Transit Troubles Pipelines As a Source of Conflict

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Transit Troubles Pipelines As a Source of Conflict T r a n s i t T r o u b l e s P a u l S t e v e n s Transit Troubles Pipelines as a Source of Conflict A Chatham House Report Paul Stevens Chatham House, 10 St James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LE T: +44 (0)20 7957 5700 E: [email protected] www.chathamhouse.org.uk F: +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org.uk Charity Registration Number: 208223 Transit Troubles Pipelines as a Source of Conflict A Chatham House Report Paul Stevens i www.chathamhouse.org.uk Chatham House has been the home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs for over eight decades. Our mission is to be a world-leading source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world for all. © Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2009 Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) is an independent body which promotes the rigorous study of international questions and does not express opinion of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The PDF file of this report on the Chatham House website is the only authorized version of the PDF and may not be published on other websites without express permission. A link to download the report from the Chatham House website for personal use only should be used where appropriate. Please direct all enquiries to the publishers. The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House 10 St James’s Square London, SW1Y 4LE T: +44 (0) 20 7957 5700 F: +44 (0) 20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org.uk Charity Registration No. 208223 ISBN 978 1 86203 210 1 Designed and typeset by Soapbox Communications Limited www.soapboxcommunications.co.uk Printed and bound in Great Britain by Latimer Trend and Co Ltd ii The material selected for the printing of this report is Elemental Chlorine Free and has been sourced from sustainable forests. It has been manufactured by an ISO 14001 certified mill under EMAS. www.chathamhouse.org.uk Contents About the Author iv Acknowledgments v Executive Summary vi 1 Introduction 1 Defining transit pipelines 1 Why transit pipelines matter and will become more important 2 Future plans for transit pipelines 4 2 A Brief History of Transit Pipelines 8 Tales of disruption 8 Tales of success 10 What makes for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ transit countries? 11 3 Why Transit Pipelines Have Experienced Problems 14 Politics 14 Economics 15 4 Possible Solutions 19 Invasion 19 Globalization and dependence on FDI 19 Making the transit country an offtaker 20 Alternatives to the transit country 20 Finding a common jurisdiction 24 Developing mutual dependence 26 Introducing progressive ‘transit terms’ 27 5 Conclusions 29 References 30 iii www.chathamhouse.org.uk About the Author Professor Paul Stevens is Senior Research Fellow for Energy at Chatham House, Emeritus Professor at Dundee University and Consulting Professor at Stanford University. He was educated as an economist and as a specialist on the Middle East at Cambridge University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. He taught at the American University of Beirut in Lebanon (1973–79), interspersed with two years as an oil consultant; at the University of Surrey as lecturer and senior lecturer in economics (1979–93); and as Professor of Petroleum Policy and Economics at the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee (1993–2008) – a chair created by BP. Professor Stevens has published extensively on energy economics, the international petroleum industry, economic development issues and the political economy of the Gulf. He also works as a consultant for many companies and governments. iv www.chathamhouse.org.uk Acknowledgments Thanks to John Mitchell, Enno Harks, Jim Jensen, Daniel Litvin and James Nixey for comments on earlier drafts, although all errors are the author’s. Thanks also to Margaret May of Chatham House for her editing skills. Paul Stevens March 2009 v www.chathamhouse.org.uk arching jurisdiction. More transit pipelines will be needed in the future, since oil and gas reserves close to market are being depleted, and there is growing demand for natural gas in the world’s primary energy mix. In recent years, there has been a noticeable fragmentation of legal jurisdictions as the Executive Summary Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia both collapsed. Many of the new transit pipeline projects being discussed are essentially the result of gaming strategies between the various players and will fail to materialize. Chapter 2 starts with a brief history of the many transit pipelines which have been associated with very negative Recent events between Russia and Ukraine at the start of experiences. In the past, they included those operating in 2009 and Russia and Georgia in 2008 have brought transit the Middle East; more recently, attention has been focused pipelines back into the media spotlight. Any reading of the on those in the former Soviet Union. The chapter then history of transit oil and gas pipelines suggests a tendency describes lines which can be viewed either as success to produce conflict and disagreement, often resulting in stories or as having too recent a history for the outcome to the cessation of throughput, sometimes for a short period be determined. This history helps in identifying which and sometimes for longer. It is tempting to attribute this to characteristics make for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ transit countries. bad political relations between neighbours. This is These include: certainly part of the story, but also important is the nature of the ‘transit terms’ – tariffs and offtake terms – whereby the importance of foreign direct investment in the transit countries are rewarded for allowing transit. Put transit country’s development strategy; simply, the trouble with transit pipelines has a significant the importance of the transit fee in the country’s economic basis. macro economy; The report addresses three questions: the dependence upon offtake from the line; the availability of alternative routes; Why will oil and gas transit pipelines become more whether the transit country is also an oil or gas important to global energy markets in the future? exporter in its own right. Why has the history of such pipelines been littered with conflict between the various parties? Chapter 3 seeks explanations for poor performance in What might be done to improve this record in the terms of politics but with the main discussion focusing on future and make transit pipelines less troublesome? the underlying economics which generate conflict. One obvious source of political disputes is a history of bad Chapter 1 defines transit pipelines as lines which cross relations between neighbouring countries. As for the another’s ‘sovereign’ territory to get the oil or gas to market. economics, the key explanation is that there is no reason - Such lines have a number of relevant, common characteris - able, objective basis for determining ‘transit terms’. The tics which tend to generate conflict. Different parties are only sensible reason for the existence of a transit fee is to involved, each with different interests and motivations. This allow the transit country to share in the benefits of the invites disagreement between the parties because of the project. This share will reflect the relative bargaining benefits to be shared and the fact that mechanisms exist to power of the parties to the negotiations. Over time this encourage one or other party to seek a greater share. Even changes and thus there are always pressures to change the though this would apply to any commercial transaction, the transit terms. This trend is greatly encouraged by the vi key difference with transit pipelines is that there is no over - existence of the ‘obsolescing bargain’, the structure of www.chathamhouse.org.uk Executive Summary pipeline costs and the growing volatility of oil and gas The report concludes that there will be an increasing prices. need for and dependence upon oil and gas transit pipelines Chapter 4 considers possible solutions to help reduce but such pipelines are inherently unstable because of conflict and supply disruptions. These include: political disputes and also, of equal importance, as a result of commercial disputes over the transit terms. These a military solution; commercial disputes arise because there is no objective, encouraging the transit country into the global reasonable or fair way of setting the transit terms. economy to make it dependent upon foreign direct Many of the apparent solutions to this problem are, on investment; closer examination, at best ineffective, at least in current making the transit country dependent upon its own circumstances. More generally, history suggests that a gas and oil supplies from the pipeline, although this good experience with transit pipelines requires certain can be a double-edged sword; best- practice conditions to be met. These include: considering alternatives to the transit country not only in terms of geographic routes but (for gas) the a clear definition and acceptance of the rules; actual means of transport including, for example, the projects driven by commercial considerations; use of liquefied natural gas (LNG); credible threats to deter the ‘obsolescing bargain’; encouraging multilateral jurisdictional solutions such mechanisms to create a balance of interest. as the Energy Charter Treaty; developing mutual dependence between the transit However, it is difficult to turn this ‘wish list’ into a practical country and the producer/consumer country. agenda. The only practical, realistic solution in the near term is Finally, the report considers a new solution: basing the to introduce ‘progressive’ transit terms to existing and new ‘transit terms’ on a progressive fiscal arrangement similar agreements.
