Guest Column: Iran's Cold Winter
By Paul SampsonIran is in the grip of an energy crisis that has left homes without heating and electricity, forced the temporary shut-down of power plants, and even led National Iranian Oil Co to stop re-injecting gas into its onshore oilfields. How could this happen in a country with the world's second-largest oil and gas reserves, you might ask?
First, this year's winter has been the coldest in a half century; Turkmenistan cut gas supplies to Iran at the beginning of the year in a pricing dispute; and, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reacted very slowly to a national emergency.
Iranians I've spoken to say the trouble with Turkmenistan was entirely avoidable. Last autumn, Turkmenistan said that in 2008 Iran would have to remit much more than the $75 per 1,000 cubic meters, the extremely low price it had been paying. But rather than deal (what even Russia's Gazprom when the Turkmen raised the same gripe), the Iranians dug in their heels and -- hey presto -- had the taps turned off.
The Turkmen pipeline supplies remote northern Iran villages that are cut off from the mainland, so there was always going to be a problem. But, as the freezing weather started to bite, the problem became a full-blown crisis.
For Ahmadinejad, whose handling of the economy has been woeful at a time Iran is being squeezed by US-led sanctions, the energy shortages should be an embarrassment. Some analysts predict he'ill pay for his shortcomings with a hammering in next month's parliamentary elections, where his conservative rivals are expected to gain ground.
But don't bet on it; friends in Tehran have said over the past few days that Ahmadinejad is as confident as ever and, backed by the all-powerful Supreme Leader and his friends in the Revolutionary Guards, is setting his sights on being re-elected in June.
For some Iranians, that would be the last straw.
Photo: please!don'tsmile
Rights: Creative Commons
Labels: Caspian, central asia, crisis, iran, natural gas, Turkmenistan
8 Comments:
Paul, enjoyed reading your post. A quick and off-topic question (maybe Steve can answer it, too).
Nabucco is generally talked about as needing the Trans-Caspian Pipeline to be viable. Does the TCP need Nabucco to be viable?
Paul, how significant, do you think, this potential leadership shift in Tehran could be ? Especially, in terms of Iran's attitude towards the undersea pipeline idea and the potential oil fields whose ownership is disputed by Azerbaijan and Iran? Would it be just a nominal change, not leading to any substantive change in Tehran's position on these issues?
You mention that Turkmenistan gave Iran an advance notice of its desire to raise prices. Does that mean the recent flurry of worries about Turkmenistan and Turkey's reliability as Nabucco partners are groundless? For example, Eurasianet.org reported this:
"For European observers, the Iranian-Turkmen dustup is raising concerns about the two countries’ ability to play a role in the proposed Nabucco pipeline, which would bring Caspian gas to the European Union. "It makes a Nabucco that would take gas from Turkmenistan via Iran less likely," said Charles Esser, an energy analyst with the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based policy and research organization." Thank you very much.
http://www.eurasianet.org/
departments/
insight/articles/
eav012808.shtml
Paul - Good piece, except for that final kicker. Last straw, and they would do what? Leave the country? Foment revolution? Switch to solar? What? :)
I've a feeling you may have given in to that perennial challenge of the journalist – how to end the piece. I sympathize. "Just finish, damn it!" an old editor once barked at me – on deadline of course. "If you've run out of facts, who cares about another paragraph!" I had run out of facts. But I'm pretty sure you haven't, so if you have more, another graph or two about the possible implications would be useful.
There's another instance of vague endings in today's Sunday Times (UK). In an otherwise perceptive review of Edward Lucas' Cold War book (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article3328525.ece), Thomas De Waal approaches the finish with a rather startling revelation:
Far more critical than the headline-grabbing rows taking place at the moment was the decision taken quietly in 2006 to start weaning Britain off dependence on Russian gas, when Moscow briefly shut its pipeline through Ukraine. According to one of my contacts, present at a key meeting in No 10, that single unreliable act “turned British policy 180 degrees – away from Russia”.
De Waal is a fine journalist, and has a superb record both reporting on, and supporting others reporting on, developments in the FSU and the Caucasus. But, as Britain isn't and hasn't been dependent on Russia for gas, what can he possibly mean? Any ideas?
While awaiting Paul's comments, I'll handle Viktor's: Trans-Caspian does not require Nabucco. It would be pure supply; there would be numerous potential buyers -- Turkey and Greece, for instance.
What Trans-Caspian does need, however, is for Azerbaijan and Turkey to stop playing hard-ball in terms of going along with the construction of the actual pipeline. I'm told that both are currently playing spoilers, knowing the high geopolitical stakes from their experience with Baku-Ceyhan.
Thanks for the comment and best, Steve
VIKTOR: Thanks for comments. Regarding Nabucco, the companies involved in the project are confident that there will be enough gas coming from Azerbaijan to make the pipeline commercial. Later on, there is the option to feed in Iranian or Turkmen gas. The key to Nabucco's success rests with Turkey, I reckon.
FH -- you're right, was a bit of a throwaway comment..What I should have said is that another four years of Ahmadinejad would be very difficult for many Iranians to stomach, especially those who are outward-looking and want to see Iran come out of its current isolation. There seems to be a growing sense of despondency among Iranians I know about the future, and it is sad to witness. It is not just about Ahmadinejad or the Supreme Leader for that matter; the whole Iranian political system is to blame. I fear that, as long as oil prices remain high and continue to give Iran's leadership a nice cushion, nothing will change at all.
FT today has an article that says the same thing that Paul and Steve have said: Turkey is playing hard ball with regard to Nabucco.
"EU presses Turkey for more support to gas pipeline project.
Turkey will be urged this week to give more support to the proposed Nabucco natural gas pipeline, following mounting European Union concern about Ankara's commitment to the project."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e4a0b0e-d844-11dc-98f7-0000779fd2ac.html
bojidar, I don't expect any changes in Iran's policy towards the Caspian, which is based on defending national interests and at the same time keeping a modus vivendi with its fellow littoral states. As for the Turkmen cut-off, its impact on Nabucco is minimal.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home