Security of Pipelines in Eurasia Essay

Theoretically, it holds that the United States (US) invaded Afghanistan as a self-defense strategy following the 9/11 attacks. Practically, however, as US foreign policy is about conquest, self-protection and resource-extraction, it seeks strategic dominance of geographical space to sustain its global relevance. The rationality of the US suggests the need to continuously accumulate capital, resources and military proficiency to ensure autonomy. Therefore, a pragmatic reading into the motivation behind the invasion of Afghanistan negates the self-defense theory. Rather, the shifting coordinates of power within central and southern Asia crafted the perfect criteria for US intervention. This work explores the motivations and systemic cover-ups designed by the Bush administration in ordering military troops into Afghanistan in 2001. It will hold that this invasion was not just a War on Terror, but rather a tactic to ensure US prevalence within the region, and henceforth, the rest of the world. Thus, why did the US invade Afghanistan?

a. Primary National Interest: Republic of Azerbaijan works to ensure sustained economic growth by protecting and exploiting proven oil reserves from deepwater Caspian Basin oilfields and its transport to growing western markets via the Baku-Tblilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and associated South Caucasus (SCP) gas pipeline. Azerbaijan leverages this energy development to build strategic partnerships & ensure international attention for its independence, and attempt to influence attitudes toward the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict.

For the United States, the Gulf region remains one of the most geo-strategically important locations in the world for diplomatic, intelligence cooperation, and business opportunities such as hydrocarbons and arms. This strategic cooperation has provided the region some stability, particularly with the rise of Iran and the Shi’a crescent and the chaotic outcome of the war in Iraq. The council members have also relied on the United State to fend off some of the domestic challenges to the existing regimes that are both internally and regionally rooted.

Chapter 7 of LeVine’s book discusses the Soviet Union and their desire to expand their oil market into Central Asia. However, western countries like America were also looking to the region for oil. Levine notes that America was not allowed in one area simply because “the region’s petroleum riches were critical to Moscow’s strategic future” (Levine 95). However, Russia needs America’s funding in order to expand its own expeditions, therefore creating an issue for Russia. LeVine focused more than the previous authors on the actual views of the people in Central Asia. Besides the bureaucracies of American and Russia, LeVine also discusses the opinion of the companies in Central Asia. The Kazaks in Kazakhstan were wary of any relations between Central Asia and Russia, based on other people’s experiences with the Soviet Union. The bureaucracy in Central Asia did not want western countries to come into the region, but they also were unsure of the Soviet Union’s involvement. Unlike Wu and Shimizu, LeVine presents expansion into Central Asia as a necessity for the Soviet Union while also expressing the positions of the people in Central Asia. All three of the readings show a need for an oil market in Central Asia, but individually express the

In his paper about Iran’s nuclear program, Barry R. Posen emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program may result on regional and global instability. On regional level, neighboring countries of Iran will feel threatened with Iran’s nuclear power. This situation may lead them to follow Iran’s step in developing nuclear weapons even though they do not have the capability to ensure the security of their nuclear sites. Clearly, nuclear weapons proliferation will put the Middle East in escalating dangerous situation. On global level, the U.S. and its allies are concerned that the situation in the Middle East may harm their national interests. The Middle East is still a prominent producer of oil which is the main energy resource for industrial

The relations between the United States and the Middle East has been intricate. Even though there is quite a physical distance between the United States and the Middle East, the United States’ influence spread within this region. Throughout the 20th and 21st century, the Middle East’s relations with other countries, strategic interests, and military standings have provoked U.S. involvement. These interventions have ranged from diplomatic actions to more drastic physical military involvement. The United States’ relations with Iraq is a great example of this complex, continuously changing relationship. To know the background of Iraq will help understand the war on terror.

The Middle East region has been seeing and absorbing the effects of war and poverty for decades. The United States (U.S.) has provided support in the past to assist the Middle East, and that has been quite successful. For this reason, the U.S., a world superpower, should be directly involved in ending conflict in the Middle East because they possess a capable military, the global economy is directly affected by the Middle East, and the U.S. is capable of peaceful mediation between conflicted areas in the Middle East. The Middle East is a region that has constantly been involved in warfare, and the U.S. has taken appropriate measures to ensure that peace was possible, even in this war-stricken area. The U.S. has also provided aid in regard to the oil reserves in the Middle East, which are significant to global development. This protection allows the industry to continue, and it benefits nations around the world. Lastly, the U.S. has successfully mediated discussion between conflicted nations, like Egypt and Israel, to achieve a common goal that set them on a path for peace. While there are many reasons the U.S. should be involved, one of the most direct reasons is military capability.

