MOSCOW, May 4. /TASS/. US President Donald Trump threatens to resume strikes on Iran in the wake of the latest proposal from the Islamic Republic, while his plan to trim US military presence in Germany can be offset with an increase in troop numbers elsewhere, experts argue. Meanwhile, Russia explains what could hinder the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. These stories topped Monday’s newspaper headlines across Russia.
Izvestia: Trump threatens to resume strikes in response to Iran’s latest proposals
Iran has submitted to the United States a broader 14-point plan to resolve the conflict that includes a phased cessation of hostilities, lifting the sanctions pressure, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, an initiative that was met with an obvious amount of skepticism in Washington. US President Donald Trump even said he could resume strikes on the Islamic Republic. At the same time, the parties maintain a hard line on most key issues, from the nuclear program to security guarantees, which leaves an uncertain future for agreements and heightens risks of a new bout of escalation in the region.
Dr. Hadi Issa Dalloul, an Iranian expert in international relations, believes that the latest proposals to resolve the Iran and Hormuz conflict do not contain enough guarantees to support actual agreements. The expert recalled in an interview with Izvestia that previous international agreements showed that any agreements quickly lose their viability without reliable guarantees. In this situation, Hadi Issa Dalloul argued, even mediation by third countries will not work unless the mandatory fulfilment of key points is secured in advance. Otherwise, he continued, the likelihood of escalation will remain high.
Moroccan political analyst Kareh Abu Salem believes that, despite Washington’s harsh rhetoric and warnings to use force, the two sides have not been interested in escalating matters to a full-out war. According to him, the real price of direct conflict remains too high for both the US and Iran. "Continued pressure through talks, or a manageable escalation, remains the most likely scenario," the expert told Izvestia.
Meanwhile, the situation in the Lebanese direction has worsened. Al-Monitor reported, citing a source at the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), that the declared ceasefire has only been nominal, while Hezbollah has partially regained lost ground inside Lebanon. Against this backdrop, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to promote the idea of talks with Lebanon with US participation. However, an Israeli diplomat told Al-Monitor, prospects of such contacts remain vague, and their potential effectiveness is questionable.
Roman Yanushevsky, editor-in-chief of Israeli Channel 9’s website, told Izvestia that there has been no visible progress on the Lebanese track as the developments there have been gradually moving to a new round of confrontation with the Shiite movement. He sees a similar trend in Israel’s relations with Iran as he doubts that Tehran will abandon the key elements of its military doctrine, namely the nuclear program, the missile potential, and support for its proxies. In these circumstances, Yanushevsky insists, the possibility of renewed hostilities remains high, a scenario that may take place soon, especially amid stalled talks.
Vedomosti: Trump’s plan to cut US troop numbers in Germany explained
The United States is planning to reduce its troop numbers in Germany, where about 35,000 soldiers and officers are currently stationed, by more than 5,000, US President Donald Trump announced on May 3. His announcement became the focus of Washington’s criticism over Berlin’s reluctance to support its operation against Iran.
Trump’s latest decision may result in the Americans’ refusal to station medium-range missiles in Germany, The New York Times quoted a source as saying. The Financial Times released a similar report as its sources said the reduction threatens the deployment of long-range weapons, including Tomahawk cruise missiles.
There have not been unsolvable issues regarding the deployment of US medium-range missiles anywhere so far, Dmitry Stefanovich, researcher with the Center for International Security at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations, told Vedomosti. However, he argued, with or without Trump, the US can hardly be expected to abandon its plans to station medium-range missiles in Germany, even taking the trend of reshaping transatlantic relations into account.
The withdrawal of 5,000 soldiers from Germany will not severely weaken US combat capabilities in Europe, for this will sooner or later be offset by an increase in troop numbers in other countries, Igor Shkrobtak, a senior researcher at the US and Canadian Studies Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained to Vedomosti. The president and his team may face significant difficulties in Congress with the withdrawal of troops, the expert noted. In the longer term, Shkrobtak emphasized, the United States will gradually refrain from increasing its military presence in Europe rather than leave the continent.
Vladimir Pavlov, a research fellow at the Institute of International Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), described Trump’s withdrawal of US troops as being in line with the trend toward moving US military personnel to the Asia-Pacific and the Western Hemisphere instead. He, too, said Washington may as well increase its military presence in Eastern Europe, for example in Poland, after cutting troop numbers in Western Europe.
Izvestia: Russia argues what could hinder creation of nuclear-weapon-free zone in Middle East
Russia may put forward new initiatives to create a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, Russian Permanent Representative to international organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov told Izvestia. According to the diplomat, the position of Israel, which is not ready to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), remains the key obstacle. In the context of ongoing regional tensions and attacks on Iranian infrastructure facilities, the issue of forming a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) gains additional relevance, but it would require the consent of all key participants.
