicts in the Middle East that cannot be relegated to the back burner without severely undermining the strategic interest and security of the United States.

Mr. Obama faces an incredible challenge to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan honorably, to restore hope to the Palestinian people, and to engage Iran and Syria constructively while fostering regional economic development. These are daunting tasks that may take several years to accomplish but must, nevertheless, be tackled no matter how impossible they may seem. Mr. Obama’s promise for change must be implemented not only with the goal of restoring America’s credibility and moral leadership abroad, but also with the intention to serve the United States’ strategic interests and prevent a potentially major regional conflagration. America’s new strategy in the Middle East must be comprehensive and integrated, utilizing all of America’s diplomatic instruments and power while working with allies. While the United States must take the lead, it must also commit itself to a strategy of multilateralism working with other powers to orchestrate solutions to some of the most intractable conflicts that America alone simply cannot solve. The new American strategy in the Middle East must be developed with an eye on establishing comprehensive regional security in which the majority of, if not all, the states in the area will have a stake in maintaining.

In Iraq, the new administration must remain committed to withdrawing most of the American forces within sixteen months as envisioned by President-elect Obama, but with some flexibility provided that three critical criteria are first met. The Iraqi internal forces and the military first must be well-integrated and trained to maintain internal security and order. Secondly, it is important that the Sunnis are provided with the means to defend themselves and run their own internal affairs as they see fit akin to their Kurdish counterpart. Lastly, an oil law must be enacted providing for equitable distribution of oil revenue to all Iraqis. By pursuing these three objectives and aided by the lull in violence brought about by the surge of American forces, the Iraqis themselves will be more inclined to agree on political reforms and reconciliation. In addition, the United States should actively seek the involvements of Iraq’s neighbors, especially Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan who have stakes in Iraq’s stability and a strong desire to bridge the Sunni-Shiite divide. Anything short of that would reverse much of the progress made to date, except this time with far greater intensity than ever before as American residual forces will be unable to prevent renewed violence. America has a moral obligation to leave Iraq reasonably assured of sustainable security and political stability. That much we owe the Iraqi people and the Obama administration must not settle for less.

In dealing with Iran, the new administration must create a strategy based on engagement and deterrence to prevent Iran from continuing to enrich uranium with impunity. The United States must initiate direct talks with Iran and end the threat of regime change in Tehran while making it abundantly clear that a nuclear Iran is not an option. This can be accomplished by pursuing three tracks of separate but interconnected negotiations. The first track should focus on negotiating an end to Iran’s enrichment of uranium without preconditions, and what would be the economic incentive package provided in return. The United States should take the lead in these negotiations joined by its European allies along with China and Russia. The negotiations should be limited to a three month period to prevent Iran from playing for time. The second track ought to focus on Iran’s and the United States’ grievances against each other. By constructively engaging Iran, Washington will help build mutual confidence, spur progress on the first negotiating track, benefit bilateral relations and encourage Iranian reformers to pursue democratic change without fear of retribution.

The third negotiating track should concentrate on regional security to alleviate Iran’s national security concerns and reinforce the United States’ commitments to the protection of its allies in the region. Should Iran, nevertheless, insist on continuing the enrichment of uranium, the United States must be clear about the extent of the devastating sanctions that will be orchestrated against it while not ruling out the use of force as a last resort. The United States must spearhead all three tracks without which future talks will be as elusive as the previous negotiations, except this time the West and Israel will be facing the unsettling prospect of a nuclear Iran with potentially dreadful consequences.

Since the 1992 Madrid peace conference the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam and nothing fundamentally new can be said about the ultimate solution that will be framed. A Palestinian state established over Gaza and most of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side-by-side with the state of Israel–while finding a just solution to the Palestinian refugees–remains the only viable solution. And the return of the Golan Heights to Syria is sine qua non to resolving the Israeli-Syrian conflict. But having a clear view of an Arab-Israeli peace does not reduce the potential risk of devastating war, which makes the need for a solution a pressing imperative. Here too, for the Obama administration to help orchestrate a peace agreement, it must accept the premise that America’s active and direct role is indispensable.

The Obama administration must embrace the Arab Peace Initiative, initially adopted by the Arab League in March of 2002. Although the Road Map has advanced the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, embracing the Initiative remains critical for two reasons: because it represents the collective Arab will which can rein in Arab extremists, and because only a comprehensive peace with all twenty-two Arab states offers Israel the security it has sought since its inception in 1948. The Obama administration must persuade Israel to formally accept the Initiative, while assuring the Israelis that the US will guarantee their security and will insist on maintaining Israel’s Jewish national identity under any peace formula.

