Click to see the full-size image
Originally published by IslamicWorldNews
After years of civil war and the collapse of the Assad government, Syria faces one of the most severe electricity crises in its history. Ahmad al-Shar’a had previously announced his goal of providing eight hours of electricity per day by late February, but power supply has dwindled to the extent that people have access to electricity for only one to two hours a day. This crisis not only disrupts daily life but also poses a major challenge to the country’s political and economic stability. In such circumstances, various options have been proposed to resolve the crisis, one of which includes using gas resources from the occupied territories.
Even before Assad’s fall, Syria’s power grid was in poor condition, but the decade-long civil war made things much worse. Power plants and transmission lines were severely damaged, and Syria, once an oil exporter, became dependent on imports. Following Assad’s downfall, the flow of Iranian oil—which had previously met Damascus’ energy needs—was halted, and most of the country’s oil resources came under the control of Kurdish-led forces (SDF).
Omar Shukrouk, Syria’s Minister of Electricity, stated that the country’s oil production capacity in government-controlled areas has dropped from 360,000 barrels per day to just 10,000.
Although there have been reports of oil supply resuming from Kurdish-controlled areas, the future of this arrangement remains uncertain due to tensions between Turkey and the Kurds, as well as the unclear U.S. policy toward these forces.
Temporary and Ineffective Solutions
To escape the current energy crisis, Syrian officials have been offered various solutions:
1. Use of private generators and solar panels
Advantages:
• Can provide localized power for households and small businesses.
• Solar energy is a sustainable and environmentally friendly option.
Disadvantages:
• High cost of purchase and installation, which many Syrians cannot afford.
• Lack of proper infrastructure for large-scale deployment.
• Limited electricity generation, especially during seasons with low sunlight.
2. Import of LPG from Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Jordan
Advantages:
• A quick short-term solution to meet some energy demands.
Disadvantages:
• Mainly suitable for domestic uses like cooking, with limited impact on electricity generation.
• High transportation costs and dependency on foreign suppliers reduce sustainability.
• Limited volume of imported gas does not meet Syria’s wide-scale energy needs.
3. Use of floating power plant ships
Advantages:
• Can generate large amounts of electricity.
• Quicker deployment compared to building new land-based power plants.
Disadvantages:
• Connecting these ships to the domestic power grid can take several months.
• High operational and fuel supply costs requiring external financial support.
• Difficulty transmitting electricity from coastal ports like Baniyas and Tartus to inland areas due to extensive damage in the transmission network.
Overcoming the Crisis with Zionist Gas?
One option now under consideration is using natural gas from the Israeli regime to supply electricity in Syria. Currently, the Arab Gas Pipeline (AGP), which was originally built in 2003 to deliver Egyptian gas to Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, is now operating in reverse.
Instead of transporting gas from Egypt northward, the pipeline now delivers gas from the occupied territories southward into Egypt. This gas is extracted from the Leviathan field off the Israeli coast and sent to Jordan, where it supplies 70 percent of the country’s electricity.
There is now a proposal to redirect part of this gas, via Jordan and the AGP, to Syria. However, the plan faces not only technical hurdles but also significant political challenges.
Political Barriers and Operational Challenges
The Syrian government would find it politically difficult to officially accept gas from Israel, as any open cooperation with Tel Aviv is unacceptable for Damascus. Therefore, officials may label the gas as “Egyptian” or “Jordanian” to minimize domestic and regional backlash.
In the occupied territories, some hardline factions oppose such a deal as well, arguing that Syria should not be aided. Nonetheless, relative stability in Syria could benefit Israeli security, as a power vacuum in the country enables extremist and militant groups to thrive.
Another major hurdle is the cost of project. Syria lacks both the infrastructure to transfer the gas and a reliable system to make payments. International energy companies, including Chevron, which has a stake in the Leviathan project, are reluctant to enter contracts without financial guarantees. If Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or the UAE agree to finance the project, the chances of its implementation would increase.
Syria Awaits Major Decisions
As Syria’s energy crisis worsens by the day, its government is exploring different options. In the coming days, negotiations between Syria and Jordan are expected to take place, and the European Union has announced that it will lift certain energy sanctions on Syria.
Syria now stands at a major crossroads: it must either continue with temporary and ineffective measures or navigate political and financial obstacles to accept gas that may be labeled “Egyptian,” but originates from elsewhere. In the end, this path may well tie Syria’s future to the broader project of a new Levant.
MORE ON THE TOPIC: