1
1
0
Pipeline politics in Syria
The Armed Forces Journal has an interesting article about Syria
You can’t understand the conflict without talking about natural gas
By Maj. Rob Taylor
Much of the media coverage suggests that the conflict in Syria is a civil war, in which the Alawite (Shia) Bashar al Assad regime is defending itself (and committing atrocities) against Sunni rebel factions (who are also committing atrocities). The real explanation is simpler: it is about money.
In 2009, Qatar proposed to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Instead, Assad forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward, allowing those Shia-dominated countries access to the European natural gas market while denying access to Sunni Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter states, it appears, are now attempting to remove Assad so they can control Syria and run their own pipeline through Turkey.
The standard Shia-Sunni conflict is little different from many other socio-ethnic-economic-political-religious (SEEPR) conflicts that originate in competition for resources, but in Syria it has a lucrative twist. The pattern of SEEPR control in Syria is similar to that in many other Middle Eastern and sub-Saharan Africa countries (and is arguably common in every country, but more so in traditional societies): Who controls the government controls the state’s resources, and by extension, the wealth derived from them. In Syria, the Sunnis have tried to unseat the Alawites ever since France installed them during the French mandate that ended in 1943. But now the stakes are higher, thanks to natural gas.
Any review of the current conflict in Syria that neglects the geopolitical economics of the region is ...
What do you think about it?
The Armed Forces Journal has an interesting article about Syria
You can’t understand the conflict without talking about natural gas
By Maj. Rob Taylor
Much of the media coverage suggests that the conflict in Syria is a civil war, in which the Alawite (Shia) Bashar al Assad regime is defending itself (and committing atrocities) against Sunni rebel factions (who are also committing atrocities). The real explanation is simpler: it is about money.
In 2009, Qatar proposed to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Instead, Assad forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward, allowing those Shia-dominated countries access to the European natural gas market while denying access to Sunni Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter states, it appears, are now attempting to remove Assad so they can control Syria and run their own pipeline through Turkey.
The standard Shia-Sunni conflict is little different from many other socio-ethnic-economic-political-religious (SEEPR) conflicts that originate in competition for resources, but in Syria it has a lucrative twist. The pattern of SEEPR control in Syria is similar to that in many other Middle Eastern and sub-Saharan Africa countries (and is arguably common in every country, but more so in traditional societies): Who controls the government controls the state’s resources, and by extension, the wealth derived from them. In Syria, the Sunnis have tried to unseat the Alawites ever since France installed them during the French mandate that ended in 1943. But now the stakes are higher, thanks to natural gas.
Any review of the current conflict in Syria that neglects the geopolitical economics of the region is ...
What do you think about it?
Pipeline politics in Syria
Posted from armedforcesjournal.comPosted in these groups: 
Middle East
Oil
Middle East Oil
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc Sir, good article, thanks for linking to it. Reminds me of a book I read about Afghanistan, it was either Reaping the Whirlwind or Taliban. Either way, it talked a lot about pipeline development in Afghanistan, and geopolitical economic interest confluence.
I think any time a major Nation-State commits to military conflict if you look you can always find three things 1. Strategic National Security Interest (basing, posturing, etc.) 2. Economic Interests (usually guaranteeing access to major raw resources) 3. Ideological: "bringing them freedom!" "spread the word of god"...etc.
I think any time a major Nation-State commits to military conflict if you look you can always find three things 1. Strategic National Security Interest (basing, posturing, etc.) 2. Economic Interests (usually guaranteeing access to major raw resources) 3. Ideological: "bringing them freedom!" "spread the word of god"...etc.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
you know, i really have always wondered how intrinsic the connection between the wars in the middle east and the the supply of fuel's really are.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
It looks like it's more about WHO is going to get to control of the DELIVERY of the fuels so that they can use that control to "persuade" other government to do what they want them to do rather than about profits. (Although I don't totally discount the profit motive - especially if you can get someone else to pay for your wars.
[Did you realize that well over 80% of the US military's financial cost of Gulf War I was paid by foreign governments?]
[Did you realize that well over 80% of the US military's financial cost of Gulf War I was paid by foreign governments?]
(0)
(0)
SPC Phillip Ludlow
COL Ted Mc you know what, i did and didnt know that. i mean its common sense that everybody's gotta pay something, but not the percentages.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Please forgive the cynical sarcasm here, but "Our brave, valiant, courageous, freedom loving soldiers, sailors, and airmen" sounds one heck of a lot better than "Our rented out military".
I'm not an economist (and don't want to be one either) but it would be an interesting theoretical analysis to see what shape the US economy would have been in in 2003 if the US government had actually had to pay full fare in GW I.
I'm not an economist (and don't want to be one either) but it would be an interesting theoretical analysis to see what shape the US economy would have been in in 2003 if the US government had actually had to pay full fare in GW I.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google