The Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline has always represented more than an oil arrangement between Iraq and Syria, or a simple scheme for exporting crude. Its significance was evident when it was built in the 1950s, when it was shut down during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when it was revived in the final years of Saddam Hussein’s rule, and when it was damaged during the US invasion of 2003.
Last week, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed during a business summit at the US Chamber of Commerce to revive the pipeline, as Washington seeks ways to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The deal involves the US energy giant Chevron, TI Capital led by Ziad Ghandour, and Qatar’s UCC Holdings. It will take oil from northern Iraq’s Kurdish regions to Syria’s Mediterranean coast, with two million barrels per day (bpd) envisaged. Yet this is about more than oil.
Under American sponsorship, it is an effort to reconnect the countries of the region through networks of energy, transport, and investment. As a framework for development, this stands in direct contrast to the ‘Iranian model’ seen since 1979 that has involved the penetration of borders and states via proxy militias, drones, narcotics, weapons, and disorder. The difference between the two visions is profound.
To breach, or bridge?
From Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and Yemen, Tehran has long regarded borders as obstacles to be breached. The emerging project sees borders as bridges to be crossed by pipelines, electricity grids, railways, and investment. The first model was built through infiltration and the Tehran-led ‘Axis of Resistance’. It belongs to the past, if that were not yet clear to all. The second looks towards the future, seeking influence through development, shared interests, and the consolidation of states.
This broader context is essential to understanding the remarks of US envoy Tom Barrack after the MoU was signed last week. He spoke of a programme being developed in coordination with Syria, Jordan, Türkiye, Lebanon, and Egypt to establish alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz (which Tehran seeks to hold hostage by attacking ships passing through). As these alternatives came to fruition, Barrack said, the importance of the maritime chokepoint could diminish, as early as two years’ time.
Yet his remarks concerned far more than a single project. It could redraw the energy map of the Middle East. The pipeline running from Kirkuk in Iraq to the Syrian port of Baniyas on the Mediterranean would form one of the pillars of that new map. Iraq remains heavily dependent on its southern ports and on passage from the Arabian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, so is seeking outlets that are less vulnerable to Iran. Syria, for its part, hopes to become a regional energy hub, while Washington wants to use geography to contain Iran, reducing it ability to influence global oil routes.
Building networks
These plans intersect with other projects under discussion, extending from the Gulf through Jordan and Syria, then onwards to Türkiye, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean. They include oil and gas pipelines, railways, communications networks, and roads. The objective extends beyond diversifying export routes; it is to build a new network of interests in which the stability of each state becomes tied to that of its neighbours.
