OPINION: Energy security and NATO's new partners

Armenian analyst Dr Eduard Abrahamyan argues in this article for commonspace.eu that changes in the regional and global situation are leading to a rethink of policies by Iran, Armenia and others.

We are currently witnessing pivotal changes in regional and global policies as a result of the thaw in US-Iran relations, Europe's quest to seek alternative gas supplies, and more recently the prospect of Iran collaborating with NATO and the United States in the face of a common enemy in the Middle East.

The escalation of tension with Russia may negatively impact Europe's ability to satisfy its demand for natural gas. Russia's determination to play a decisive role in Europe's energy market constrains the EU to seek alternative means of gas transportation from a more reliable supplier. Western powers are aspiring to contain Russian geopolitical ambitions by diversification in the energy field in order to reduce their energy dependence on Russia. In other words, the EU and the US wish to induce Russia to relinquish its newly-achieved military-political positions in Ukraine by means of economic restrictions. As well as these economic sanctions, key decision-makers and political ideologists in the Western world are elaborating a new system of global economy and security which includes predictable and responsible partners in the East and Asia, in order to isolate Russia.  

Iran sees a window of opportunity.

One of the key issues affecting the international community is the political role and position of the Islamic Republic of Iran. On the strength of the evolution of political confrontation between the West and Russia, Iran has realized that it can provide specific geographic and economic opportunities for the EU and the United States. Hassan Rouhani's political team have adopted a policy of rapprochement with the United States and other Western nations in order to embrace the economic and geopolitical opportunities involved in playing a vital role in geopolitics of the Near East and the energy and communications systems of the world.

Iran has always been a rival of Russia in the Caspian region and Central Asia and now, against the background of deepen escalation of conflict between US-EU and Russia, the Iranian leadership has gradually improved its relationship with the West in order to counterbalance Russian interests. The view of Iranian policy-makers is rather simple: allying with the West by supporting stability in the Middle East is far more beneficial to them than adopting a pro-Russian political orientation. Additionally, Iran may become a long-term partner of the EU and the US, not only in the area of energy, but also in the role of a regional partner in helping restrict Russian economic and military-politic influence in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Russia's new ambitions have created the circumstances for the geopolitical convergence of the United States, the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Attempts at coordinating a struggle against ISIL with Tehran and the conspicuous efforts of the Obama administration to normalize the ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia may be a precursor for the fuller involvement of Tehran in global economic and geopolitical affairs. From a pragmatic point of view, if the tendency towards rapprochement between the West and Iran persists, Iran may feasibly prefer to be consolidated with western policy toward Russia. On the other hand, by achieving some co-ordination with Western interests, Iran may partially assume some  role for the restoration of stability and security in the Middle East. In support of this notion is not only the constructive position of Hassan Rouhani towards former rivals - Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but also his desire to build close ties with pro-western oriented Egyptian authorities.

One of the main benefits of rapprochement with Iran will be felt by the European Union. One useful advantage of EU-Iran relationship is the colossal capacity for deployment of Iranian energy resources. This could lead to it replacing Russia as a dominant gas supplier for Europe.

It is noteworthy that one of the main goals of the Nabucco gas-transporting project is for it to become a proper competitor to Russian gas domination. To make this alternative possible, plans to involve Azerbaijani and Turkmenistan in collaboration with the Iranian gas fields have been mooted for the future. Unfortunately, the development of this project is still being hampered by the economic sanctions on Iran that remain in place. However, in the process of defreezing the US-Iran relationship there may be a chance that this project will take off. Interestingly, during the current year, as the crisis in the Ukraine has grown, the Iranian authorities have repeatedly emphasized the possibility of Iran becoming a leading gas supplier in the world.

One politically and economically efficient and profitable feature of the new project may be a gas pipeline route across the territories of Armenia and Georgia, through the Black Sea to the European Union. The lack of guarantees of security caused by the new challenges of Russian policy in post-Soviet space and the potential economic perspectives may induce Armenia and Georgia to become a decisive supporter of this plan. A gas pipeline through Armenia and Georgia would promote the sovereignty of these states and considerably relieve them from the effects of the policy of isolating them politically and territorially that Russia has pursued.