The United States must play an active and direct role between Israelis and Palestinians by appointing a presidential envoy with a wide mandate that must stay in the region for as long as it takes until an agreement is forged. Throughout his two terms, President Bush sent over a dozen special envoys to the Middle East, yet none stayed long enough to allow for the consistency and continuity needed to keep both sides fully engaged. The new permanent envoy must be acutely perceptive of the histories of both people and have a keen understanding of the emotional, psychological and religious complexity of the conflict. This is particularly important as both sides suffer from serious psychological hang-ups about each other that ultimately prejudice their negotiating stance. Moreover, because of the endemic internal division and the existence of rejectionist groups in both camps, the Israeli and Palestinian governments need American cover to make the necessary concessions. A permanent envoy who can exert the necessary pressure and speak on behalf of the president can provide such a political cover.

The Obama administration must insist to Israel that ending the occupation of the West Bank also means an end to all settlement activity. The settlement expansion and the building of new outposts has been one of the major impediments to the peace negotiations in the past and has undermined Israel’s credibility. While Obama has reiterated America’s loyalty to Israel as its closest ally in the Middle East, he must also show that he can be an honest broker in the region when it comes to creating a Palestinian state. It is also of paramount importance that other Arab states in the region with good relations with Israel and the U.S. including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco are engaged at the outset in all peace efforts. In addition, these states should contribute to the creation of a peacekeeping force to be stationed in Gaza and the West Bank to enforce the provisions of the peace agreement. Only Arab forces representing the collective interest of their states can rein in Islamists who are likely to continue to resist any peace accord with Israel until they are brought to heel. Such an Arab force should be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council and preferably be placed under American command and monitoring to give Israel a greater sense of confidence in the durability of peace.

Contrary to the Bush administration’s policy that has attempted to isolate Syria as it sought a regime change, the Obama administration must engage Syria directly and in doing so dramatically change the political dynamics in the region. Syria is the linchpin to weakening Hezbollah and Hamas and marginalizing Iran’s influence in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Israel and Syria have made tremendous progress in their recent indirect negotiations mediated by Turkey. But Syria seeks normalizing relations with the United States. President Bashar al-Assad will be ready to enter into direct negotiations with Israel and conclude a peace agreement as soon as the Obama administration engages Damascus directly. An accord between Israel and Syria will also pave the way to a peace agreement with Lebanon, once Israel withdraws from Shebaa Farms, a disputed swath of land thrust between Israel, Lebanon and Syria.

Finally, any Arab-Israeli peace, however comprehensive, may not endure unless it is accompanied with an economic and humanitarian development program that will not only deal with the pressing need of millions of Arabs who live in abject poverty but foster political and human rights reforms. Moreover, there are many Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories who will continue to exploit these social ills to foment resistance as peace with Israel runs contrary to their interests. The Obama administration with its European counterparts must reassess American and Western financial aid to many Arab states and implement programs of sustainable development. Ultimately the United States cannot afford to limit its presence in the region to military or government-to-government solutions and must aim to create comprehensive packages that include bottom-up solutions.

Although the people of the Middle East are eager to forge peace to end decades of violence and suffering, they need a bold, visionary and committed American leadership to help them navigate through the treacherous road to peace. President Obama may have an historic opportunity to achieve what has eluded many of his predecessors.

Great post Alex. I hope President Obamas people make it happen for him. This maybe the lst ditch effort, if he doesn’t make it happen,in the next four years it will never happen. He might not get re-elected in 2012. The only thing left is WW3. God forbid

For buildings nearby the sea front, special types of foundations are used; pile foundations. Usually, they are either hammered down using colossally force or the formwork placed into a hole dug deep in the ground and then cast with concrete. However, the maximum depth these boreholes could go is nothing beyond 100 meters. Could it be possible that oil is found at 100 meters depth?

Alex,

Such a comprehensive look !- why among the comments?

Alia, Sam

oops : )

I am not the author of what I posted above

His name is Alon Ben Meir

http://www.alonben-meir.com/articles/read/id/394

Simo Hurtta,

In case you’re reading this…

I regret I was not able to answer you yesterday or today regarding your perception of Israel as a Nazi state. I will have to catch up with that thread (it’s going to take a while) and only then compose my reply. Alas the pace at SC is sometimes too fast for me…

Offended,

Petroleum commonly used to be found seeping at the surface!