Recommended publications
  • Gazprom's Monopoly and Nabucco's Potentials
    Gazprom’s Monopoly and Nabucco’s Potentials: Strategic Decisions for Europe Nicklas Norling SILK ROAD PAPER November 2007 Gazprom’s Monopoly and Nabucco’s Potentials: Strategic Decisions for Europe Nicklas Norling © Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program – A Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center Johns Hopkins University-SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, U.S. Institute for Security and Development Policy, V. Finnbodav. 2, 131 30, Nacka-Stockholm, Sweden www.silkroadstudies.org "Gazprom’s Monopoly and Nabucco’s Potential: Strategic Decisions for Europe" is a Silk Road Paper published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program. The Silk Road Paper series is the Occasional Paper series of the Joint Center, published jointly on topical and timely subjects. The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the Silk Road Studies Program is a joint transatlantic independent and externally funded research and policy center. The Joint Center has offices in Washington and Stockholm and is affiliated with the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University and the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy. It is the first Institution of its kind in Europe and North America, and is today firmly established as a leading research and policy center, serving a large and diverse community of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, business leaders and journalists. The Joint Center aims to be at the forefront of research on issues of conflict, security and development in the region. Through its applied research, publications, teaching, research cooperation, public lectures and seminars, it wishes to function as a focal point for academic, policy, and public discussion regarding the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Aspects of the South Stream Project
    BRIEFING PAPER Policy Department External Policies SECURITY ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH STREAM PROJECT FOREIGN AFFAIRS October 2008 JANUARY 2004 EN This briefing paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is published in the following language: English Author: Zeyno Baran, Director Center for Eurasian Policy (CEP), Hudson Institute www.hudson.org The author is grateful for the support of CEP Research Associates Onur Sazak and Emmet C. Tuohy as well as former CEP Research Assistant Rob A. Smith. Responsible Official: Levente Császi Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department BD4 06 M 55 rue Wiertz B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Publisher European Parliament Manuscript completed on 23 October 2008. The briefing paper is available on the Internet at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN If you are unable to download the information you require, please request a paper copy by e-mail : [email protected] Brussels: European Parliament, 2008. Any opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. © European Communities, 2008. Reproduction and translation, except for commercial purposes, are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and provided the publisher is given prior notice and supplied with a copy of the publication. EXPO/B/AFET/2008/30 October 2008 PE 388.962 EN CONTENTS SECURITY ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH STREAM PROJECT ................................ ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................iii 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 2. THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE................................................................................... 2 2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Payandan Shareholders
    PAYANDAN PAYANDAN 1. Company Background Creative Path to Growth Payandan Shareholders PAYANDAN Payandan’s shares belong to Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution. • Mostazafan Foundation owns 49% • Sina Energy Development Company owns 51% Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution Sina Energy Development Company PAYANDAN Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution PAYANDAN SEDCO Sina Financial Paya Saman Pars (Oil & Gas) & Investment Co (Road & Building) Sina Food Industries Iran Housing Group Saba Paya Sanat Sina (Power & Electricity) (Tire, Tiles, Glasswork, Textile, Etc) Ferdos Pars Sina ICT Group (Agriculture) Parsian Tourism Kaveh Pars & Transport Group (Mining) Alavi Foundation Alavi Civil (Charitable) Engineering Group Sina Energy Development Holding Company PAYANDAN SEDCO as one of subsidiaries of The Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution is considered one of pioneer holding companies in area of oil & gas which aims on huge projects in whole chains of oil and gas. Payandan (Oil & Gas General Contractor) North Drilling (Offshore Drilling) Pedex (Onshore Drilling) Behran (Oil Refinery Co) Dr Bagheri SEDCO Managing Director Coke Waste Water Refining Co Payandan in Numbers PAYANDAN +40 1974 Years ESTABLISHED +1400 +4000 EMPLOYEES CONTRACTOR +200,000,000 $ ANNUAL TURNOVER 75 COMPLETED PROJECTS Company Background PAYANDAN • 48” Zanjan-Mianeh Pipeline • 56” Saveh-Loushan • South Pars – SP No. 14 Pipeline (190KM) • South Pars – SP No. 13 • 56" Dezfoul- Kouhdasht Pipeline (160KM) 1974 1996 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 • Nargesi Gas • F & G Lavan • 56” Asaluyeh Gathering & • South Pars – SP Pipeline Injection No. 17 & 18 • 30” Iran- Payandan is • South Pars – SP No. 22,23,24 Armenia established (oil and • 48” Iraq Pipeline Naftkhane- Pipeline gas contractor) Baghdad (63KM) (113KM) • 56” Naeen-Tehran Gas Pipeline (133KM) • Parsian Gas Refinery • 56” Loushan-Rasht Gas Pipeline (81KM) • Pars Petrochemical Port • Arak Shazand Refinery • Kangan Gas Compressor Station • South Pars – SP No.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiiw Research Report 367: EU Gas Supplies Security
