The US,Chevron,China,and Central Asia

Busy, busy, busy, our State Department is, to keep Iran’s natural gas bottled up.  

I wonder how the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India Pipeline (TAPI), as opposed to the Iran-Pakistan Pipeline (IP Pipeline) which will also feed India and China, figures into our negotiations for Peace in Iran.  US oil interests will not be involved in the IP Pipeline; and the US promotes TAPI vigorously  and threatens Pakistan with sanctions if it fulfills ins contract with iran to construct the IP  Pipeline.     

How much weight do the oil companies' interest figure into our negotiations with Iran?  The US has done its best to block Iranian oil exports since the Islamic Republic overthrew the Sash and nationalized natural resources.  Opening the flow of oil and gas from Iran to the world  should be a major part of our negotiations with Iran over it’s suspected but not proved desire to develop the Bomb.  Is it?

Liberals did their best to discover Cheney’s conversations with energy companies when he met in secret with them as Bushco’s energy policies were developed, even applying to the federal courts for aid.  Shouldn’t Liberals make the same demands of the Obama administration?  I Shouldn't we know of conversations with oil interests about matters that concern Peace with Iran?think we should. I’m not a powerful lobbying entity, but this is a subject I will address to my congresspersons.  Will you, too?

If the report in the PakTribune, below, is accurate, why is it that a private company is able to pay 10 Billion Dollars to develop the TTAPI Pipeline, when Pakistan and India seem unable to do it themselves?  I favor modifying our tax code.  Radical Republicans claim we don't have enough money to support our poor, and an oil company has, if the report is accurate, money to burn.  Something is wrong here.  Are we concerned that oil companies will move to Dubai to avoid US taxation, as Cheney has done with his companies?  Does the UN need taxing power, just as the US developed the power to regulate powerful railroads when the individual States lacked the power?  Is the analogy good?

The TAPI pipeline is good news for the Taliban and the Balochistan Resistance Movement, since security of the pipeline is a major concern and their power to disrupt it is great.  I’m pleased with prospect of the Balochistan Resistance Movement’s possible gain in power, since the Balochi are treated unfairly by Pakistan and Iran.  I’m not pleased with the Taliban’s.

Roadblocks remain to TAPI pipeline construction - Oil & Gas Journal

Note:  Wikipedia, which frequently reports on the trustworthiness of news outlets, has no report on the PakTribune's trustworthiness, so I’m cautious about the authenticity of the report below.  Stay tuned.  I’ll see if the story is picked up by other news outlets.

US pushes Chevron's bid for TAPI pipeline project12 November, 2013

ISLAMABAD: The United States may press Pakistan to award the multi-billion-dollar contract for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan and India (TAPI) gas pipeline project to pipeline to US energy giant Chevron. 

"During the energy group meeting, the issue relating to awarding TAPI gas pipeline contract to Chevron will come under discussion," sources said, adding that representatives of the US State Department and Chevron had also visited India for the same purpose. 

Chevron and Exxon Mobil, renowned oil and gas companies with vast experience in the energy sector, have expressed interest to be the consortium leaders for the project, sources say. All participating countries have signed Gas Sales Purchase Agreement (GSPA) with Turkmenistan to import gas under TAPI gas pipeline project. 

Pakistan is keen to see Chevron undertake work on the pipeline and sources stress there is a strong possibility that the US energy giant will be selected as consortium leader to finance, design and build the pipeline. 

On its part, Chevron has sought exploration rights in Turkmenistan as well as contracts in response to financing and running the project. However, Turkmenistan has offered exploration rights for offshore fields and asked Chevron to swap gas found in these fields for onshore ones and export it to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India under the TAPI project. Turkmenistan does not allow foreign companies to search for hydrocarbons on onshore fields. 

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), hired as an advisor to help generate funds for the project, has already warned that the TAPI gas pipeline project cost may exceed $10 billion against earlier estimates of $7.5 billion due to delays in implementation of the project. 

The pipeline will pass through war-torn Afghanistan, which has assured Pakistan and other participating countries of providing adequate security for the pipeline. 

Under the TAPI project, Pakistan and India will get 1.365 billion cubic feet of gas per day (bcfd) each from Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan will get 0.5 bcfd. 

Turkmenistan will export natural gas through the 1,800 kilometer pipeline that will reach India after passing through Afghanistan and Pakistan.

TAPI and Turkmenistan’s Natural Gas | GeoCurrents

 Note that TAPI has no proposal for supplying gas to China, while he IP Pipeline passes right by Gwadar, the deep water port China is spending millions to develop right on the Iranian Iranian border with Pakistan.

China Strings Pearls While US Kills Terrorists | Culture of Life News

Business Recorder

巴基斯坦将瓜德尔港经营权转交中国公司-观察者网

Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline | emptywheel

Chinese workers in Gwadar

For more on the IP Pipeline, see this blog here and here.

For more on Balochistan see Mansouled Fiery Islands, here and here.

Peace with Iran

My sentiments exactly.

New York Times  

November 3, 2013
Talk to Iran, It Works
By RYAN C. CROCKER
There were high expectations after President Obama and Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, talked on the phone in late September. Those hoping for a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear standoff were excited that a breakthrough was imminent; meanwhile, some American allies, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, expressed deep skepticism over a potential American rapprochement with Iran. 

No breakthrough was achieved when American and Iranian officials met for negotiations last month, but few observers expected one. Later this week, another round of talks is scheduled to begin in Geneva. 

The window for achieving a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is not open-ended. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Rouhani face domestic pressures — from skeptical members of Congress in Washington and anti-American hard-liners in Tehran.
Nevertheless, despite three decades of frosty relations and although most Americans may be unaware of it, talks with Iran have succeeded in the past — and they can succeed again. 

Immediately after 9/11, while serving in the State Department, I sat down with Iranian diplomats to discuss next steps in Afghanistan. Back then, we had a common enemy, the Taliban and its Al Qaeda associates, and both governments thought it was worth exploring whether we could cooperate. 

The Iranians were constructive, pragmatic and focused, at one point they even produced an extremely valuable map showing the Taliban’s order of battle just before American military action began. 

They were also strong proponents of taking action in Afghanistan. We met through the remaining months of 2001 in different locations, and Iranian-American agreement at the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan was central to establishing the Afghan Interim Authority, headed by Hamid Karzai, now the president of Afghanistan. 

I continued to hold talks with the Iranians in Kabul when I was sent to reopen the United States Embassy there. We forged agreements on various security issues and coordinated approaches to reconstruction. And then, suddenly, it all came to an end when President George W. Bush gave his famous “Axis of Evil” speech in early 2002. The Iranian leadership concluded that in spite of their cooperation with the American war effort, the United States remained implacably hostile to the Islamic Republic. 

Real cooperation effectively ceased after the speech and the costs were immediate. At the time, we were in the process of negotiating the transfer of the notorious Afghan warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, from Iranian house arrest to Afghan custody and ultimately to American control. Instead, the Iranians facilitated his covert entry into Afghanistan where he remains at large, launching attacks on coalition and Afghan targets. 

I had another set of negotiations with Iranian diplomats when I was ambassador to Iraq in 2007. The goal was to persuade Iran to cease supporting groups like Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, a Shiite militia that was targeting the Iraqi government and coalition forces. Unlike the Afghan negotiations, these talks took place in the full glare of the media, rendering the give-and-take of effective diplomacy impossible. While the negotiations accomplished nothing, they may have convinced Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that his only option for dealing with the militias was military force. He launched a military operation against them in April 2008. In fighting that extended from Baghdad to Basra, the government eventually prevailed, with substantial coalition support. 

The Afghan experience demonstrates that diplomatic progress between the United States and Iran is possible. It is certainly not guaranteed, but a solid diplomatic solution is always better than the alternatives. 

The government of the Islamic Republic is clearly an adversary, but it is also a rational actor. And, like all governments, it is capable of being pragmatic and flexible when it is in its interest to do so. There is a chance that the Obama administration can replicate past successes if it applies four lessons from the 2001 talks. 

First, American negotiators must understand that serious progress is likely to come only in direct talks between the United States and Iran. The involvement of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany should continue, but the heavy lifting will have to be done by the two central actors. 

Second, the substance of the talks must be closely held. Revealing the details too soon will give ammunition to those who oppose the talks and limit the flexibility of the negotiators.
Third, America should be ready to introduce other issues beyond the nuclear file. Progress in one area can build confidence and facilitate progress in others. I mentioned this in a discussion with Iranian leaders in New York last month and they seemed receptive, mentioning Afghanistan and Syria as possibilities. 

Finally, the United States must make clear that we do not seek to overthrow the Iranian regime. Iranian paranoia on this issue is virtually limitless and understandably so. In 1953, the American and British intelligence services ousted a democratically elected Iranian prime minister, an episode that very few Americans remember and no Iranian will ever forget. 

The outlines of a deal are already clear. Iran wants sanctions lifted and an end to its isolation while the international community wants clear, continuous and unambiguous verification that Iran’s nuclear energy program will never be weaponized. The Iranian leaders I met in New York argued that a nuclear weapon would actually degrade Iran’s security because it would spark a destabilizing cascade of proliferation among its Arab neighbors. They insisted that Iran wants security and stability in the region, not a nuclear arms race.
That is encouraging talk, but the Iranians will have to move first. There can be no question of easing American sanctions until Iran has demonstrated its seriousness in confining any nuclear program to peaceful purposes. 

Ryan C. Crocker, a former United States ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, is dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A & M.

[Emphasis added]

Present status of the Iran-Pakistan Pipeline

On March 5, 2012, I wrote a post on US efforts to prevent Iran and Pakistan from constructing the Iran-Pakistan Pipeline.  The effort focused on blocking sources of money for financing the pipeline.

