|
In the pipeline: More
regime change By Hooman Peimani
An Israeli daily, Ha'aretz, has reported that
Israel is seriously considering restarting a
strategically important oil pipeline that once
transferred oil from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel's
northern port of Haifa. Given the Israeli claim of a
positive US approach to the plan, the Israeli project
provides grounds for a theory that the ongoing war
against Iraq is in part a joint US, British and Israeli
design for reshaping the Middle East to serve their
particular interests, including their oil requirements.
According to the daily, Israeli National
Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky considers the
pipeline project as economically justifiable as it would
reduce the country's cost of oil imports. This is
currently very high, as Israel imports oil from Russia.
There would also be a strategic justification for the
project, as importing oil from an oil supplier in
Israel's close proximity would increase its fuel
security and would address its major handicap, that is,
its total dependence on imported fuel from far-away
suppliers. While living in the oil-rich Middle East, the
Israelis cannot count on regional oil exporters because
of the existing Arab-Israeli conflict. Prior to the 1979
Iranian revolution, Iran, which was on friendly terms
with Israel, provided its oil requirements. That
arrangement ended in 1979 when the new Iranian
revolutionary regime cut ties with Israel.
Paritzky has requested an assessment of the
Mosul-Haifa pipeline's current state, which ceased to
operate in 1948. Presumably, the pipeline will require
major repair and/or upgrading, if not an overhaul, as it
has not been in use for more than half a century.
However, its full operation, including the required
repair work, needs the consent of Iraq, the would-be oil
supplier, and Syria, a country neighboring both Iraq and
Israel, through which the pipeline passes.
Iraqi
consent will be out of the question as long as the
current regime of Saddam Hussein is in power. As
acknowledged by the Israeli minister, a prerequisite for
the project is, therefore, a new regime in Baghdad with
friendly ties with Israel. However, such a regime, if
ever it comes to power, will still require Syria's
consent to operationalize the pipeline. Given the
overall political environment in the Middle East and
Israel's continued occupation of Syria's Golan Heights,
the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent
as long as the status quo prevails. As stated by the
Iranian government, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88)
when Iraq enjoyed cordial and close relations with
Israel's mentor, the United States, Israel tried, but
failed, to resume the oil flow through the pipeline.
Syria, a friend of Iran and an enemy of Iraq, blocked
the flow of Iraqi oil.
Hence, unless the
pipeline were redirected through Jordan, another country
bordering Israel and Iraq with normalized relations with
Israel, the pipeline project will require a different
regime in Syria. In other words, regime change in both
Iraq and Syria is the prerequisite for the project. As
Paritzky did not mention a redirecting option, it is
safe to suggest that the Israelis are also optimistic
about a regime change in Syria in the near future.
Oil pipelines are a highly vulnerable means of
exporting oil, requiring a predictable long-term
reliability of the countries through which they pass.
Knowing this, the Israelis can only begin their
technical assessment of the pipeline once they are
convinced that the existing political barriers can be
overcome. This requires new regimes in Baghdad and
Damascus.
According to the Israeli minister, the
United States will back his project since the pipeline
would bring Iraqi oil directly from Iraq to the
Mediterranean. In such a case, the Americans could
bypass the Persian Gulf for their imported Iraqi oil,
while having secured access to the world's
second-largest oil reserves. Especially since the early
1990s, they have repeatedly expressed their concern
about over-reliance on the Persian Gulf for their oil
imports, which contains more than 60 percent of the
world's proven oil reserves. Given the concentration of
the major oil exporters in that region, its instability
could interrupt or completely stop the flow of oil by
oil tankers, with a consequent major impact on the US
economy, as it is so dependent on oil.
To
decrease their vulnerability to such a worst-case
scenario, the Americans have sought to diversify their
oil suppliers. Apart from the Caspian oil-exporters,
they have resorted to non-OPEC (Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries) African countries (Chad
and Angola), whose resources are also closer to the
United States than those of the Persian Gulf and the
Caspian Sea. However, these alternative suppliers could
only allay the US fear for a while, given the small size
of their oil deposits. Thus, in the long run, the US
will have to import heavily from the Persian Gulf
region, where existing oil reserves will outlast those
of other regions, and while some of its oil-rich
countries, such as Iran, keep finding new oilfields.
Given this situation, finding reliable
alternative export routes and means to sea routes and
oil tankers for Persian Gulf oil exports is the
long-term solution for the Americans requiring an
increasing amount of imported oil. In this regard,
land-based pipelines to carry oil to easily accessible
warm-water open seas such as the Mediterranean would be
a suitable option. A fully operational Mosul-Haifa
pipeline could address that US problem, while satisfying
Israel's oil requirements at same time.
The
Israeli oil pipeline plan, though, runs contrary to the
stated US war objectives in Iraq. The two key members of
the "coalition of the willing" - the United States and
the United Kingdom - have rejected oil as a motivation
for the war, a point not taken seriously by many all
over the world. Nevertheless, the Israeli plan, the
US-stated goal of securing Iraqi oilfields, including
those of Mosul, and the declared US objective of a
regime change in Iraq offer some evidence to the
contrary.
Against this background, the US
government's growing anti-Syrian rhetoric, including
accusing Syria of supplying military equipment to Iraq,
may well be the initial stage toward the expansion of
the war to Syria. If this happens, it could lead to a
regime change there to serve various purposes, including
the cooperation of Syria in future oil exports via the
Mosul-Haifa pipeline.
Dr Hooman
Peimani works as an independent consultant with
international organizations in Geneva and does research
in international relations.
(©2003 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.) |
| |
|
|
|