But those most easily exploited fields have been long exhausted.

Nowadays, it would be almost incredible for anyone to simply stumble upon a significant oil field near the surface.

Great good luck, though, if the report proves true.

Exploratory Oil excavation Drilling Start in Lattakia
SANA (Syria Arab News Agency)

20 September 2008
Lattakia – Oil excavation drillings started in the Syrian coastal city of Lattakia on Saturday following the construction of the Oral Touch Drilling Machine last week.

Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Sufian Allaw said in a statements to reporters in the city that Syrian and foreign experts had already finished oil studies of the oil well and the black material discovered in it.

He added that drilling works in the experimental well could reach down to 3500 meters underneath along with continuous analyses and supervision of the discovered materials to see whether there are oil-carrying stones or any other probabilities such gas or oil.

The Minister said that in case oil has been discovered then drillings will not be done inside but outside the city by way of horizontal or slant drilling.

The discovered site last year produced almost one thousand barrel of good oil brand which had surfaced to the as drillings were being made for building pillars in the site.

By Ahmad Fathi ZAHRA

© SANA (Syria Arab News Agency) 2008

2. Alex said:

Obama’s Daunting Middle East Challenge

November 10, 2008

“After eight years of misguided policy by the Bush administration in the Middle East, the time is overdue for an enlightened strategy to tackle the region’s woes.”

Alex I am ready willing and able to contribute! Let the necessary powers know.

I think I finally figured out how AIG is able to singlehandedly fight off legions of Syrians on this forum.

He has some help.

Enlightened

I will let them know : )

AIG

Thank you very much for your concern abut Syria’s grain reserve, but let me ask if you have read the entire article, and how do you know that the government decision to abandon its 40 years monopoly as the sole procurer of grains was not the subject of major discussion in Syrian newspapers or on Syrian TV. Drought is a natural disaster, and even Israel, and the much stronger and richer US, both with technological marvels, will suffer the impacts of drought. In fact, It turns out that the “democratic” Israeli government has failed to deliver the promised amount of water from the desalinization plants and Israel is as vulnerable as any other country in the region to increased drought frequency despite its position as a world leader in water conservation, a position that is being surpassed now by Orange County, California.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/10/business/10feed.php

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/19/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Drought.php

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/965769.html

OTW,
Agriculture is 2% of Israeli GDP but 40% of Syrian GDP. Israel can afford to stop irrigating and using water for agriculture. Syria can’t. So saying that Israel is “vulnerable as any other country in the region to increased drought frequency” is just plain false. Israel is much less vulnerable.

And my point was that such an important issue as the failed wheat harvest was not mentioned once on this site that is supposed to cover major events in Syria until I raised the issue. For some reason Landis perfers talking about oil found in Latakia basements.

This is a good article, talking about the agriculture subject and it’s important in the syrian growth, which make 25% of the GDP not 40%…pity that you can’t read it and argue about it AIG, it’s in Arabic.
http://www.champress.net/?page=show_det&id=31983

AIG

It was brought up, and discussed with more on this issue planned.

The demise of Israeli agriculture, especially vinyards in the golan is good news to Syrians. These farmers will take other jobs and move back into Israel. But would your western life style allow you to abandon lawns and Kiputz gardens, which were cited as a reason for the recent upspike in water demand rising from 106 l/day to 108 l/day.

Nontheless, I guess i should have known better and should have expected your response for two reasons.
1, you believe that Israel is somehow so invincible and so special that that natural disasters, such as prolong drought can not even hurt it, and

2, you are a neoconservative, who may not believe the climate change “hogwash” or kumbaya BS.

I guess Israel does not have floods or flue either.

OTW, that is hilarious..

Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya….

OTW, I enjoyed a Romeo Y Julieta on behalf of both of us yesterday… 🙂

JAD, we can sing that together, while blasting off into space aboard the Chinese shuttle. Do you think the Chinese astronauts know what Kumbaya means? Will they care?

Dear Jad
Thank you very much for the link. I only wish that champress provides a little bio about the authors and a contact point. The article is good and Dr. Najmeh articulates the necessity of improved unit yeild. The only thing I would like to see considered is an Israeli, Spanish, and Orang county like style of sewage water reclamation for use in agriculture. Also, we must improve conservation practices and real-time crop and soil moisture monitoring. Ground water aquifers in syria are at risk of being severely overdrawn, and experience in Iran, Arizona, and california’s Central valley tell us that it is not very wise to use clean good ground water for agriculture, when other sources are available. I am very concerned about Groundwater use in Syria.

