Pipelines, Ports, and Power: How Energy Corridors Are Redrawing the Map of Eurasia

Introduction

The 21st century’s most decisive conflicts from the endless turmoil in Afghanistan to Syria’s devastating civil war, the gas wars between Russia and Europe, and the rise of alternative trade corridors through Asia are fundamentally wars over energy and connectivity. Pipelines, ports, lithium fields, and rare earth reserves are the unseen prizes driving regime changes, military interventions, and diplomatic realignments. Beneath the surface narratives of democracy promotion, counterterrorism, or economic development lies a brutal struggle for control over Eurasia’s arteries its oil, gas, minerals, and digital infrastructure. From UNOCAL’s failed attempts in Afghanistan to the sabotage of Nord Stream, from China’s Belt and Road Initiative to India’s launch of IMEEC, the story of modern geopolitics is the story of energy corridors. Understanding these silent drivers reveals the true face of global power in our time.

1989–2001: South Pars, TAPI, and the Rise of Pipeline Geopolitics

In 1989, Qatar and Iran began developing the South Pars/North Dome field, the largest natural gas deposit on earth. Containing an estimated 51 trillion cubic meters of gas, this treasure trove lay beneath the Persian Gulf, shared unequally between Qatar (two-thirds) and Iran (one-third). The prize was not only regional domination but access to European markets, long dependent on Russian gas. Meanwhile, on the other side of Asia, U.S. energy corporations saw an opportunity. The proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline was designed to export Turkmen gas southwards, bypassing both Russia and Iran. American oil giant UNOCAL aggressively lobbied for TAPI in the 1990s, securing support from Clinton administration officials like Robin Raphel. However, Afghanistan, under the chaotic rule of Burhanuddin Rabbani and the Northern Alliance, was too unstable. The dream of a stable pipeline route through Afghanistan remained elusive.

The United States and Pakistan’s ISI thus backed the emergence of the Taliban a new, radical movement promising order. Taliban forces, trained and armed covertly, captured Kabul in 1996. Negotiations between UNOCAL and Taliban envoys followed swiftly. Senior American diplomats maintained unofficial contacts, hoping that Taliban control would greenlight pipeline projects. Companies like Halliburton, then headed by Dick Cheney, envisioned vast profits from Turkmenistan’s gas fields if only Afghanistan could be pacified. However, by 1998, Taliban excesses especially their harboring of Osama bin Laden made overt American engagement politically impossible. TAPI collapsed into the dust of Afghan warlordism. Still, energy ambitions had already locked the United States into Afghanistan’s fate.

2001–2010: 9/11, Regime Change, and the New Scramble for Resources

The September 11, 2001 attacks, launched by al-Qaeda from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, changed everything. Overnight, the United States shifted from covert engagement with the Taliban to full military intervention. The public rationale was clear: dismantle terrorist networks. However, deeper undercurrents drove American priorities including securing access to Afghanistan’s transit potential for gas and its newly mapped mineral riches. By late 2001, the Taliban had been overthrown with U.S. airpower, Northern Alliance ground forces, and massive CIA funding. Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun leader with Western backing, was installed as interim president. Under Karzai’s administration, the TAPI pipeline plan was revived, with official agreements signed between Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India by 2002. TAPI symbolized more than economic development: it was a tool to wedge Central Asia away from Russian and Chinese influence.

Meanwhile, Pentagon-funded geological surveys uncovered staggering mineral wealth in Afghanistan. Reports leaked by 2010 described deposits of lithium, copper, cobalt, and rare earth elements worth an estimated $1 trillion. A Pentagon internal memo described Afghanistan as potentially “the Saudi Arabia of lithium,” vital for battery technologies driving the global clean energy revolution. Companies ranging from American mining interests to Chinese state firms began preparing strategies to tap into this hidden fortune. However, chronic instability, Taliban resurgence, and rampant corruption stymied all ambitions. Although TAPI agreements were ceremonially renewed multiple times, the ground realities made serious construction impossible. Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, a key silent motivation for American occupation, remained largely untapped but the scramble for its future continued.

2009–2013: Syria, the Pipeline Proxy War, and Russia’s Counteroffensive

While Afghanistan consumed American resources, another pipeline war erupted across the Middle East. In 2009, Qatar proposed building a pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey, bringing South Pars gas into Europe. The strategic aim was clear: undercut Russia’s grip on Europe’s energy market. However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, backed heavily by Iran and Russia, rejected Qatar’s proposal. Instead, in 2010, Assad signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran and Iraq to build the Islamic Gas Pipeline (IGP), transporting Iranian gas across Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. This move aligned Syria firmly with the Iran-Russia bloc and made Assad an obstacle to Western and Gulf interests.

Simultaneously, Turkey promoted the Nabucco pipeline, backed by the European Union, which would bring Caspian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe without touching Russian or Iranian territories. If Qatar’s gas linked through Nabucco, Russia’s dominance could be broken. Thus, Syria’s decision was not just about Middle Eastern politics it threatened the broader energy architecture of Eurasia. Starting in 2011, the so-called "Arab Spring" spread into Syria. Western powers, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey openly backed rebel groups aiming to topple Assad. By 2012, Syria’s civil war was fully underway, masking an energy proxy war under humanitarian rhetoric. Assad’s survival became essential for Russia and Iran; his fall became critical for Qatar, Turkey, and Western strategists dreaming of energy corridors bypassing Moscow and Tehran. The cancellation of the Nabucco pipeline in 2013 due to lack of secure gas sources marked a major setback for European energy diversification. Russia’s Nord Stream projects surged ahead unchallenged.

2014–2022: Ukraine, Nord Stream, and Europe’s Gas Addiction

The next major battlefield of pipeline geopolitics opened in Ukraine. In 2014, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and sponsorship of separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine triggered a massive geopolitical crisis. Ukraine, long a critical transit country for Russian gas to Europe, now became unreliable. Germany, while supporting sanctions against Russia over Crimea, paradoxically deepened energy ties through Nord Stream 2, doubling the gas capacity from Russia under the Baltic Sea directly to Germany. The United States warned repeatedly that Moscow could weaponize gas supplies against Europe. Eastern European nations like Poland and the Baltic states also protested, but Berlin, prioritizing economic pragmatism, pressed ahead.

By 2021, Nord Stream 2 was physically completed but politically paralyzed. The Biden administration, though initially critical, softened opposition under German pressure. Meanwhile, Europe’s dependency on Russian gas increased to nearly 40% of its total imports making Moscow’s energy leverage more potent than ever. The tipping point came with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Germany froze Nord Stream 2 indefinitely. In September 2022, mysterious sabotage explosions rendered Nord Stream pipelines unusable, severing Russia’s easiest route to pressure Europe. Although responsibility remains murky, the effect was clear: Europe was cut loose from cheap Russian gas.

America quickly filled the vacuum, massively increasing LNG (liquefied natural gas) exports to Europe. New LNG terminals were rapidly commissioned in Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands. U.S. LNG prices surged benefiting American shale gas companies while Europe struggled with soaring energy costs. The Nord Stream crisis transformed America from a marginal to a dominant energy player in Europe.

2022–2023: Qatar, U.S. LNG, and the New Energy Architecture of Europe

As Europe severed ties with Russian gas, it faced a daunting shortfall. U.S. LNG supplies soared, but they could not alone meet Europe’s massive energy needs. Enter Qatar, the world’s largest LNG exporter after the United States. Qatar’s massive North Field expansions and its decades of experience in LNG shipping became critical for Europe’s survival. Germany, France, and Italy Europe’s industrial engines signed long-term contracts with Qatar Energy. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz personally traveled to Qatar to secure energy deals. Qatar’s LNG became a strategic pillar of Europe’s new energy architecture alongside American supplies.

Together, U.S. and Qatari LNG diversified Europe’s sources, weakened Moscow’s leverage, and further tied Europe economically to Western-led alliances. By 2023, Europe imported over 40% of its LNG from the U.S. and Qatar combined. New LNG terminals in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands changed Europe’s physical energy infrastructure. For the United States, this was a strategic masterstroke. Not only had Washington disconnected Europe from Russian dependency, but it had also reasserted economic leadership over its allies. U.S. shale gas exporters, boosted by high global prices, reaped record profits. Qatar, in turn, strengthened its global diplomatic clout, balancing relations between the West and China with remarkable dexterity. In this new map of energy, Russia’s gas weapon had been largely neutralized, and China’s dependence on Middle Eastern energy became an even more critical strategic vulnerability that Washington would soon target.

2023: The Launch of IMEEC – India's Great Leap Forward

Amid these shifting tectonics, another revolutionary development occurred. At the G20 Summit in Delhi in September 2023, the United States, India, Saudi Arabia, UAE, the European Union, and Israel jointly announced the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC).

IMEEC envisioned a two-corridor system:

• Eastern Corridor: Shipping lanes from Indian ports (like Mumbai, Mundra) to UAE ports (like Jebel Ali), followed by overland rail through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel to Haifa.

• Northern Corridor: From Haifa, cargo would ship across the Mediterranean to Greece and Italy, and onwards to France and Germany.

The strategic brilliance of IMEEC lay in bypassing both Iran and Turkey, two countries aligned increasingly with China and Russia. It gave Europe alternative trade access to Asian markets without relying on Chinese-dominated routes. For India, it marked a historic revival of its ancient role as Eurasia’s trade pivot akin to the old Spice Route dominance before European colonialism. For the United States, it was a direct counterstrike against China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). For Saudi Arabia and UAE, IMEEC offered a gateway to modernize economies beyond hydrocarbons. For Israel, it was strategic integration into Arab regional infrastructure. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reacted sharply, warning that Turkey could not be bypassed. However, Turkey’s own pivot toward Russia and China after Ukraine had isolated it diplomatically from the West. In Washington’s view, IMEEC, coupled with LNG energy architecture, created a Western-dominated alternative to Eurasian integration led by China and Russia.

