ibility while both the US and the EU are jointly trying to limit Iran’s energy exports for economic and political reasons. Denying China, a rising superpower, a stronger role in the Iranian oil and gas sectors is a side benefit of the December agreements.
Finally, another clear objective of the December 2010 agreements is to seal Iran’s exclusion of Turkmenistan’s gas exports as a transit route, thus shelving forever the 1990s’ plan for constructing the Turkmenistan-Iran pipeline, promoted by Iran and ConocoPhillips. As a neighboring country, Iran is a logical transit route for Turkmen piped gas exports to Turkey, Europe (via Turkey), and the Indian subcontinent, and also for Turkmen LNG exports to the Asia-Pacific region via its Oman Sea ports. This is so for at least two reasons. Iran offers the shortest and the least technically challenging, and thus the least expensive, route given the absence of complicating geological features such as mountains. Yet, political considerations have prevented the realization of this project despite the original interests of an American company (ConocoPhillips) in the project.
Any pipeline project can be undertaken even under the worst case scenario, provided that the owner and operators are willing to pay the price. Under normal circumstances, when economic objectives are the major driving force, a difficult and dangerous pipeline would be shelved. The TAPI would have no chance of realization. However, if political incentives are the main drivers, and, again, if the operators of such a project are willing to pay the price whatever it may be, the TAPI could well become a reality as exemplified by BTC’s construction.
In conclusion, the main incentive for constructing the TAPI seems to be geared towards realizing certain political objectives: slowing down Iran’s rise as a regional power through weakening it politically and economically by denying it gas exports to the Indian subcontinent and China, and by excluding it from Turkmen gas exports. However, certain factors remain obstacles to TAPI construction and its projected future operation. The first and foremost obstacle is insecurity in Afghanistan and across the northern part of Pakistan, through which the TAPI will have to pass on its way to India. All indicators suggest a worsening security situation there and an inability of the respective governments and the NATO-led forces to contain and eventually to end armed conflicts. Secondly, there is no doubt that anti-government (Afghan) armed groups operating in these countries will target the TAPI pipeline if construction begins in 2012. These attacks will prolong the construction process and push the financial and human-related costs of its realization. The Afghan government’s offer to deploy up to 7,000 troops (even with direct military support of NATO-led forces) could not possibly deter attacks, as evident in the expansion of the destructive and violent activities of the Taliban and its allies. Nor will the utilization of “private security contractors” significantly improve the security situation in Afghanistan, as experienced in Iraq. There are additional and serious doubts about Turkmen gas availability to feed the TAPI due to that country’s over-commitment to various other export projects.
The TAPI, if realized, may contribute to regional tensions and will negatively affect Iran. As a gas exporter, Iran seeks to increase its share of the global gas market, as its current share is insignificant relative to its vast reserves. Tensions in Iran’s ties with Afghanistan and Pakistan will also have a negative impact on the region’s security situation, which requires Iran’s cooperation. The saga, as is often the case, is likely to continue. Stay tuned.
Dr. Hooman Peimani is Head of Energy Security & Geopolitics in the Energy Studies Institute based at the National University of Singapore. He is a member of the International Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Energy Security.