We should also be selective in the type of crops. With Syria being under siege, near self reliance in strategic crops is most important, although I am not an advocate of full self sufficiency because the concept can be unrealistic for certain high watr consumptive use crops (i.e., alphalpha). One thing I know is that ICARDA, and its Syrian academic and governmental, and NGO partners are trying their best to identify and develop drought resistant grain varieties and easy to implement conservation practices along with local governance approaches to agricultural planning.

SHAI, you only invite OTW for a RyJ cigars and you don’t invite me, I’m not talking to you anymore and I wont teach you any Kanji’s the chinese characters. 🙁

Shai
Man, I can imagine the aroma. I love Romeo and Julietta’s cigars and will probably have one this weekend. The best one I had was in New York a few years back, walking with a good friend for hours in Manhattan and chatting. I hope that we can do the same thing together soon with Jad and others. Right after you come back from the chinese space mission.

🙂

This is funny

http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2008/10/howard-stern-exposes-why-so-many-people.html

Dear OTW,
I’m not that knowledgeable in the agriculture field, from what I read, I think that ICARDA is doing good job trying to help that sector in Syria but it’s up to the farmers to do the job and improve and mostly on the government side to be smart and work with the farmers not against them.
I’m also concern about the water being wasted when we need every drop of it to be used properly, there are many technics and strategies been tested and prove it’s success in the world, I’m not sure if the syrian are doing anything regarding this extremely important issue.
J.

JAD,

Alf apologies my fellow Semiticnaut! If had known you liked them, of course I would have invited you! 🙂

OTW, In’shalla, In’shalla!

Shai,
“Semiticnaut”!!!! are you calling me a Semitic? YOU SEMITIC……I was just asking to have some cigar with you and OTW, there is no need for profanity 😉

JAD,

It’s the effects of the scotch I had with the RyJ last night… sorry! 😉

The oil find in Latakia story is about two years old. The real story is what the Syrian govt will do with the find. Here is a Syria News article on it from Jan 2007:

http://www.syria-news.com/readnews.php?sy_seq=46821

AIG said:
…such an important issue as the failed wheat harvest was not mentioned once on this site that is supposed to cover major events in Syria until I raised the issue.

Not true. At least, there is this link http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/04/content_10146363.htm
“UN seeks aid for drought affected people in Syria”,
in this thread
https://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=1030

Seeking,
I stand corrected. But don’t you think that such an important issue should merit a major post of its own with analysis by Landis? Do you believe that the issue was addressed in correlation with its importance?

And by the way there are no statistics or hard data about the wheat harvest in the link you provided. The actual data was only put on this blog by me (to the best of my knowledge).

AIG,

I gotta hand it to you – you’re one fine person. You think Israel shouldn’t make peace with Syria until Syrians are free to vote, you call the last 40 years of occupation and subjugation of 3 million people “security”, you blame the 1.5 million Palestinians for their suffocation in Gaza, you think Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizens is acceptable by most standards, and yet, you care about the wheat harvest in Syria! Almost makes me want to go hug a puppy.

Do know, that you might be able to fool a few of the people here, some of the time. But not all of us, all of the time. Get yourself more expensive masking tactics. These ones are too cheap… 😉

Alex,
Shai is taking “free” shots at me and I will not post anymore today. But I understand if you erase this comment.

Shai,
I would like to learn as much as I can about my potential enemies and that means I am very much interested in Syria’s economy. If you did not get that from all my posts then read them again. It is in Israel’s interest to be able to assess the economic strengths of Syria. Do you really not get it? I am not trying to mask anything. If there are food shortages in Syria, it may have strategic implications.

I, unlike you, at least don’t try to deceive anybody on this blog. You cannot even bring yourself to say that you are against the one state solution only that it is not possible right now. Why? Because you want to keep the fact vague. You are not willing to explicitly state your positions. In the end, it is nothing but deceit.

Is someone crying wolf?

Kumbaya!

A few comments on the post by Joshua “Major Oil Strike in Latakia” and the above quoted SANA article. N.B. I’m an Engineer who has worked for a Major International Oil Company for some 27 years.