Meanwhile, New York is hosting the 11th Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT. The situation around the treaty is complicated by rising tensions in the Middle East. In particular, US and Israeli attacks on Iranian facilities, including nuclear infrastructure sites, exacerbate the forum’s concern and increase the risks of undermining the non-proliferation regime.
Iraqi analyst Safaa al-Assam argued that Israel's position on the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction should not be perceived as unchangeable. While Israel has traditionally refused to officially acknowledge its nuclear status and has been reticent about discussing the NWFZ issue with Arab countries, politicians who advocate the renunciation of nukes have already appeared in Israel.
However, in the current circumstances, any tangible progress seems unlikely. According to Tarek al-Bardisi, an Egyptian expert in international relations, amid the ongoing escalation in the Middle East, Israel has not demonstrated a willingness to reconsider its position on the nuclear issue. On the contrary, the Israeli leadership continues to justify the preservation of its nuclear capabilities, presenting them as a necessary element of security, despite growing international pressure. "This stance actually undermines efforts to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and increases mistrust in the region," the expert maintained.
Rossiyskaya Gazeta: Experts weigh in on OPEC+ decision to increase output
On May 3, seven remaining OPEC+ countries announced a 188,000 barrels-per-day output increase for June. At their April meeting, when the UAE was still a member of the oil group, the oil producers agreed a 206,000 bpd quota hike, with the UAE’s share set at 18,000 bpd.
Amid the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that links the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, the two decisions, by OPEC+ and the UAE, remain "virtual": the countries cannot raise oil output, because they have no way to export it to the global market. Last month, aggregate oil production in the region fell by 9.1 million bpd, which is comparable to the coordinated output cut by OPEC+ at the early stages of COVID-19 in 2020.
Experts differ on the future of OPEC+. Russian National Energy Security Fund head Konstantin Simonov told Rossiyskaya Gazeta that the recent decision by OPEC+ to increase the oil production quota matters now as it shows that the oil deal continues unabated. According to him, the Organization had to demonstrate unity. Paradoxically, the UAE’s withdrawal from OPEC+ has only strengthened the deal, he argued. The main risk was the potential withdrawal of Saudi Arabia, a leader of the oil deal who has lately been dissatisfied with the deal’s impact. That scenario could have triggered a price war globally after the Middle East conflict. However, the Saudis and the UAE maintain a very complex relationship, and Saudi Arabia will not follow the UAE’s lead as it would therefore emphasize its secondary role in geopolitical terms, the expert explained.
Kirill Rodionov, an energy expert, disagrees. The UAE’s decision to leave OPEC and the OPEC+ deal effectively means that the deal has collapsed, he argues. According to him, the deal has lost its purpose: why coordinate quotas and stimulate price growth when production has already fallen sharply and Brent prices have reached multi-year highs? Pushing for peace between the US and Iran and preparing to restart oil production after conflict would make far greater sense. This might have prompted the UAE's decision to leave the OPEC+ deal, he said.
At present, the OPEC+ deal does not affect the oil output of Saudi Arabia and Russia, the two leading members, Valery Andrianov, associate professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, pointed out. While Saudi oil exports have been restricted amid the blockade of the Hormuz Strait, Russian oil exports have been hampered by logistics and sanctions barriers. At the same time, a sudden dissolution of the alliance, on the one hand, would cause a psychological shock to the market and push prices lower, the expert said. On the other hand, it would trigger a threat of a price war against everybody, but "a war without rules" would not serve anyone’s interests, he concluded.
Kommersant: Indian coking coal imports from Russia grow 7% in Q1
India, the second-largest importer of Russian coking coal after China, increased its imports in the first quarter by 7% year-on-year to 18.2 million metric tons, a report from NEFT Research indicated. The growth was fueled by the expansion of steel production.
According to the World Steel Association (WSA), in January-May, steel production in India rose 10.7% year-on-year to 44.7 million metric tons, the highest among the top ten steel-producing countries.
While NEFT Research did not provide a breakdown of Russian supplies, estimates from Freedom Finance Global show that Russia could account for 18-22% of Indian coking coal imports in Q1, or 3.3-4 million metric tons. BigMint noted that competitive prices and shorter supply routes have boosted Russian exports. Coal companies declined to comment.
Oleg Yemelchenkov, junior corporate rating director at Expert RA, told Kommersant that the potential for increased Russian coking coal exports in the second quarter will be primarily associated with India and, to a smaller extent, China. The outlook for other markets, including Turkey and Southeast Asian countries, looks more reserved, he argued.
Oleg Abelev, head of the analytical department at Ricom Trust, warned that the monsoon season and a slowdown in construction activity could pose risks to Russian coking coal exports to India.
TASS is not responsible for the material quoted in these press reviews