contd from above

There's been a great deal of utter nonsense written about the proposed TAPI pipeline, and I fear you've bought the lot. The key item of context that's typically missed in these discussions is scale. It's just not that big or important a project. It's not a game-changer; never was.

The intention of the pipeline was to bring a portion of Turkmenistan's natural gas output south to India and Pakistan. For the Turkmens this was part of an effort to diversify export routes: they were simultaneously developing a larger pipeline to China (now in operation) and building up their links to the Russian gas grid. It wasn't about a seismic shift in policy, just a natural diversification. There's never been any question of the US supplanting Russian and Chinese regional influence, for reasons that will be instantly clear to anyone with access to a map.

For India and Pakistan the pipeline would have been one source of energy supply among many. It would not have the capacity to meet all their needs and nobody would be foolish enough to rely on a pipeline crossing such a volatile area. Again, a matter of interest but at no point a critical need or a game-changing project.

In the project's original incarnation, in the Taliban years, the US interest was in using the project as a cash-generating carrot to try to bait more moderate elements in the Taliban into a more engaged stance, and of course the possibility of tossing a project to an American company that was undergoing some hard times (none of the major companies were interested; the project was too small and too risky). Since regime change there have been vague attempts to revive the project, mainly as a way of trying to provide a revenue source for the Afghan government. Of course nobody's really interested in investing, given the security risks.

There is not and never was any great strategic imperative here on the part of the US. The pipeline would not have given "control" of anything, just the potential for Afghanistan to earn a little money. In the old days that was a possible lever to manipulate the Taliban; more recently it's a possible way to let the Afghan government earn a bit on its own and suck a little less off the great American teat, which is running a bit dry at the moment. It's nowhere nearly as large or important as it's been cranked up to be by people who are trying to construct a case for some "all about oil" scenario or some vast regional strategic imperative.
Indeed, a great deal of utter nonsense written about the proposed TAPI pipeline, and your fear you've bought the lot maybe true. But then I am looking at it from the geostrategic standpoint devoid of emotions and what is available as open source.

Let us look at the TAPI from the US standpoint (taking it that the insurgency is over/ controlled to the US’ advantage). What are the advantages to the US?

1. It will boost the US economy unless they repatriate the money to tax havens or to non US banks.

2. It will give employment to many US citizens, white collar and blue collar and reduce US unemployment figure.

3. Note the positive political fallout for the President who does that.

4. Strategically, it will box Iran from two sides i.e. Balochistan and Iraq.

5. The US will be able to keep Eastern Iran on the boil with the help of the Sunni Jhundallah making forays from Balochistan.

6. The US can use oil as an economic ‘weapon’ against India as also China, if exporting to China through Gwadar (lest you contest that US does not use ‘strings’ in their foreign policy, there are adequate links to indicate that US does).

7. By having a ‘lien’, or if you wish, a ‘presence’ in Gwadar, it will nullify Chinese interest in this region; and if not nullify, monitor the Chinese activities there and even use the CIA to further US interests as it has done so successfully in Pakistan.

8. By using Gwadar, the US will have legitimate reason to have a US sizeable naval presence in the Indian Ocean in general and the Arabian Sea in particular.

9. The entry to the Straits of Hormuz, through which 60% of the world oil moves will be effectively controlled.

10. In the event, Iran scuttles ships to block the Straits of Hormuz, the US will be able to effectively remove it from the South from Gwadar and not depend on the Bahrain Base, where it can be challenged by Iran just across the Straits. It may also be noted that Bahrain has a Shia majority which can become pro Iran. (you may contest this, but when it comes to religion and sect, they side their religion and sect notwithstanding the where the rationale should lie. The worldwide prayers for the No 1 terrorist of the world, Osama, are cases in point!)

Now, compare the advantages economic and strategic in pumping CAR oil of US companies through Chinese pipeline.

In addition, if there is no TAPI, then the huge Indian oil and gas market would be lost and India may go in for Iran Pakistan India pipeline and give the required financial lifeline to Iran and to the US’ disadvantage.

Now comes the real McCoy! If indeed the TAPI pipeline was ‘utter nonsense’ as you put it, then maybe this may interest you that some are not taking it to be ‘utter nonsense’.

TAPI gas pipeline talks begins

April 26, 2011 18:33 IST


The four nations to the US- backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline project began discussing gas sales and other details of the $ 7.6 billion project, but are unlikely to conclude any agreement at the end of four day talk this week….
http://www.rediff.com/business/repor...s/20110426.htm
The dateline may be worth noting!

As far as the Caspian pipelines the intention of the Caspian pipelines is not in any way US Administration’s philanthropic zeal.

And, yes, I have a map, if not many and in different scales too (since you raise that issue)! The maps and the facts available in the open sources do not indicate that the US is around the Caspian just for the business companies alone!!

I daresay the US Govt is supporting US Oil companies in the Caspian merely to buttress efforts, to help Russian growth by building up their links to the Russian gas grid.

The undermentioned prompt my contention.

Here is a snip on Russian Growth and oil

"Oil is very interesting because energy companies in Russia are the cheapest globally, and demand from emerging economies is going to be higher," says Ghadir Abu Leil-Cooper, head of Europe Middle East and Africa equities at Barings, reached in London. Economic stimulus in China is focused on infrastructure spending that is pushing up commodity prices and directly benefiting Russia, Dr. Abu Leil-Cooper says.
http://www.excelfunds.com/media/news..._IntheNews.pdf
And on Russia’s economic growth and Russia’s negative influence on the Western world.

Russia’s economic revival in the last decade has been remarkable. Gross domestic product per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity, increased from less than $7,000 in 1999 to almost $16,000 in 2008—around that of Ireland in 1987 or Portugal in 1989.14 The government repaid all its loans to the IMF and reduced its foreign debt to about 2 percent of GDP, less than the annual state deficit of many G20 countries.15 Even after the recent global crisis, Russia’s currency reserves—just $8 billion in 1999—stood at $476 billion, the third largest in the world, exceeded only by those of China and Japan.1 Incomes of both rich and poor Russians surged, rising by more than 8 percent a year in 2000-08….

In recent years, they have set up a state corporation to develop nanotechnology and an “innovation city” outside Moscow to incubate high technology projects….

In 2008 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned that Europe risked being caught in “an energy stranglehold” by “states such as Russia,” that were “increasingly using their energy resources as policy tools.”……
Conscious of this, the Kremlin has been understandably unenthusiastic about projects to build competing pipelines that would supply Europe with gas from Central Asia….

Russia‟s second key interest is in the prevalence of friendly governments in neighboring states….

Some see in Putin‟s foreign policy a more sinister design: to reimpose Russian hegemony over the former Soviet states, and perhaps even parts of Eastern Europe, by means of economic and military pressures and threats…..

Why the US needs Russia

You may like to read the same from the link.

Does Russia need the US?

For the reasons just discussed, Russia‟s cooperation could make a big difference to the success or failure of American global policies. But is the reverse true? Does Russia need Washington‟s help to achieve its key goals? The short answer is no.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac...pt282010FA.pdf
I am sorry I have to append such a long extract because I find that it has become necessary to do so, so that things could be seen it a greater perspective than is being seen so far and the obvious is required to be explained.

Therefore, given the growth of Russia and knowing that Russia appears to be holding the trumps, it is obvious that wily nily the US Administration or US Companies will NOT help broaden the Russia CAR grid so as to make US interests more difficult to sustain.