“…produced almost one thousand barrel of good oil brand which had surfaced to the as drillings were being made for building pillars in the site.” “Oil started shooting into the air.” Most oil reservoirs buried shallow enough to be reached by foundation piling would be severely biodegraded and contain only immobile heavy oil (a quick Google search reveals http://www.oiltracers.com/oilbiodegradation.html if you want more information about biodegraded oil). Also there would be no reservoir pressure above hydrostatic pressure at such a shallow depth. Thus these reports should be viewed with skepticism. Crude oil would not flow much less shoot into the air. A possible scenario is the piling could have hit a pipeline or underground storage tank. An alternative scenario is the piling could have penetrated an accumulation of leakage/seepage oil (from a pipeline or storage tank).

“Oil … drillings started … on Saturday … Minister … said in a statements … had already finished oil studies of the oil well and the black material discovered in it.” This statement needs to be discounted. Wells actually don’t get drilled that fast and studies actually don’t get done that quick. However the need for a quick political win may be sufficient for a preemptive statement by a Minister.

“Russians are in the process of signing a deal for lots 4 & 5 in the north of Syria, about which expectations are also high” One must calibrate what “high expectations” are. Oilmen are natural optimists, and will say most anything while in the process of striking a deal. The chances of finding an economic sized discovery in an area without an offset oil discovery are not that high. As far as I know the East end of the Mediterranean is not one of the more prospective areas of oil exploration. The simple reason that us oilmen are exploring that area is that most of the prospective basins of the world have already been explored and exploited. This is simply an outcome of the “Hubbert Peak Theory” first presented in 1956, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubberts_peak_theory.

AIG,

If you promise to waste one of your 6 comments for Nov.13th, 2008 on this, I want your public acknowledgment to the following:

“I, AIG, fully and finally understand that Shai is against a one-state solution now.”

Here’s my formal declaration, in the least vague way that I know how:

“I, Shai, am against a one-state solution now.”

Shai,
Who are you trying to fool?
Why can’t you say: “I, Shai, am against a one-state solution.”
Why do you have to add the “now” at the end of the statement? Is this to be vague enough so as to generate false hope that soon you may change your mind? What can happen that will make you support the one state solution in the future?
I for example, whatever happens, will be against the one state solution because I want to live in a Jewish state (like 99% of the Jews in Israel). You apparently are not that committed long term to that idea. Is my interpretation correct?

AIG,

I knew the “now” would be too much for you. But I put it in, hoping you’d waste an entire comment (1 out of 6 today) on showing how inflexible you are even cognitively. Your mind thinks in absolutes. You can’t even fathom a day when you’ll think differently.

But here, I’ll now make it EVEN easier for you. At the hope you’ll waste another of you 6 comments for the day on this nonsense, here’s an EVEN MORE clear statement:

“I, Shai, do not believe a one-state solution is possible.”

I’ve said on a few occasions that I thought a UME (United Middle East) could, if ever created (in my farfetched fantasies), enable de facto a Right of Return. Because Jews will feel safe enough to open our borders in Israel to any Arab in the region, and they’ll do the same with us. A Palestinian living in Lebanon could move back to Jaffa, work in Tel-Aviv, and drive to visit his parents in Beirut on the weekends. An Israeli could move to Damascus, work there all week long, and drive back to Haifa to visit his parents on the weekend. That’s not a one-state solution, but it has many of its characteristics. But this is a long, long time from now. Ok?

You know the absurd in all you anti-one-state supporters? You sit there all day long whining about how crucial it is for Israel to be predominantly Jewish, how it is of existential important to us, while you continue to support the Occupation. In case you haven’t noticed, the State of Israel, its political leadership, and its army, are in charge of a de facto one-state with a little over 50% Muslim population! Earlier this year, the Israel Bureau of Statistics (not the Palestinian or Syrian one) issued figures that, for the first time in 40 years, showed there are more Muslims than Jews in the total territory under Israeli control. This is now your “Jewish State”. And yet you’re fine with it.

We liberals want to end the Occupation, to at last separate and form two states (that’s called a “two-state solution”), and begin living in peace with our new neighbor.

You, on the other hand, haven’t decided what you’re FOR, so you’re staying an Apartheid rule over 3 million people. But what you have decided, is what you’re AGAINST, which is a one-state solution, which is exactly what we’re living in, for over 40 years!

I can’t tell if it’s blindness, incompetence, impotence, or hypocrisy, or all of them together.

[…] Comment sent by Mark on the possible oil find in Latakia: A few comments on the post by Joshua “Major Oil Strike in Latakia” and the above quoted SANA article. N.B. I’m an Engineer who has worked for a Major […]