Sitting at the very center of the Syrian civil war are failed plans for two competing oil pipelines that some observers say at the very least subsidized the beginnings of the conflict. While the most apparent reason for Syria’s woes was a ruthless dictator slaughtering his own people, others stitch together a complex patchwork of circumstances and billions of dollars of squandered wealth.

The war over oil is a familiar story, one the world heard when George W. Bush invaded Iraq, and then again when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advised the White House to topple the Libyan regime. To what degree it’s true in all three cases depends on the value of context versus the value of certain actors’ very deliberate decision making on the world stage.

Are Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and, perhaps to a lesser degree, Iraqi President Haider al-Abadi most responsible for the cooking up the stew that led to civil war, ISIS and mass migration to Europe? Or were they victims of circumstances beyond their control?

The Qatar-Turkey pipeline was proposed in 2009 as a method of getting Qatari natural gas hooked up to the Nabucco pipeline. The Nabucco pipeline was a proposed pipeline connecting Turkey to European gas markets. European markets are heavily reliant on Russian gas, and the pipeline would have provided an alternative energy market. The Qatar-Turkey pipeline had two possible routes, one running through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. The other route would have gone through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline was conversely proposed in 2011 as a route from Iran’s South Pars field to Syria via Iraq, where a refinery would be set up before the gas continues under the Mediterranean sea to Europe. The pipeline was proposed as an alternative to the Nabucco pipeline, as another competitor to Russian gas in Europe.

So on one side you have Qatar, along with its Gulf arab allies partnered with the United States. The other side is Iran, who’s a formal ally and sponsor of the Syrian regime.

Some analysts believe Assad’s apparent rejection of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline and boosting of the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, prompted efforts by the gulf Arab states and its allies (including the U.S.) to depose Assad from power in 2011. They believe these actions include the first demonstrations against Assad, Qatar’s support of Syrian rebel groups, and U.S. opposition to the Assad regime in 2011.

Army Major Rob Taylor, a command and general staff college instructor, advanced this theory in 2014 saying that Saudi Arabia and Qatar “are now attempting to remove Assad so they can control Syria and run their own pipeline through Turkey.” Taylor continued, “Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as al Qaeda and other groups, are maneuvering to depose Assad and capitalize on their hoped-for Sunni conquest in Damascus. By doing this, they hope to gain a share of control over the “new” Syrian government, and a share in the pipeline wealth.”

Taylor expanded on this theory in 2016 that Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s initial and continued support of Syrian opposition forces is fueled by a desire to a friendly government in Damascus, which will renew efforts to Gulf pipelines to Europe.

Robin Mills, CEO of Qamar Energy, contested this view in 2016 saying that the Qatar-Turkey pipeline’s real obstacle was actually Saudi Arabia. Mills pointed out that there was little chance Saudi Arabia would allow the pipeline to run 1500 kilometers across its territory, given that it blocked efforts by Qatar to provide gas to its neighbors.

Mills added that even “if Doha had wanted that much to build its Syrian pipeline, it would have been easier to make the Assads an offer they could not refuse, rather than sponsoring an uncertain and ruinous uprising.” He continued that the competing Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline was not even proposed until late July 2011, three months after the demonstrations began against the Assad regime.

The Qatar-Turkey pipeline also lacks feasibility, given that the required Nabucco pipeline appears not to be moving forward as of 2014. Qatar has remained a consistent funder of Syrian opposition groups well after 2014. This includes funding groups with jihadi ties. The Financial Times even classified Qatar’s intervention in Syria in 2013 as “part of an aggressive quest for global recognition and is merely the latest chapter in its attempt to establish itself as a major player in the region.”

This “major player” status may include energy interests.

Dr. Paul Sullivan, an energy security expert, disputed this idea to The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email, saying that “Qatari LNG going to Europe is going via much safer and cheaper routes than the pipelines considered.” Sullivan continued viewing energy competition through Gulf arab access to Europe “exhibits a backward view to energy markets,” explaining that the largest growing markets for Gulf LNG are in Asia. He added “most of the LNG exports from Qatar, the largest LNG exporter, are to Asia.”

Sullivan also said that for both Iran and Qatar “It would make little economic sense to choose to send oil via the Gulf through Iraq and Syria to be exported to Europe” continuing “the political and physical risks will be very large for some time to come. It would be a bad investment.”

Saudi Arabia’s funding of the Syrian opposition generally falls along similar geo-political lines and sectarian lines. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia fear Iran’s rising influence in Syria, where it has thousands of sponsored forces fighting for the regime. Iran, a Shiite state, is not only an energy rival to the Gulf arab states but also a religious one.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar frequently say their support of Syrian opposition groups as an effort to guarantee Syrian Sunni Arabs a voice in the future of Syria, but also point out that replacing Assad is necessary to rid Syria of the Islamic State.

Assad fueled the rise of ISIS throughout the Syrian civil war, first by releasing thousands of  jihadists prison early on. “The fear of a continued, peaceful revolution is why these Islamists were released,” Bassam Barabandi, a diplomat in Syria’s foreign ministry at the time, told The Wall Street Journal in 2014. Barabandi continued “The reasoning behind the jihadists, for Assad and the regime, is that they are the alternative to the peaceful revolution. They are organized with the doctrine of jihad and the West is afraid of them.”

From that point Assad subsidized jihadi ranks and avoided fighting them so they could wipe out any moderate opposition. ISIS captured oil fields in 2013 and began selling much needed oil to the Assad regime via complex network of middle men. A Wall Street Journal report from January 2017 indicates the largest source of revenue for ISIS continues to come from oil sales to the Assad regime.

At the center of the Syrian civil war is a complex nexus of sectarian strife, geopolitical intrigue, superpower competition, and ultimately some oil interests.

Follow Saagar Enjeti on Twitter

Send tips to saagar@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.