| |
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.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
