by Eric Draitser
March 11, 2013
The pipeline will bring more than simply an economic boost to both countries; it is a crucial guidepost on the path to peace. After generations of conflict, Iran and Pakistan are taking their economic destinies into their own hands – together.
The pipeline, which would bring Iranian gas to Pakistan through its western Balochistan province, will stretch almost 1,000 miles (1,600 km) from Iran’s gas-rich Asalouyeh region into the Pakistani heartland, supplying major cities like Karachi and Islamabad with much needed, reliable energy while carrying a pricetag of roughly $1.5 billion. Similarly, the project is critical for Iran as it struggles to survive and grow amid the hostility of US-European sanctions.
The Benefits for Both Countries
It is against the backdrop of brutal, draconian sanctions initiated by the US and its European partners, that Tehran has taken the countermeasure to develop itself and the region, constructing an economically independent framework of relations not beholden to Western financiers. Undoubtedly, the centerpiece of this strategy of economic independence as a means of anti-imperialist resistance is the Iran-Pakistan pipeline. The project, already nearing completion on the Iranian side of the border, would bring desperately needed Iranian gas to energy-starved Pakistan – a country battling a perpetual energy shortage. Needless to say, the project is critical for the economic survival of both nations.
For Iran, the pipeline means economic stability at a time of tremendous turmoil. While the Islamic Republic often downplays the impact of the sanctions, the reality is inescapable: an inflation rate hovering around 30% , the loss of key regional markets such as India, and the continued shortage of medicines and staple foods among other things . These problems plaguing the Iranian economy require both short-term and long-term solutions. The pipeline conveniently addresses both as it provides Tehran with much needed energy revenue today, while offering the potential for increased revenue and infrastructure expansion in the future. Essentially then, the pipeline is really more of a lifeline, anchoring the Iranian economy for decades to come.
Like their Iranian neighbors, Pakistan also has had to address glaring economic deficiencies, particularly with regard to the energy sector. A recent poll unsurprisingly showed that energy shortages, along with unemployment, remain the greatest economic issues facing the country. Public anger over the inability of the government to meet the country’s electricity demands has boiled over in the form of riots numerous times, most recently in the summer of 2012 . This type of public unrest over the energy issue serves to delegitimize the government, especially the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and weaken their hold on political power.
For Islamabad then, the pipeline means energy security which, in turn, means political stability. Moreover, the project as a whole is, at least in small part, a way of resisting Washington and the Obama administration’s continued violations of Pakistani sovereignty. By pushing forward with the project, in the face of countless threats from Washington, Pakistani president Zardari is walking a fine line between maintaining a working relationship with his US partners and forging new relations from which Pakistan will benefit while the US loses.
A Sectarian Bridge?
One critical aspect of the Iran-Pakistan pipeline is the simple fact that it brings together two countries that, if western imperialists were to have their way, would always remain enemies. Pakistan (a majority Sunni Muslim country) and Iran (a majority Shiite Muslim country), have historically been at odds with one another, choosing rather to align themselves with other Sunni and Shiite countries respectively. This fundamental conflict has, for more than a century, been at the heart of the imperialist/colonialist strategy.
Whether British, French, or American, western powers have long dominated the vast energy resources of the Middle East and Central Asia by dividing the Muslim populations along these sectarian lines, exploiting the differences between them in order to prevent independent economic development. However, the Iran-Pakistan pipeline flies in the face of this “divide and conquer” strategy. Bringing together these two countries through mutually beneficial economic development, the project seems to signal a major change in the Muslim world in the 21st Century. No longer will the imperialists be able to control the destinies of nations in the region by exploiting their differences. Rather, it is the imperial powers themselves who will have to reevaluate their strategy and come to terms with a changing world in which their unchallenged hegemony becomes a relic of the past.
The Geopolitics of the Pipeline
Although the Iran-Pakistan pipeline is economically and politically significant to both nations, it takes on perhaps its greatest importance in the context of world geopolitics. The project fundamentally alters the balance of power in Asia and the world for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, the pipeline links two countries that, each in its own way, seek to undermine US hegemony in the Middle East and South Asia. While Iran has been the implacable foe of Washington since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Pakistan has maintained relations that at one time made them close allies, but in recent years have deteriorated to the point where the United States is seen as Public Enemy No. 1 in the streets. The pipeline brings the two countries closer together and, in so doing, helps to solidify a relationship united by a common mistrust of the US.
