There’s an article that’s been floating around the Internet for the past day or so, originating at DEBKAfile, an Israeli news site, about plans to build pipelines across Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries to avoid the transportation bottleneck of the Straits of Hormuz. If DEBKAfile was uniformly reliable, this would be a very big story to relate. But DEBKA is notorious for getting things wrong, so a small mountain of salt might be required.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the story, other than that its facts might be wrong. I posted here last Spring on a story in The Washington Post on planning for such pipelines, so the idea is certainly out there. Whether what DEBKA reports is accurate, though, is up for grabs. In any event, take a look at this piece. It does make sense and the cost-estimates seem within the ballpark. The economic motivations are certainly there. The assessment of the political drive, well maybe not so much. That seems more DEBKA-spin, as Trey Campbell at the Empty Quarter blog notes.
Trans-al Qaeda Pipline Update
Trey CampbellOk, so apparently this is whole thing is comin’ from an old Debka article. I shoulda known. In my mind this just proves the bogusness of the whole thing. I especially like the part about how the new Saudi oil security force will protect the pipeline against “al Qaeda and Iran.†Another gem is how the pipeline will pull Assad away from Tehran…hah. Anyway, this thing has generated a significant amount internet buzz after the announcement of the new Saudi “Petrol Protection Policeâ€. Oh, don’t forget to check out the cute map…those Mosad…err Debka guys spare no expense.
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Yemen have launched the vast Trans-Arabia Oil Pipeline project with encouragement from Washington, DEBKA-Net Weekly 313 revealed on Aug. 10, 2007. By crisscrossing Arabia overland, the net of oil pipelines will bypass the Straits of Hormuz at the throat of the Persian Gulf and so remove Gulf oil routes from the lurking threat of Iranian closure.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
August:29:2007 - 11:13
Interesting. But if they are worried about Iran shutting down the straights I dont really see how this would help too much. It would be impossible to protect a pipeline that long. It would be easily destroyed by either enemy troops and or strikes from the air.
Besides, it wouldnt just be a target for Iran, AQ types would love to hit it as well.
DEBKA, like MEMRI, needs to be taken with a few pounds of salt.
August:29:2007 - 17:47
To an extent, you’re right. But a pipeline is still far smaller, and easier to protect, than the Persian Gulf. Perhaps that’s what a 25,000-35,000 security force would be protecting.
The idea makes sense. Whether it makes economic sense is something else. But then, there’s not a shortage of money for that kind of project, either.
August:30:2007 - 00:35
Defending Hormuz and defending a pipeline are two totally different things. For one, Hormuz is threatened by Iran, while pipelines would be threatened by AQ. Im not sure I agree that a pipeline network like Debka suggests is easier to defend. With the strait, you have the GCC and the US providing security against a known government…one that can be attacked and/or negotiated with. With the pipeline, you are going to see thousands of miles of pipeline that can be attacked with minimal effort by very few attackers. Hundreds of thousands of security forces are in Iraq now…and piplines are still being attacked with frequent success.
August:31:2007 - 06:52
The Straights would only be attempted to be shut down by Iran in a military confrontation, in which case a pipline would also be a target for attack by Iran as well.
A pipline would be vulernable not only to Iran who could stop production for weeks with nothing more than a few targeted missle strikes, but also to AQ types who do not need a miltary confrontation with Iran to try to attack.
August:31:2007 - 07:13
I disagree. For one thing, a pipeline can be repaired in days versus the months it would take to remove wreckage from the Straits. Second, by putting pipelines underground, they’d become far less vulnerable to attack, either from the air or ground.
August:31:2007 - 09:25
Maybe, only time would tell.
I hope it is all moot. We have made a hash out of our invasion of Iraq, any invasion of Iran would make Iraq look like child’s play and would lead to an end of our position in the world. Not even the Brits would follow us after such a stunt.
August:31:2007 - 09:52
Who needs the Brits when the French are raring to go? That’s a joke, by the way.
I don’t see any invasion of Iran coming any time soon, if ever. No US commander wants to fight in that terrain against that size of a ground army, whether or not the army is of any particular quality. I think talk of ‘invading Iran’ is coming from people more motivated by emotion than capable of applying reason.
August:31:2007 - 13:45
Unfortunately, those are the types of people in power. I dont think the sound heads in the military would allow it under current circumstances. What I worry about is a manufactured incident that kicks it all off.
All we need is more proof of the type we got with the Nigerian yellow cake incident and the wolves will be howling for action.
In such a case I am glad I am too old for the draft and my children are too young.
August:31:2007 - 15:23
I don’t think it’s the ones in power who are thinking that. I think it’s the real wingnuts.
BTW, I suggest you go back and find some better sources on the ‘Nigerian yellowcake’. What Wilson found in Niger (not Nigeria) actually supported what the British said–and what Bush quoted. Even the Washington Post recognized that.