The presence of Georgia and Armenia as politically united subjects within the same pro-western orientation could help create a significant military-political factor of security and stability in the east of the Black Sea region. Simultaneously, by being integrated into Euro-Atlantic global security system, Georgia and Armenia could not only assume a constraining role on Russia's ambitions in the Black Sea region, but could also impact on the diversification of political relationships. Moreover, as new partners in NATO, Georgia and Armenia could also provide security and stability in gas transportation from Iran to Europe.

Georgia, and especially Armenia, have now developed bilateral relations with Iran. In addition, Iran is interested in  reducing the economic and political impact of Russia on Armenia, and there is some discontent in the country about the Armenian leadership's hesitant attitude towards the West. Moreover, in view of the amplification of the Kremlin's destructive policy in the Caucasus and Middle Asia, as well as its unacceptable positions on the delineation of the maritime boundaries in the Caspian Sea, Tehran would accept the permanent comprehensive integration of Georgia and Armenia within NATO and the EU. In such a scenario, Iran could attempt to involve the West in Caspian problems.

Iran considers Turkey as its traditional competitor in the Caucasus and the Middle East, which is why Tehran has no enthusiasm to co-operate with Ankara in natural gas transportation, in spite of the fact that Iran is the second-largest supplier of natural gas to Turkey, after Russia. Some European experts are also concerned about the future increase in Turkish influence on Europe, if there is a final confirmation of the gas-pipeline route that is to be laid across the territory of Turkey. If this were to occur, Ankara would gain the additional opportunity of having an impact on Turkish-EU relations. Thus, the participation of Turkey within the alternative gas project for Europe would be difficult, especially with regard to the background of strategic and geopolitical convergence between Turkey and Russia. In fact, there is a gas pipeline route from Turkmenistan across Iran to Turkey, but it has been constructed for Turkish needs only. Therefore, the only safe and profitable direction for the pipeline is Armenia to Georgia.

There is an assumption that one of Nabucco's latest projections of the gas-pipeline from Tabriz (Iran) to Armenia, which is now functioning, may also involve Georgia. Indeed, the diameter of the gas pipeline in Armenia is smaller than it is in Iran, and this should not prevent it reaching Georgia. Accordingly, the construction of capable gas terminals in Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine, as well as the routes though the Black Sea, can be an additional reason for the tangible military-naval presence of NATO in the Black Sea. This presence may partly fulfill the newly created Romanian and Georgian military fleet. The fastest way of transporting natural gas from Georgia to Bulgaria, and from Romania and Ukraine, may be through the liquefaction of the gas in  a facility near the port of Poti (Georgia), with further transportation by LNG carriers. This means of transportation is rather effective, as the LNG market is growing rapidly. Interestingly, Georgia already has some experience of transporting LNG to Bulgaria and Romania, but the quantity of gas involved is as yet not significant. Also, there is the issue of whether this type of transportation from Iran is cheaper and safer than a gas pipeline under the Black Sea. Transportation by LNG carriers has a considerable advantage in comparison with a fixed gas-pipeline under the sea due to the flexibility, including in the routes of transportation.  On the other hand, a fixed gas pipeline increases a countries' dependence on a particular supplier, and thus its vulnerability.

Can Armenia follow Georgia's path?

After the NATO summit in Cardiff of 4-5 of September 2014, where Georgia, by virtue of its long-term loyalty, obtained a new status in preparation for joining NATO, pro-Atlantic communities in Armenia, particularly military officials and progressive members of society, received this news as a unique inspiration. It meant that Armenia could seek concrete and tangible opportunities to intensify the processes of accession to NATO and that Moscow could not react to this tendency. Moreover, there is an intention to forge a regional system of defense and security with Georgia, with all that it implies for Moscow. It is hoped that this decision will finally lead to the establishment of a strong democracy in Armenia.

However, there are a number of barriers to the achievement of this project, such as the difficulties and controversies surrounding Iran that are still waiting for solutions, as well as the hesitation of the Armenian government as a result of Russia's interference in its decision-making. There is also the matter of the presence of the Russian 102nd military base in Armenia, not far from Georgian border. However, membership of NATO and an emphasis on close ties between Georgia and Armenia are inevitable, as this is a vital factor required to bring about energy solutions in the region, and the formation of new approaches and meanings for the global economy.

source: This article was contributed to commonspace.eu by Armenian analyst Dr Eduard Abrahamayan.

Photo: Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan being welcomed by the Secretary-General of NATO as he arrives at the NATO Summit in Wales in September 2014.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)