Secondly, the Iran-Pakistan pipeline could quite easily become the Iran-Pakistan-China pipeline if Beijing decides to finally get involved. In this very plausible scenario, China would finally get the “holy grail” it has sought for years: land-based access to energy imports from the Middle East. For China, an energy-starved economy that continues to grow, this would greatly enhance their regional position. It would also transform the balance of power in Asia, as the era of US domination of energy resources in the Middle East would be over. So, were the project to be extended to China, the pipeline would become the focus of a new power paradigm, making it one of the most important economic development projects in the world.
Additionally, the pipeline shows the growing power and influence of international alliances and organizations that represent a counterweight to the imperialist establishment of the West. Iran has taken on the role of leading the Non-Aligned Movement, thrusting itself into the forefront of the anti-imperialist bloc. At the same time, both Iran and Pakistan seek membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), led by Russia and China, which is showing signs of developing into a full-fledged strategic alliance that provides a check to US-NATO dominance. In this way, the pipeline becomes the tangible link between various organizations and alliances which seek to beat a path independent of US hegemony. It is for this reason, more than anything else, that the United States has vigorously attempted to subvert the development of the pipeline, going so far as to heavily promote the much-touted Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, seen as the main competitor to the Iran-Pakistan project. However, despite the fierce opposition from Washington, the project will go ahead while the TAPI still remains on the drawing board, subject to security concerns in Afghanistan and elsewhere along the route.
When seen from the broadest perspective, the Iran-Pakistan pipeline fundamentally transforms power relations in the Middle East, South Asia, and throughout the world. Not only does it benefit the two nations involved, but all other nations and peoples who have been oppressed, controlled, or otherwise coerced by the Western powers. In this way, the Iran-Pakistan Pipeline represents peace and progress. In short, it is the promise of a better future.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.
[hat tip: Nile Bowie]
August 9, 2012
Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov calls it “full-scale civil war.” It’s full-scale but not civil.
Syria’s been invaded. Civil war implies two internal warring sides. That’s very much not the case. Primakov said:
“Mercenaries and volunteers from other states are fighting (Assad) jointly with” violent internal forces. Most Syria opponents are nonviolent. They want peaceful conflict resolution. Washington has other ideas.
“President Obama has given a direct order to the CIA to support the Syrian opposition.”
“That is flagrant interference in internal affairs of a sovereign state, which does not endanger the United States or anyone else.”
“Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding militants. Turkey is giving them active support.” So are other regional countries.
“Russia holds the only correct position,” he added. “We have a moral position: we care for life and security of millions of people and for stability of the huge and important region.”
Syria is strategically important for Moscow. Tartus is its only Mediterranean base. Protecting it is key. Assad is a valued regional ally. It’s in Russia’s interest to support him.
Moscow backed Annan’s peace plan dependent on keeping him in power and having Syrian sovereignty be respected. Its strategy also lets other global allies know it’s committed to back them if needed. Some have their own internal problems and need reassurance.
Regional economic interests are also important. Much more is involved than weapons.
Russia constructed Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility and agreed to build three more. Both countries have strategic ties. They also have other economic relations.
Russian Federation regions have additional ones. Both countries cooperate on oil and gas interests.
Russian expertise and technology helped build Syrian infrastructure. It’s also responsible for dozens of industrial facilities. It includes about one-third of its electrical power capacity, another third of its oil-related operations, and help building the Euphrates dam.
Maritime interests are important. Linking Latakia, Syria with Novorossiysk, Russia on the Black Sea facilitates cargo shipments. Gazprom has oil and gas development operations.
Both countries have nuclear energy ties. They also cooperate on other commercial, scientific, military, and environmental issues.
Russia and Syria enjoyed strategic relations for decades. Patrick Seale called Moscow Hafez Assad’s main ally. Given Washington’s regional ambitions, both countries serve each other strategically.
Greater Washington Eurasian control threatens Moscow directly. Preventing it is key. Standing firm on Syria and Iran is vital.
America infests the region with military bases. Offensive missile shield installations target Russia and China. Both countries partnered with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan in a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) alliance.
India, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Mongolia have observer status. Belarus and Sri Lanka are dialogue partners. Expanding the organization is planned.
SCO supports economic cooperation, peace, and national sovereignty. Member states are a potential bulwark against Washington-led NATO aggression.
On June 6 and 7, members met in Beijing. Security and economic cooperation issues were discussed. Washington’s missile shield was condemned.
Its North Africa/Eurasian militarization threatens Russia, China, Iran, and other countries. Syria is ground zero. Holding the line is vital. Odds of succeeding are uncertain. Washington doesn’t quit once strategic plans are implemented.
Assad promises to try. On August 8, SANA state media said he’s determined to defeat terrorists responsible for mass killings and atrocities.
He spoke during a meeting with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili. They met on issues affecting both countries. They agreed that resolving Syria’s crisis depends on internal solutions.
Separately, SANA reported Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi warning about:
“Plots which aim at destabilizing peace and stability in the region, instigate conflicts among the minorities and sects which lived together in peace in order to change the situations in the region.”
Salehi met with Turkish officials in Ankara. They discussed 48 Iranian visitors abducted by Syrian insurgents. At issue is ensuring their safety and release. Reportedly three were killed.
Syrian captors said one was a Russian general. They identified him as Major General Vladimir Kuzheez. Moscow’s Defense Ministry called the claim “complete lies.” An official statement added:
“The goal of broadcasting such statements is not just to cause a sensation, but a clear attempt at a slur toward the Russian Army.”
Kuzheev is very much alive. He met with journalists and dismissed reports of his death, saying:
“I want to express thanks to the media for their attention to my person….I want to confirm that I am well and alive in Moscow….I realize that this information is a provocation not only against me but against my country.”
Saudi controlled Al Arabiya broadcast a video featuring Free Syrian Army representatives claiming Kuzheev was killed. They showed what they called his photo ID identity card. It was fake.
The battle for Aleppo continues. Government forces cleared insurgents from Salaheddin. They’re gaining the upper hand. Reports are the city is surrounded.
Five Saudi and two Turkish military officers were captured. One was a Turkish general. Earlier insurgent claims about controlling most of the city were false.
They’re outmanned, outgunned, and outmaneuvered. They’re being defeated. Nonetheless, clearing them from neighborhoods takes time.
Press TV cited reports about insurgents supplied with chemical weapons. It said Turkey gave them surface-to-air Stinger missiles. They came with “thermal rockets and sophisticated weaponry.”
“More than 100 Turkish troops backed with armored vehicles and helicopters entered the Syrian border town of Cerablos in the Kurdish region of Kobani on Tuesday.”
“A spokesman for the Kurdish militias in the border towns of Kobani and Efrin accused the Turkish forces of supplying arms and ammunition to insurgents fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.”
“NBC News also reported on July 31 that nearly two dozen MANPADs (man-portable air-defense systems) have been delivered to the insurgents in Syria by Turkey.”
Rick Rozoff also said Turkey has troops in Syria. They threatened to use them to protect a site agreed to in 1921.
Ankara was guaranteed the right to station forces at the Suleyman Shah mausoleum. He’s the grandfather of Ottoman Empire founder Osman I (Osman Bey).
Turkey considers the site and surrounding area sovereign territory. A small military contingent protects it. Whether it’s a wedge for larger numbers and planned belligerency remains to be seen.
Rozoff said the site was “proclaimed a NATO outpost in Syria.” Developments ahead warrant close monitoring. Incrementally they head toward Western and/or regional intervention.
On August 6, Ron Paul warned about more war, saying:
“The administration seems determined to fight yet another war in Syria that has nothing to do with American national interests.”
“Neoconservatives have long demanded that we overthrow the Syrian government before moving on to war against Iran. This bellicosity continues regardless of which party is in the White House.”
“In Syria we see once again we see how our interventionist policies backfire and make us less secure.”
Washington has no business being involved in Syria, he added. “When will we learn our lesson and stop intervening in conflicts….having nothing to do with American national interests?”
Republican and Democrat hawks way outnumber Paul and other congressional doves. Obama heads toward war. Electoral politics dictate timing. Post-election may be planned. He and Romney are like-minded.
It doesn’t matter who wins. Both men support war. Expect it. Only its timing is unknown. Catastrophic consequences look certain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.