The pipeline would start in he Pars natural gas field in Iran -- the largest in the world and currently blocked by US Warships -- and would bring a new energy source to Pakistan, which Pakistan desperately needs.  It would also provide Iran with cash, which it desperately needs because of Western efforts to starve it into agreeing not to construct an Atomic Bomb.  Such as Israel has.

The Western effort, now joined by Russia and China, has so far been a success:  there is no pipeline and there is no Bomb, and Iran has not been Bombed by anyone.  The effort is also wasteful and unstable, not nearly as good as working out an agreement with iran.

Here is a report on the current sate of developments:

From  The Express Tribune with the International Herald ATribune

Zardari visit delay raises questions over Iran-Pakistan project

By AFP

Published: December 11, 2012

ISLAMABAD: 

President Asif Ali Zardari has delayed a visit to Iran to discuss a huge gas deal despite Tehran’s offer of a loan to help finance a project which the US opposes, officials said Tuesday.

The $7.5 billion pipeline project has run into repeated difficulties – over US opposition because of Iran’s nuclear activities and Pakistan’s difficulty in finding funds.

It was originally reported that Zardari would visit Iran last Friday and that the final agreement would be likely signed during the visit.

Pakistani officials denied that the visit had been cancelled, claiming it had never been officially scheduled due to Zardari’s engagements in London and Paris.

“The visit may materialise on his way back from the ongoing foreign tour or he may visit Tehran after coming back home,” a petroleum ministry official told AFP.

Iranian officials said that the visit had been postponed at Pakistan’s request and would happen “soon”.

“It has been agreed that the visit would take place with a bit of change. Iranian assistance to build the peace pipeline in Pakistan will be one of the issues on the visit’s agenda,” said Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mahmanparast.

Negotiations are reaching a critical point, the Financial Times said, because it will take two years to build Pakistan’s sections of the pipeline and Islamabad would have to start paying Tehran for the gas two years from now.

The newspaper said an increasingly desperate Pakistan is struggling to overcome strong opposition to the project from the United States, which has clamped economic sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear programme.

In 2010 Iran and Pakistan agreed that Iran would supply between 750 million cubic feet and one billion cubic feet per day of natural gas by mid-2015.

Islamabad has said that it will pursue the project regardless of US pressure, calling it vital to overcome the country’s energy crisis that has led to debilitating blackouts and suffocated industry.

But in March, it was forced to review sources of funding after newspapers said a Chinese bank pulled out over fears that firms involved will face sanctions.

Pakistani officials said Tuesday that Iran had promised a $500 million loan and that Islamabad would meet the rest of its $1.6 billion share.

“There are impediments in view of the US opposition to the project but we are determined to complete it to meet our fast-growing energy requirements,” said one government official on condition of anonymity.

But the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said Iran has confirmed it can finance at least $250 million, despite Pakistan asking for $500 million.

“This is a technical issue,” Mahmanparast said.

Analyst Imtiaz Gul said the deal would probably be signed only if the United States backs down over its opposition to the deal, possibly in exchange for Pakistani cooperation on Afghan peace efforts. [Emphasis added.]

So Pakistan has something we want and we have something Pakistan wants.  An agreement might lead to a broader agreement with Iran that would end the present stalemate.  That larger agreement might make all nations but Israel, currently controlled by mad hawks, happy.  A change in the Israeli government might result in a two-state solution, which would make Palestinians happy; which would mak Egypt happy.

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast."  Alexander Pope.

Happy Palestinians:

Chirtal

You may have forgotten about Chitral, neighbor to China, the Nuristani in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and, now, a part of Pakistan, but I haven't forgotten that beautiful land and brave people which our wars and others have affected.

Lift goes on.  Dawn, perhaps Pakistan's leading English language newspaper, reports that Chitrali youth

In benighted Muslim countries --  which Chiral nominally is -- 

and in The Castro,

it is normal for men to 

dance with men.

have invented a machine for predicting the advent of an avalanche, so important in a land surrounded by snowy mountains.  Excellent!  Bravo!  Celebrate!

Here are some other images from Chitral to refresh your memory if you have forgotten, from he fine Nooru's Blog, . . .

Polo is the favored sport

. . . . which has this to say about Chitral's history:

The valley has seen invasions of the horse ridden Greeks, the Persians , the British, and sturdy Afghans and many other hordes of attackers including the Muslims. Having seen and experienced many invaders, the  Chitralvadis  through their spirit  never allowed the other dynasty to fully sway over their affairs, which is why the loam of this area has engrossed the aroma of different civilizations and the culture of various bordering nations but retained its distinct identity.

The people of Chitral

show traces of Persian and Turkish ancestry. They are known for their peaceful, uncomplicated character and unique cultural.  It’s the place of simple trustworthy people whose friendship remains with visitor for a long time. They  have no greed ,they respect their guests and despise cheating anyone. 

Well, perhaps gentleness is a little too stressed, given they have never been conquered for long, after 3,000 years of trying by some very formidable foes.  Or perhaps gentleness is a virtue we should all cultivate, for our own protection.  Don't suppose that idea would meet with great acceptance in Republican primaries.

For a gratuitous Degas painting of nude guys,