China’s Myanmar Pipeline: Beijing’s Indian Ocean Strategy

While the West constructed IMEEC, China accelerated its alternative connectivity plan the China-Myanmar Energy Corridor. Since 2013, China has invested billions into building oil and gas pipelines from the Kyaukphyu port on Myanmar’s coast to Kunming in Yunnan province. These pipelines allow China to bypass the vulnerable Malacca Strait, through which 80% of its oil traditionally passes a critical strategic weakness that the U.S. Navy could exploit in any conflict. The Myanmar corridor shortens China’s energy transport routes by thousands of kilometers, reduces costs, and enhances strategic resilience. The gas pipeline became operational in 2013, and the oil pipeline began flowing in 2017.

To protect this lifeline, China invested heavily in Myanmar’s infrastructure and political elite, backing the military junta after the 2021 coup. However, the United States and its allies countered. Through sanctions, covert support to ethnic insurgencies (like the Arakan Army and Kachin Independence Army), and international isolation campaigns against Myanmar’s regime, Washington sought to destabilize the regions critical to China’s pipeline. The U.S. goal is clear: make China’s critical energy and trade corridor through Myanmar unreliable and politically dangerous. The more unrest and instability in Myanmar’s western regions, the more vulnerable China’s Indian Ocean access becomes. Thus, Myanmar became another silent battlefield in the larger U.S.-China economic cold war fought through proxies, insurgencies, and infrastructure sabotage.

Conclusion: Pipelines, Ports, and the Future of Eurasian Power

The world is undergoing a profound strategic reordering. From Afghanistan’s TAPI dreams to Syria’s pipeline wars, Ukraine’s battlefield gas wars, and the maritime trade battles through Myanmar and the Middle East the 21st century’s real conflicts are about connectivity, resources, and strategic access. Energy remains the core driver. Pipelines and ports are the weapons. Railways, lithium mines, and shipping lanes are the battlegrounds.

The collapse of Nord Stream, the rise of IMEEC, the struggle for Afghanistan’s lithium, and the sabotage efforts in Myanmar all are pieces of the same grand chessboard where the West, China, and Russia vie for control of Eurasia’s future. Whoever controls Eurasia’s pipelines, minerals, and trade corridors will control the commanding heights of the global economy for the next century. The wars of tomorrow will be fought not just with armies, but with oil tankers, rail gauges, digital fiber cables, rare earth mining rights, and energy flow agreements fought silently, invisibly, but no less consequentially than wars of the past. As the world fractures into new blocs, the real winners will be those who master the flows of energy and goods across this interconnected, fiercely contested new world. The grand game of pipelines, ports, and power has only just begun.

References

1. The New Global Order (2016) - Asian Warrior

2. U.S. Geological Survey, “Preliminary Assessment of Non-Fuel Mineral Resources of Afghanistan, 2007” — U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS Report 2007.

3. The New York Times, "U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan," June 13, 2010.

4. BBC News, "South Pars / North Dome Field," Profile Report, 2018.

5. Pepe Escobar, "Pipelineistan: Everything You Need to Know About Oil, Gas, Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan," Asia Times, 2009.

6. Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Yale University Press, 2000.

7. The Guardian, "The Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India Pipeline: The New Great Game," February 22, 2018.

8. The Diplomat, "TAPI Gas Pipeline: Still a Pipe Dream?" October 2021.

9. Tehran Times, “Iran, Iraq, Syria Sign Major Gas Pipeline Deal,” July 25, 2011.

10. Al Jazeera English, "Syria: The Pipeline War," Inside Story, December 2016.

11. Reuters, “EU-Backed Nabucco Gas Pipeline Project is Cancelled,” July 2013.

12. Bloomberg, "Nord Stream Pipeline: How Russia Squeezed Europe's Gas Supplies," February 2022.

13. The Washington Post, "Mysterious Blasts Destroy Nord Stream Pipelines," September 2022.

14. International Energy Agency (IEA), "Europe's Energy Supply and the Shift from Russian Gas," 2023 Update.

15. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "U.S. LNG Exports Set New Records in 2023," Annual Energy Outlook.

16. Financial Times, “Qatar Signs Long-Term LNG Deal with Germany,” November 2022.

17. Reuters, "Europe Scrambles to Secure LNG Supplies After Nord Stream Crisis," October 2022.

18. G20 India Official Website, "Launch of India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC)," September 2023 G20 Delhi Summit.

19. Hindustan Times, "IMEEC is a Game Changer for India, Middle East and Europe," September 2023.

20. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), "Belt and Road Initiative and China’s Strategy in Eurasia," 2021.

21. Brookings Institution, "China’s Myanmar Oil and Gas Pipelines: Risks and Opportunities," May 2020.

22. The Irrawaddy, "China’s Strategic Interests in Myanmar’s Kyaukphyu Port," October 2021.

23. BBC News, "Myanmar’s Ethnic Conflicts and China’s Infrastructure Gamble," March 2022.

24. Foreign Affairs, "The New Great Game: How China and the U.S. Compete in Eurasia," November 2023.

25. U.S. Department of State, “Background on U.S. Sanctions Against Myanmar (Burma),” Fact Sheet, March 2021.

26. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), “Energy Geopolitics in the 21st Century,” 2022 Annual Report.