    f December Research Reports | 367 | 2010 Gerhard Mangott EU Gas Supplies Security: Russian and EU Perspectives, the Role of the Caspian, the Middle East and the Maghreb Countries Gerhard Mangott EU Gas Supplies Security: Gerhard Mangott is Professor at the Department Russian and EU of Political Science, University of Innsbruck. Perspectives, the Role of This paper was prepared within the framework of the Caspian, the the project ‘European Energy Security’, financed from the Jubilee Fund of the Oesterreichische Na- Middle East and the tionalbank (Project No. 115). Maghreb Countries Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................... i 1 Russia’s strategic objectives: breaking Ukrainian transit dominance in gas trade with the EU by export routes diversification ............................................................... 1 1.1 Nord Stream (Severny Potok) (a.k.a. North European Gas Pipeline, NEGP) ... 7 1.2 South Stream (Yuzhnyi Potok) and Blue Stream II ......................................... 12 2 The EU’s South European gas corridor: options for guaranteed long-term gas supplies at reasonable cost ............................................................................... 20 2.1 Gas resources in the Caspian region ............................................................. 23 2.2 Gas export potential in the Caspian and the Middle East and its impact on the EU’s Southern gas corridor .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Sanctions
    Iran Sanctions Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs July 9, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20871 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) Summary Iran is subject to a wide range of U.S. sanctions, restricting trade with, investment, and U.S. foreign aid to Iran, and requiring the United States to vote against international lending to Iran. Several laws and Executive Orders extend sanctions to foreign companies that do business with Iran, as part of an effort to persuade foreign firms to choose between the Iranian market and the much larger U.S. market. A formal U.S. effort to curb international energy investment in Iran began in 1996 with the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). No firms have been sanctioned under it and the precise effects of that law on energy investment in Iran—as separate from other factors affecting international firms’ decisions on whether to invest in Iran—has been unclear. While international pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program has increased the hesitation of many major foreign firms to invest in Iran’s energy sector, hindering Iran’s efforts to expand oil production beyond 4.1 million barrels per day, some firms continue to see opportunity in Iran. This particularly appears to be the case for companies in Asia that appear eager to fill the void left by major European and American firms and to line up steady supplies of Iranian oil and gas. ISA was first passed at a time of tightening U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran As an Alternative Supplier of Natural Gas to the EU Draft Online
    IRAN AS AN ALTERNATIVE SUPPLIER OF NATURAL GAS TO THE EU Draft Paper Agnieszka Byrczek Tiisetso Mogase Antje Pfeifer Tomas Rezac April 2010 NewSecEU has been funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 1. Introduction Energy Security can be described as “the condition in which a nation and all, or most, of its citizens and businesses have access to sufficient energy resources at reasonable prices for the foreseeable future free from serious risk of major disruption of service”. 1 But other factors such as the availability of the sources, the reliability of partners and the infrastructure are also influencing energy security.2 During the last few years the European Commission started intense work on energy security in Europe. According to the Commission‘s Green Paper on security of energy supply (November 2000), if no action is taken, the EU's energy dependency will climb from 50 per cent in 2000 to 70 per cent in 2030. 3 Securing European energy supplies is therefore high on the EU's agenda. Currently, 40 per cent of EU gas imports come from Russia, 30 per cent from Algeria, and 25 per cent from Norway, but some predictions state that by 2030, over 60 per cent of EU gas imports are expected to come from Russia with overall external dependency expected to reach 80 per cent. 4 In recent years, supply of European countries with Russian gas was affected by the Russia-Ukraine dispute in winter 2006 and the disruption of gas supply in January 2009 to different amounts.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Sanctions
    Iran Sanctions Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs February 10, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20871 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Iran Sanctions Summary The international coalition that is imposing progressively strict economic sanctions on Iran is broadening and deepening, with increasingly significant effect on Iran’s economy. The objective, not achieved to date, remains to try to compel Iran to verifiably confine its nuclear program to purely peaceful uses. As 2012 begins, Iran sees newly-imposed multilateral sanctions against its oil exports as a severe threat - to the point where Iran is threatening to risk armed conflict. Iran also has indicated receptivity to new nuclear talks in the hopes of reversing or slowing the implementation of the oil export-related sanctions. The energy sector provides nearly 70% of Iran’s government revenues. Iran’s alarm stems from the potential loss of oil sales as a result of: • A decision by the European Union on January 23, 2012, to wind down purchases of Iranian crude oil by July 1, 2012. EU countries buy about 20% of Iran’s oil exports. This action took into consideration an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s possible efforts to design a nuclear explosive device, and diplomatic and financial rifts with Britain, which caused the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran on November 30, 2011. • Decisions by other Iranian oil purchasers, particularly Japan and South Korea, to reduce purchases of Iranian oil. Those decisions are intended to comply with a provision of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • A Middle Power in a Regional Context: Italy's Economic Security, The
    Department of Political Science Chair of Security Studies A Middle Power in a Regional Context: Italy’s Economic Security, the MENA Region and the Leonardo-Finmeccanica Case SUPERVISOR Prof. Carlo Magrassi CANDIDATE Nicolò Biscottini Student Reg. No. 625032 CO-SUPERVISOR Prof. Federico Niglia ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS At first sight, it might seem reckless to believe that five long and intense years of life and study can be contained in a single final work. Nevertheless, I can affirm with conviction that in the following pages there is not only the Nicolò of yesterday and today but also, and above all, my family, my professors and my teachers who have made me what I am and allowed me to find myself here today to write these lines. First of all, I would like to thank those who have made it possible for this work to take shape, that is the holder of the Chair of Security Studies of LUISS, Guido Carli, Gen. Magrassi, Col. Totaro, Dr. Pasquazzi, and my co-examiner Prof. Niglia. I am not so much grateful for their unquestionable high academic standards as for the humanity and professionalism they showed me during the drafting and elaboration of this work. Special thanks to Dr. Pasquazzi for always being there (really) in a moment of need. Secondly, I strongly desire to express my gratitude to the representatives of the institutional, academic and Italian industrial sectors who provided me with so much information that I was able to integrate into my research. Therefore, I would like to thank Gen. B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanctions Against Russia Over Ukrainian Crisis Are Counterproductive
    Sanctions against Russia over Ukrainian crisis are counterproductive The tension and the ongoing civil war in Ukraine’s increasingly bloody battles will be expensive for the West and will damage what had been an already precarious relationship between the West and the former Soviet bloc. The West has embarked on an inexplicable ‘crusade’ against Moscow, which has reacted in an entirely predictable manner to the political crisis in Ukraine and then to the civil war involving the largely pro-Russian population in eastern the eastern part of the country and the more pro-EU population in the western regions. Ukraine never existed as such and the struggle now is over border solutions adopted in the fallout of the Soviet Union under pressure from NATO. There was no actual State of Ukraine before the October 1917 Revolution that led the path to the formation of the Soviet Union. Historical arguments aside, Russia has sufficient historical and diplomatic claims over Ukraine that its involvement is understandable and its concerns of Western interference entirely warranted if not downright justified. Nevertheless, the West, NATO, Canada and the United States in particular (though Canada playing an especially and comical role as part of Prime Minister Harper’s ‘hawkish’ foreign policy) have put pressure on Russian President Putin to relinquish Russian interests in Ukraine. This policy is rather more ridiculous than it sounds. It is akin to having Russia and its allies (including China and the BRICS countries) demand that The United States and Canada relinquish interests in Mexico or the Caribbean. The West’s economic (and military) isolation and encirclement maneuver aims to weaken Russia in an effort to cut ties with the separatists Eastern Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Profitability of Transnational Energy Infrastructure: a Comparative Analysis
