Strait of Hormuz blockade prompts restart of old pipeline: Can Iraq's energy corridor through Syria to Lebanon be revived?

1. This summer, the unexpected blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has once again brought attention to an abandoned oil pipeline that had been out of use for decades—this pipeline once transported oil from Kirkuk in northern Iraq to the port of Baniyas in Syria and the port of Tripoli in Lebanon. Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Lebanon met with the Prime Minister of Iraq to discuss restarting the oil pipeline to coastal areas in northern Iraq. Previously, with the support of an international consortium led by the United States and Chevron, Iraq and Syria signed a commitment to repair the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline. The U.S. Department of State stated that the pipeline’s initial throughput capacity is 2 million barrels per day and described it as a “key energy corridor” to the Mediterranean.2. For Iraq, this is an urgent matter of survival: nearly 95% of its oil exports (approximately 3.3 million barrels per day) rely on the Basra terminal, which must pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the outbreak of hostilities, Iraq’s daily oil production has plummeted from 4.4 million barrels to 800,000 barrels, a decrease of 82%, resulting in a loss of nearly $37 billion.3. For Lebanon, if 300,000 to 500,000 barrels of oil per day are transported via the Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline, annual transit fee revenues could reach between $80 million and $275 million. For Syria, this pipeline, built in 1952 and stretching approximately 850 kilometers, is its most valuable transit asset, providing transit income, cheap fuel, and helping it reintegrate into regional cooperation. Syria is seeking to meet part of its domestic demand and reduce its dependence on Russian energy through connections with Iraq’s energy sector. For Lebanon, the pipeline’s revival would also help meet domestic needs and curb the influence of Hezbollah.4. However, the project faces immense practical challenges. Comprehensive reconstruction will require at least $15 billion in investment with an estimated construction period of four years. Syria faces sanctions, war-damaged infrastructure, and an unstable security environment, with remnants of extremist groups still active in the desert areas the pipeline traverses. Turkey will also oppose this plan as it would lose current oil transit revenues through its territory. Moreover, most of Iraq’s crude reserves are located in Basra in the south, while the pipeline begins in Kirkuk, necessitating the construction of internal branch lines.5. In reality, the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline project at best only serves as a means for Iraq to diversify its energy exports and as a transit option for Lebanon and Syria; it cannot replace the transport capacity provided by the Strait of Hormuz under any circumstances. The region’s infrastructure remains as fragmented as it was in the 1950s, and whether this project can truly be realized remains to be seen.