The containment policy established by George Bush Sr. after the Gulf War is the most viable option for the United States when deciding how to stabilize the Middle East. A political strategy of containment strictly sustains the status quo, and is inexpensive in terms of blood, money, and political capital. Furthering the United States’ containment policy in the context of Iraq will halter the making of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, ensuring the free flow of oil from the Gulf, while preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors. For this reason, a political strategy of containment is comparatively advantageous to the alternative. This essay will begin by examining the effect of no-fly zones on the Iraqi government, moving to discuss weapons inspections, discussing the strategic viability of sanctions and their effect on the Iraqi economy, finally explaining the advantages containment holds over intervention.

The Middle East has recently been the topic of many news sources as there is so much uncertainty in the region today. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria are all having problems and they continue to worry the outside world. Saudi Arabia has recently put King Salman in power, following the death of his half-brother, and with the current economy in the Middle East, a state that possess so much influence in an already unstable region, to become unstable in itself may cause significant catastrophes (Botelho). Yemen is also in turmoil with its own current problems. “[The United States] does not even know who is in charge right now. We know that rebels have moved in, they have exerted tremendous influence, and we can’t say exactly who will be in charge there in the future” (Botelho). With rebels moving in, the United States also fears of the fact that Yemen has been known as a source of terrorism (Botelho). Along with the other problems, in 2011, President Obama’s agenda was enforced and the United States pulled all troops

In conclusion, the strategic importance of Middle East benefits most if not all nations in the World. However, the parameters to measure this have to be in a globally extended framework. This means that any conflict, especially that which may between the West and the East, May ultimately spell the Middle East doom by defeating its strategic importance, Anderson & William (2000). However, the Middle East is to maintain its geostrategic importance if foreign relations between the West and the East and

The international environment is very complex, due to the inclusion of various political actors and the interaction of these actors at different levels. Typically, threats emerge from competition between states over geopolitical and traditional issues. Recently, non-traditional threats have emerged that affect the national interests of various countries; one of these challenges that is quickly moving to the forefront of importance is that of energy security, and the related topic of environmental security. Political scientists and leaders try to distill the international environment down to basic theories, which can help determine appropriate courses of action in this landscape of change. Using the theory of realism, and responding

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and President Vladimir Putin’s ascendency in the early 2000s, he and his government have been hell-bent on reclaiming Russia’s old title of a world superpower. In conjunction with his administration, Putin has commandeered Russia’s identity to the narrative of being an energy superpower by using the nation’s most effective weapon: the country’s energy resources. Peter Behr’s article for the Congressional Quarter Global Researcher titled “Energy Nationalism,” seeks to demonstrate and explain why and how Russia—in addition to other countries such as China and Venezuela—became so nationalistic and protective of its energy resources. Furthermore, “Since the oil age began more than a century ago, governments in the developing world—on both the right and left—have promised their people a fair share of the wealth…Instead, ‘black gold’ has spawned corruption, economic hardship, vast class differences and civil war” (Behr 2007). When politically creating a nation’s identity on the world’s stage, leaders incorporate the benefits and effects of human, material, and natural resources. Since these are constantly evolving variables, a country’s identity, particularly relating to natural resources, is constantly evolving as well. Nevertheless, Putin is reminiscing and effectively reenacting Russia’s energy production days in order to shape the narrative of being a geopolitical and energy superpower. However, prior to understanding and examining

The point of this article is to examine the case that an untimely withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan may not be to the greatest advantage of the United States. The American military vicinity in Afghanistan is a standout amongst the most essential issues of contemporary global relations. Amid the previous decade the subject of the US and NATO troops in Afghanistan has ascended on the political motivation. The American vicinity in Afghanistan is essential, not just for South and Central Asia, and the Middle East, yet for a whole universal group. This article will reach a conclusion in respect to whether American troops ought to finish what has been started and keep its strengths in Afghanistan or ought to the US quit from this nation. In the first piece of this exposition I will display a foundation to the worldwide intrusion of Afghanistan taking after the 9/11 terrorist assaults. In the second part I will analyze contentions why staying in Afghanistan is to American best advantage. These are: Taliban come back to power, destabilization of the district and al - Qaida come back to its bases in Afghanistan. Also I will scrutinize these most noticeably awful - case situations. At last I will look at the contentions of backers for complete or if nothing else a halfway deserting of Afghanistan

What the U.S. grand strategy should strive for is to conserve primacy as the leader in a monopolar world-order. Consequently, the U.S. energy independence affords it the flexibility to not only cut ties with Middle Eastern oil supply but compete directly with it. Oil imported from Canada or extracted by fracking the Marcellus shale within the U.S. provides a more reliable and secure supply than oil from the Middle East. Oil exports from North America could reduce European reliance on Russian oil supplies. This would strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) ability to contain Russian expansionism into Eastern Europe and preserve the monopolar status quo ante; however the U.S. is exhibiting signs of losing its ability to maintain

Central Asia is a place where the strategic interests of the world powers intersect. External factors sustain political, military, and to a large extent economic stability in the region. Russia, the West, and China act as the main outside stabilizers. World and regional powers actively defend their military–political and economic interests in Central Asia (Baizakova 2013:59).