    The profitability of transnational energy infrastructure: A comparative analysis of the Greenstream and Galsi gas pipelines Roberto Cardinale The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, University College London 1-19 Torrington Place, Fitzrovia, London WC1E 7HB [email protected] Abstract This paper explores how the profitability of European transnational gas infrastructure is affected by (i) alternative ways to organize the gas supply chain; and (ii) different forms of energy diplomacy. In particular, through a case study, the paper analyses how these factors determined the realisation and success of the Greenstream pipeline and the stalemate of the Galsi pipeline, despite the potential for both projects to be profitable. The issue is important in view of the full transition to the EU Single Market, of which unbundling and privatisation are policy pillars. In fact, before the transition, vertical integration in the foreign upstream and energy diplomacy were key elements for infrastructure profitability. The paper argues that these elements are still important, as constraints to gas procurement and binding contractual relations with producers have not changed substantially. Nevertheless, securing those advantages within the EU Single Market framework requires significant innovations. In particular, the paper suggests forms of EU energy diplomacy, based on bilateral trade deals, which could achieve forms of vertical integration for energy firms as well as help EU and non- EU counterparts align their interests. This paper may prove particularly relevant for the recent debate on how to shape EU energy diplomacy. Keywords Transnational gas infrastructure profitability; vertical integration; unbundling; energy diplomacy; EU Single Market; energy security. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Deal: Impact on Iran-Turkey Economic Relations
    Nuclear Deal: Impact on Iran-Turkey Economic Relations By Mert Yildiz, Gareth Hollins, Rachel Ziemba, and Jonathan Schanzer February 2016 Foreword by Jonathan Schanzer1 The recent implementation of the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) will have a profound impact on the Middle East. From heightened tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia to Iran’s ability to finance terrorist proxies with sanctions relief, there are many reasons for Iran’s neighbors to worry. But not every country is fraught with concern. Turkey has hailed the deal as a diplomatic success.2 More to the point, Ankara sees the potential for real economic opportunity with its long-sanctioned neighbor. As this report from Roubini Global Economics explains, a more prosperous Iran with access to foreign currency affords Turkey a new market to sell industrial and commercial goods, and to offer tourism services, as well. Energy, not surprisingly, will dominate Iran’s exports to Turkey. But Ankara, much like the rest of the world, will need to be careful how much it relies on Tehran. The fear of Iran violating the JCPOA, and thereby inviting renewed international sanctions, is a constant factor among all of the many countries and companies looking to cash in on the economic opportunities. Of course, Turkey has already taken great liberties by exploiting a loophole in those sanctions by executing an elaborate “gas-for-gold” sanctions- busting scheme that yielded Iran some $13 billion in Turkish gold from 2012 to 2013.3 This “golden” loophole was closed by the U.S. Congress in 2013.4 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Sanctions
    Iran Sanctions Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs June 22, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20871 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Iran Sanctions Summary There is broad international support for imposing progressively strict economic sanctions on Iran to try to compel it to verifiably confine its nuclear program to purely peaceful uses. However, there is not a consensus on how effective the sanctions are on core Western goals. In January 2011, Secretary of State Clinton claimed that sanctions have accomplished a core objective of slowing Iran’s nuclear program. But, nuclear talks in December 2010 and in January 2011 made virtually no progress, suggesting that Iran’s leaders do not feel sufficiently pressured by sanctions to offer major concessions to obtain a nuclear deal. Because so many major economic powers have imposed sanctions on Iran, the sanctions are, by all accounts, harming key sectors of Iran’s economy by reinforcing the effects of Iran’s economic mismanagement. Among other indicators, there have been a stream of announcements by major international firms since early 2010 that they are exiting the Iranian market. Iran’s oil production has fallen slightly to about 3.9 million barrels per day, from over 4.1 million barrels per day several years ago, although Iran now has small natural gas exports that it did not have before Iran opened its fields to foreign investment in 1996. In addition, Iran’s overall ability to limit the effects of sanctions has been aided by relatively high oil prices in mid-2011.
    [Show full text]